The Zennist

Generic religion

I have always believed that Buddhism is closer to what you might call a ‘generic religion’ insofar has it cuts through religious terminology which often becomes a stumbling block.  When the Buddha taught his religious insight he used a religious terminology that everyone could understand.  It is only in later years that new and difficult terms were inserted into the original canon of Buddhism.

So, how is Buddhism a generic religion?  First of all it deals with the reality of our present bodily existence which is universal to all humans.  Furthermore, by taking up self-introspection we can look within ourselves to verify the Buddha’s words, that is, we can look within to see how we are attached to corporeal existence which is always limited and precarious for us.  

This brings us to the generic ministry of the Buddha, viz., that we are not awakened (bodhi) to the animative force that preexists and moves our body.  What prevents us from awakening is our excessive attachment to the physical body and its distressed existence.  As such, we know of no other way of being.  There are no options, in other words, besides ‘grin and bear it’.

Yet, there is another option that the Buddha uncovered through his own awakening.  It is by awakening our animative power (citta) that is presently asleep and ignorant of itself.  To understand the problem, let’s imagine that we are like a pure light beam that is unable to see itself, seeing only itself in its refracted form.  As a result, all that we connect with is light which is broken up into countless changing moments and patterns.  The task before us then, if we are spiritually inclined, is to see the pure light beam in its non-refracted truth.  Therefore, instead of following the body as was done previously, we start recollecting the pure light beam gradually becoming the more of it as compared with the physical body. 

I think a great deal of the Buddha’s generic approach to religion can be found in other religions, for example, in the epistles of Paul the Christian and the Gospel of Thomas.  Interestingly enough, the Apocalypse of Peter contains a very interesting passage dealing with the animative power.  

“’put your hands over your eyes, and tell what you see.’  But when I had done it, I did not see anything.  I said, ‘No one sees this way.’  Again he told me, ‘Do it again.’  And there came into me fear and joy, for I saw a new light, greater than the light of day.”

When we begin to nose around religious literature which speaks of “light” (this being the animative force of the body), we are uncovering what generic Buddhism, in my opinion, is teaching, especially in Mahayana Buddhism.  It is only in modern times that we have almost completely lost this understanding.  

I, for one, am astonished at just how asleep people are who claim to be religious.  They are utterly dead like zombies depicted in horror movies.  Even more astonishing are scientists who hold the opinion that religious literature is nothing more than mumbo-jumbo.  This applies, especially, to those in neuroscience who believe that consciousness arises from brain tissue.  For anyone free of dogma, such a belief is like studying the parts of a computer to find out how it programs itself—assuming that it does!  Enough said.

A different kind of precept

One major Buddhist precept is prana-atipatad. Often, it is translated as "abstention from killing".  But the Sanskrit word “prana” which is commonly translated as “breath” doesn’t help convey any notion of not killing beings or creatures.

Pranatipatad really has more to do with the intent to neglect or destory (pâta) spirit (prana) so as to devitalize oneself and possibly others. Threats, fear mongering, incarceration, punishment, torture, and war, despiritualize (pranatipata) beings, leading even to disease, sickness and premature death.  

Turning to war, the precept of prana-atipatad is perhaps even more limiting than just the abstention from killing.  In the Bodhisattva-avadana-kalpalata, this precept understands that the Bodhisattva condemns and shuns the barbarous custom of war among nations.  The Bodhisattva understands that war has it origin in hatred, avarice, cruelty and selfishness.  Bodhisattva believes that it is better for a leader to resign his or her office than wage war.  Being a pacifist is called for.  (It should be kept in mind that 'Bodhisattva' is purely a spiritual entity and should not be taken as having a physical body.)

One should not even devitalize animals insofar as the animative principle runs through all creatures—not just humans.

The ultimate pranatipatad, or spiritual destruction, is nihilism: that beings are nothing more than autonomous, soulless things.  One, indeed, could argue that modern biological science is attempting to destroy the very idea of prana which may set the future stage for even more merciless forms of spiritual barabarism.

