The Zennist

Our overindulgence in the corporeal body

How we relate to the corporeal body is critical in Buddhism.  Sex, for example, is not the problem so much as the love of sex is the problem: the frequent need to engage in it.  It is the same with eating.  It is our love of food that is the problem which leads to gluttony.  In other words, the big problem with our corporeal body is our overindulgence in it.

With our overindulgence in the corporeal body our spiritual life is put on hold.  Our love or preference is not for the spiritual but love for a bowl of Ben & Jerry's ice cream or a slice of pizza.  These many moments of indulgence add up to a growing love for the corporeal and much less love for the spiritual which we are trying to realize.

Those who are serious about Buddhism first understand that they must give up their love for the corporeal while turning their mind to the spiritual hoping to realize spirit, directly.  This sounds simple enough but is it?  It almost goes without saying but serving the needs of the corporeal and being on the path to spiritual intuition do not often agree.  In fact, there is a great deal of conflict between them.

No matter how ideal our words are they can't erase the fact that we live in a world primarily based on Darwinian fitness.  Nor should we draw from this as biological creatures that we see reality the way it really is. 

The data that we receive through our senses only relates to the creature and its survival and whether it will be successful at reproducing its kind.  But for those on the spiritual path this is not their goal. Their goal is to Intuit absolute spirit, the very substance of the universe.  This leads to seeing the universe the way it really is which is an illusory composition as far as appearance is concerned.

 

Deciding which way to go

There is so much mystery in Zen Buddhism that those who read and study it do so rely on a contemporary standpoint.  But it is almost impossible that Zen should speak for itself through modern ideas and various contemporary meanings we give to Zen’s words.  We have only ourselves to look into to begin to find the portal or the same the path of Zen.  Ultimately, Zen wants us to look within. 

The more we look within, there is a more subtle world to be examined but this examination is not about looking at something other than the onlooker.  The fundamental difference between the onlooker and the examined is precisely zero.  It is somewhat like saying the difference between thought and extension is precisely zero.  Still, we do not understand how there can be this zero difference.

Zen will suggest to us that this zero difference is spirit or absolute Mind before it becomes manifest as thought and extension.  Thus, in essence, there is zero difference.  At this point, what the adept is missing is the direct experience of spirit, itself, which is unthinkable and infinite.

Faced with a lack of experience, the Zen adept must either fish or cut bait.  The adept must either take up the more difficult mind, the religious mind, which works by direct intuition or gnosis, or take up the ecclesiastical mind which is observant and intellectual.  Most who come to this crossroad either consciously or unconsciously choose to go with the ecclesiastical mind.  It is here that the practitioner comes to see Zen as   consisting of robes, ceremonies and rituals, and seated meditation or zazen—and an institutional enlightenment.

The dualizing work of consciousness

If it is true as Dr. Donald Hoffman suggests in his book titled, The Case Against Reality, that matter and spacetime arise from consciousness, then what are we to make of this consciousness from a Buddhist perspective? 

The English word consciousness is often used in Buddhism to translate vijñāna.  Does consciousness work?  No, I don't think it does.  It leaves out something very important in vijñāna which is the dualizing work of consciousness itself:  there always has to be separation between subject and object as implied with the prefix “vi”.

It hardly ever dawns on the human mind, or maybe I should say human consciousness, that it is always looking at the world in two parts, that his, subject and object, or if you prefer, observer and observed.  During satori or enlightenment this duality is transcended.  The adept goes back to original, non-duality, or advaya.

Any trace of an ‘other’ or object is gone; there is no subject either.  In about 1/10 of a second duality has gone back into the original state.  In Zen we might call it One Mind or pure spirit or pure Mind.  In light of this, thought, which brings with it duality (thinker and thought) only serves to falsify and distort the original state which is absolute, inexpressible, and  indeterminate.  It transcends every kind of thought, thought being only a construction of spirit or the same, the One Mind.

 

The conditioned is empty

Śūnyatā should represent emptiness of essence/intrinsic nature (svabhāva) in what is conditioned.  On the other hand, the unconditioned is svabhāva.  Related, one should understand that ‘no-thought’ (acitta) is the domain of the supreme essential nature (paramārthikaḥ svabhāvaḥ) which is never other than unconditioned.  If this sounds confusing then perhaps the reader is reading these words with a nihilistic bias.

Unfortunately, the modern understanding of Buddhism is for the most part nihilistic and quite extreme.  The Buddha preached against nihilism.  He did not deny the transcendent or absolute spirit which was unconditioned and non-dual (advaya).  In fact, I should add that enlightenment or gnosis proves this.  One, in fact, attains this transcendent state which is totally unthinkable. 