It is important to bear in mind that prana is that part of us that that is bound down to the temporal body without which the body dies.  Incidentally, this may explain why breath or prana meditation is so important in Buddhism being key to liberation.  By it we return to the non-individualized absolute since mind or citta (which is animative) is outside of prana although it faces it and seems bound up with it.

Common and spiritual knowledge

Knowledge that we share with others—let us for now call it ‘common knowledge’—that is often associated with the arts and sciences, is not the same as spiritual knowledge which is related almost exclusively to oneself and not others.

Just recently I was having a chat with Tom, by neighbor, who is arguably one of the last of the old Southerners (his family, by the way, came on the Mayflower).  We were discussing everything from birds to the American Civil War, that the war was primarily over economic interests, the main one being protective tariffs verses free-trade.  It occurred to me during the conversation—and I can’t explain why—that if I had been sitting alone having no one with which to share my knowledge in polite conversation, the subjects that Tom and I discussed, over a cup of coffee, might not be that appetizing to think about.

Again, it occurred to me that one of the main interests of modern culture is common knowledge, that is, knowledge that is sharable but offers little or nothing in the way of spiritual knowledge that relates almost solely to oneself (pratyatmaryajnana).  Subsidiary to this, psychological knowledge is still within the realm of common knowledge.  It is not included in the category of spiritual knowledge.  It turns on shared psychological experiences as in the example of ‘talk therapy’.  Nevertheless, it is far from being spiritual.  

I am sure some will argue that spiritual or religious knowledge is sharable.  Yet, there is a limit to how much of it is actually sharable.  Beyond this, the unsharable content of religious knowledge is the gnosis (jnana) to which religious literature is continually alluding.  To over simplify, a religious gnosis or intuition cannot be shared between two people if one person has not partaken of it in some measure.  Illustrative of this, if one has the ability to to decouple their Mind from falling prey to the demands of the corporeal body how is this sharble except on a common verbal level whch is incapable of transmiting the gnosis?  

It is almost paradoxical that religion, based on gnosis, is rife with disputes over many topics.  Other religions, not based on gnosis, have a different problem.  They must enforce the religion through what can only be characterized as brainwashing.  Now, making matters even worse religion has become common, at least in some traditions of Buddhism. It is all sharable with others through the requirement of behavioral conformity and common belief.

The Precepts

The Five Precepts (pañca-shila) are not rules to be obeyed as if to disobey them were a sin.  Nor are the Five Precepts like the Ten Commandments which make up the religions of Abraham.  The notion of a precept or shila is not the same as a moral code or a commandment.  The precept is intended to bring about virtue which is the strengthing of aloofness from the corporeal (skandha) which is linked with the Three Poisons (delusion, concupiscence, and malice).  Worth adding, "shila" in Sanskrit, means "to cultivate and practice" with no hint of rule following.  The Five Precepts are as follows: 

• 1. Abstention from the destruction of the vital principle (prana-atighatad viratih)
• 2. Abstention from taking what is not given
• 3. Abstention from deceptive sensual behavior
• 4. Abstention from lies
• 5. Abstention from intoxicants

What is important to grasp is that breaking of precepts is a quantitative matter which inevitably leads to behavior that obscures or completely hides the inner pathway to the discovery of our Buddha-nature.  The problem is thus a matter of excess; of doing, for example, too much drinking of alcohol or doing things, in excess, which despirit one (prana-atighatad) in which all becomes devitalized (depression?).  Indeed, we can lead such lives that we lose touch with our spiritual being.  Such living thus becomes an obsession that occludes our spiritual eye.

Perhaps the greatest sin of all in Buddhism is to reject the seeking and cultivation of the substance of pure mind (prakritvishuddicitta) which is immediate with us.  Instead, we seek other things almost always excessively.

Briefly touching on the Bodhisattva Precepts there are ten.  With the exception of "Abstention from intoxicants" they include, in addition to the aforementioned listed, abstention from slander, abstention from harsh or vulgar speech, abstention from frivolous and senseless talk, abstention from covetousness, abstention from malice, and finally, abstention from wrong views (mithya-darshanam viratih).