Trying to explain this with words which give rise to thoughts is a fool’s errand that a good teacher, nevertheless, has to partake in.   Our human form is like the 305-meter-wide dish at Arecibo Observatory into which data enters but the absolute is not one of those things.  No matter how subtle our thoughts are, our thought/reasoning stops us from entering the so-called kingdom of heaven.

Being replaced by the ecclesiastical mind

It is inevitable that the religious mind should eventually be replaced by the ecclesiastical mind.  The religious mind’s focus is on the spiritual which transcends the flesh or the corporeal whereas the ecclesiastical mind is set on the church:  the institution of community worship which has not attained the religious mind.  The ecclesiastical mind can only venerate the religious mind.

With this shift or change by which the ecclesiastical mind comes to power, the religious mind gradually sinks into the background.  In one respect, the religious mind is closer to the world of heresies because it is difficult to understand by the ecclesiastical mind.  Still, the religious mind is never heretical if it has realized spirit or the same the One Mind. 

Generally speaking, most religions fall into the snare of the ecclesiastical mind which can be highly intellectual and at the same time emotional.  Yes, Zen Buddhism fell into this trap long ago in which seated meditation became a substitute for gnosis or the same, intuition.  Yet truth tries to tells us that nothing fundamental can be gained by either rituals or by physical sitting.

Still, stubbornness pushes on hoping that it can turn the ecclesiastical mind into the religious mind.  What eventually happens is that, overtime, the ecclesiastical mind grows tired of religion and chooses to go back to the secular life.  What then becomes of religion?  It falls back to the religious mind.  It alone is capable of understanding religion, religion being the discovery of spirit which has been hidden by the corporeal or the same, the flesh.

Times of uncertainty

We live in a time of uncertainty.  But haven’t all times been uncertain times?  We proceed with our everyday life being dependent on sensory perceptions that are incomplete and reveal, at best, only a fragment of reality.  To be sure, we have an incomplete picture of the reality we live in since the input of data leaves huge areas out of the picture, so to speak.  This makes us uncertain.

This uncertainty, if we don't think about it is, eventually, covered up by our imagination.  It gives us a kind of virtual/fictional reality which can be pleasurable and comforting at times.  Yes, too much uncertainty can be a problem as with too much certainty that, unbeknownst to us, is the result of the imagination filling-in the incompleteness. 

Probably the worst way of dealing with uncertainty is by having too much reliance on the imagination which can lead to delusional disorders in which people cannot tell what is real from what is imagined.  The dangerous side of this inevitably leads to political delusions that can be socially engineered by means of illogicality, that is, by spreading disorganized thought and communication.

Most of us are already caught in the net of political delusions from global warming to a borderless world.  The power that religion once had has been taken away and handed over to the ideologues whose half baked ideas are infused with raw emotion so that they are unable to resonate with the truth.

During the late 60s the Zen that I eventually came to reject could be thought of as a halfway house for those who are in a kind of twilight zone, who would either see darkness or light.  Zen when I left it had chosen to go down a path to attain darkness in the sense of resting enlightenment on the subjective and absence (non-findingness).

Even doubt thought

Perhaps it is easier to understand what belief is by saying that it is for those who fear to know.  When one begins to grow tired of belief and say to themselves, “I must know,” there is a decisive shift and more of a difference when we finally know Nirvana (akatanññū).  The need for belief or faith has been surpassed (asaddho).  (This is clearly evident in verse 97 of the Dhammapada.)

Modern Buddhists I'm sure detest the term belief or faith.  It reminds them of religion.  They are of the mind to assert that Buddhism is not religious — it is a philosophy.  Yet, to be a Buddhist one still has to believe that Siddhartha awakened to something real and true having surpassed mere belief by direct intuition of the absolute, which I hasten to add, had nothing to do with sitting under a tree. 

If there is one practice in popular Zen that requires a lot of credulity, it is believing that by sitting in meditation you are a Buddha.  It is to be found in Sōtō Zen.  What is missing is intuition which has nothing to do with the physical ability to sit with legs crossed.  Intuition is concerned with overcoming the intellect which is unable to go beyond thought and of course thinking (the act of producing thoughts). 

For those like Zen master Dahui 大慧 he warned his students that they must ‘doubt’ words but I also believe that he said they must doubt thought, itself, which humans are deeply tied to; which is only a configuration of spirit (pure Mind, One Mind).