Changes ain't always progress

I should not find it surprising that the blog company I use has decided to make some changes—everyone of them, of course—being changes that I don't care for. For example, line spacing is out of my control.  There is no more block quote, and the WYSIWYG feature, called Preview, doesn't at all resemble what you the reader sees. 

This is supposed to be progress or the same, an improvement.  But when is an improvement not an improvement, but mere change for the sake of change?  

This reminds me of the decision Coca-Cola made several years ago to toss out its old brand and replace it with a newer and more sweeter tasting Coke.  Well, that hare brained idea turned out to be a flop.  At the time, was the mindset of Coca-Cola thinking, "Yeah, let's change Coca-Cola 'cause change equals progress"?  

This leads me to say that there has certainly been a lot of change going on in the 20th and the 21st century.  But most of it can't be called real progress.

It was real progress to invent the refrigerator and the washing machine, to be sure. (Does anyone remember the ice-box?  I do.)  The 1927 Maytag (my friends still have one) I must tell you, dear reader, is still awesome.  A person could wash knight's armor in it, it is so well built.  

Oh, let me add this.  The invention of fly screen was a triumph of progress in my humble opinion.  There have been no major improvements on it, either.  If you have ever lived on a ranch, you'll know why fly screen is a triumph of human ingenuity.  

In the good old days before fly screen, when cows ate green sweet grass at one end and its digested portion came out the back end, this dark greenish ooze became the clarion call to all flies.  And I mean flies from every walk of life.  Every window of the ranch house had to be shut tight or the ranch house would become a fly resort.  Then one day came fly screen.  A Godsend.  Now the windows could be opened and the spring breeze allowed to enter through the living room windows, down the hallway, and out the front door through the large front porch, also screened.  Ah!  A cowboy's delight.

When the Internet came, it was progress.  After that, the Internet browser came along adding to the Internet.  It was a great improvement.  Netscape had a great browser.  It was simple.  But then change for the sake of change took over.  That ended, in my estimation, Netscape's moment in the sun.

When we turn our attention to the subject of human spiritual progress, there has been very little if any in recent history if we compare it with the history of Buddhism.  Today, the spiritual quest is of no interest.  It is antiquated.  Why should modern humans waste their time seeking the unchanging spirit that animates their carnal body, finding eternal life?  Who cares?  What is of interest is change for the sake of change with no assessment as to whether or not such change is progress—spiritual progress that is.

The light of a smile

According to The Record of Transmission of the Light (J.Denkoroku) we read that the Buddha mysteriously transmitted the “light of the pure dharma eye” to Mahakashyapa which is the True Dharma (saddharma).  It is said that the Buddha held up a flower then blinked.  In response Kashyapa just smiled.

So what did holding a flower and blinking have to do with the mysterious light transmission which is pure radiant Mind?  And how was Kashyapa’s smile like seeing eye-to-eye with the Buddha’s “pure dharma eye”?  It takes almost a lifetime to figure this out if you have to start from scratch.  It is hardly an easy matter to see the the radiant, light-like Mind.  It is far easier to become a Zen master or Monk who is merely a robe coat hanger than meet the Buddha and receive his transmission.

I have to give credit to the Chinese mind for thoroughly understanding the heart of the Buddha’s teaching by creating the The Record of Transmission of the Light.  They fully grasp the allegorical side of Buddhism and to what we should really pay attention.  What I mean by this is that there was never a literal transmission.  The The Record of Transmission of the Light is a spiritual allegory.  Indeed, why would the Buddha have to transmit the light since there is no place where it is not?  The fact that he held up a flower and blinked only illustrates the work of Mind, itself, which animates us at all times.  This is very much like what Jesus said in the Gospel of Thomas.

Jesus said, “It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.” 

When one is thoroughly immersed in the animative power of Mind surely one is rightly transmitted and anointed (christos/abhisheka).  All of our mundane actions are, henceforth, like the emperor’s seal which confirms this article to be genuine.  It hardly needs pointing out that the stories about the great Zen masters are just examples of this light working through them as they brush off crumbs, for example, or put sandals on their head or, in the case of the disciples of Jesus, split wood or lift up a stone. 