Each culture has different sins that prevent the understanding of Buddhism

From the time of our birth our true nature has been clothed in the five aggregates (skandhas) which only act to conceal this true nature.  These aggregates are empty, hollow and insubstantial.  Still, we cling to them like a drowning man clings to straw. 

We do not want to relinquish our hold upon them.  However, there are those who are able to relinquish their hold upon the aggregates and see their true nature or self (ātman) which is luminous (prabhāsa).  At the least they have the faith that this nature is real and is worthy of contemplating. 

Even though Buddhism is truly a spiritual religion that asks mankind to see and behold spirit, directly, each culture has different sins, so to speak, that clothe this pristine spirit or nature. This false garmet has to be removed entirely and suddenly—a naked seeing. In Zen we call this sudden enlightenment. 

Because each culture is different, Buddhism seems to be different but it is not.  The adept still has to relinquish the false garmet to behold the unconditioned like Siddhartha did long ago.  The strength and demands of any culture can act as a barrier that is difficult to penetrate through. 

Modern culture is a techno-materialist culture that makes it difficult to relinquish.  It only accepts what the senses perceive together with what the intellectual mind can conceive of using the imagination.  It knows of no higher knowledge that has to be gained by direct intuition (dhyāna). 

Virtually all cultures are more or less trapped by the dualizing consciousness which in Buddhism is vijñāna.  Subject and object, observer and observed never meet to become one which is the original source of this duality which in turn gives rise to our illusory cosmos.  Every culture more or less guards this dualizing consciousness (all illusion depends upon this kind of consciousness).

Only those who are naturally oriented towards the spiritual path can transcend this consciousness through intuition thereby realizing the One Mind or spirit that brings the disparate sides of consciousness together (ekatva). 

Escaping secular possession

Becoming a Buddhist monastic does not mean that a person is enlightened or might reach enlightenment sooner than a Buddhist hermit living in the mountains in a shack or in a cave.  It only serves to reveal one’s dedication to the Dharma which, naturally, could change over time depending upon the subversive influences of secular life.

And here we come to the main obstacle for anyone, either a Buddhist monastic or a lay person.  It is about facing the challenge of overcoming secular possession which tends to be insidious and not easily detected by the average person. 

Keep in mind, Dharma centers including Zen centers are mainly in large metropolitan areas which serve a very active secular population which presents a problem for the perpetuation of Buddhism since Buddhism has little to do with the secular life.  In short, Buddhism is being de-religionized.

The secular life is concerned mainly with Darwinian fitness:  Making a world suitable for human colonization.  In this regard, the modern world represents a kind of spiritual blasphemy.  Everything it touches it transforms into a secular reality—something for the senses and the intellectual imagination (manas). 

But neither the senses themselves nor the objects which the senses manifest and partake in is the problem.  It is the passion and desire which clings to the senses and their objects that is the problem which inevitably leads to suffering.  In other words, at the heart of secularism is passion and desire for the human senses and their objects.  Here we are possessed by an almost unbreakable attachment to a false self as compared with the actual self which transcends the senses and their objects.

Zen is an attack on thought itself

I think it is a truism to say that the player cannot be understood by analyzing the many card games invented, including the cards dealt to the player in a card game.  In that sense even our language cannot tell us about the user of language although I suspect there will be a lot of people who might disagree with me. 

It is convenient and practical for us to use language as if it were the truth; as if it could speak on behalf of the user of language.  In the case of Zen it is already aware that language is totally in adequate to penetrate the mystery of our true nature or the same, the Buddha-nature.  Words, in other words, can't speak for the speaker of words nor even the thinker of thoughts.

When I use the term thinking, in the sense of producing thoughts, I have no idea or any way of seeing just how thoughts are formed by thinking.  If I were to see the thinker before a thought is produced or, the same, at the precise moment a thought disappears, I might succeed in my endeavor.   

Not only is Zen a direct attack on the usefulness of language for getting to ultimate reality, but also it is an attack on thought itself which is the basis of our ideas and concepts.  In this sense, thought is like the quantum, the smallest amount of thingness that you can’t break into smaller parts or sub-thoughts. 

Thought is never ultimate reality.  If anything thought is congealed spirit, spirit being ultimate reality which is also absolutely universal, i.e., nowhere determinate.  In the practice of Zen thought is useful insofar as it is finite and subject to total cessation (nirodha).  The enlightening surprise for the Zen adept is when Mu/the barrier completely disappears (nirodha).  Only then is the Buddha-nature realized which is thoroughly universal and spiritual.