But make no mistake about it, something is transmitted.  It energized Kashyapa enough to make him smile.  The transmission of the light is not about handing over some robes or understanding the teaching with words.  It is much more subtle.

The Five Aggregates

Perhaps earlier than the Buddha’s teaching the individual person (P., purisapuggalo) was believed to be composed of five selves or atma. In the Taittiriya Upanisad the selves were as follows: 1) the mass self as derived from food; 2) the organic self or pranic self; 3) the determining or attending self; 4) consciousness as the self; 5) the bliss self. This scheme was probably believed to be exhaustive of all that the self or atman could be.

According to the Buddha’s Five Aggregate scheme, which is very similar with the scheme found in the Taittiriya Upanisad, the self cannot be fixed as anyone of the aggregates because such an aggregated self was deemed by the Buddha to be impermanent and disturbed (duhkha). Nevertheless, according to the Buddha certain mendicants believed the self or atman to be the following: 1) the self is of physical qualities; 2) the self is sensate; 3) the self is imagic 4) the self is experiential; 5) the self is consciousness, or the same, sensory awareness.

We might conclude from this that the Buddha's self was completely transcendent instead of being something for us that is determinate. In other words, the Buddha's self was beyond the ken of human apperception. It would not be wrong to say that the Buddha's understanding of self was more thorough than views held by the sages of his era.

Satkaya

What we sense as our being which is localized as our body is what the Buddha calls the satkaya, that is, the individual body (in Pali it is sometimes referred to as ‘own-body’). Satkaya is our physical body which we have had since birth. Satkaya is really the result of mind or spirit flowing into an enclosed bodily limit in which it is no longer unlimited and infinite.

As beings, we are only aware of the satkaya. We are not cognizant of the spirit as distinguished from the satkaya wherein spirit becomes time bound (samsara). As a result of this, we have become overly identified with satkaya. We simply have no capacity, as yet, to recognize spirit becoming a physical body.

Our relationship with satkaya would be much different if we recognized ourselves to be spirit or pure Mind energizing the satkaya instead of being the satkaya, itself. The way we are now, we are trapped. We are doomed, in other words, to follow the satkaya through its temporal phases.

Imagine, therefore, a state we might suddenly achieve by which, as spirit, we know and see how the body is energized. This would mean that the satkaya is an effect, i.e., something that is derived in which its source is wholly spiritual and prior. From this perspective, we are not the satkaya. We are the satkaya energizer.

According to the Buddha, it is the satkaya that we are confusing with the atman or our true self. When the Buddha is said to deny the self or atman he denies that the Five Aggregates constitute the self and that the satkaya is the true self. On the same token, to assert that the satkaya is the self is called wrong view.

Finding the key

All koans have the same answer, make no mistake about it. There is not some special answer for Chao-chou’s Dog koan and another entirely different answer for Killing the Cat koan. The particular differences of each koan, which gives them their enigmatic quality can be likened to different kinds of doors. Some doors are huge and ornate while other doors are small and unadorned. Yet all of these doors have one thing in common: they are opened with the same key. Without the proper key, however, we can only speculate as to what it is like to open one of these doors; entering the Buddha’s lotus throne room to receive his blessing. Nor will it do us any good to pound on one of these doors as if pleading with the Buddha to open the door for us.

All who actually solve a koan must have the correct key. This particular key is, in fact, within our immediate grasp. This key, believe it or not, is actually present right now. Not one of us could think a thought or taste a wonderful cup of monkey tea without it.

The difficulty of finding the key lies within each Zennist who has yet to realize the spiritual principle that the Buddha realized long ago; who taught it until his carnal husk gave way.

One factor that surely hides the key from us is our continual attachment to the carnal body and our mentations that keep us from finding the key. It is somewhat like losing our car keys. The car keys don't hide themselves or change into something else. If we think about this, we always lose our car keys because we are sloppy and unaware. We are paying attention to other things rather than the task at hand which is to drive our car over to the farmer’s market to buy some fresh vegetables for lunch. After we are almost ready to pull our hair out trying to find the keys to our car, we remember to check our overcoat pockets. There the keys are!

By being obsessed with our carnal body and the mentations which swirl around in its brain we completely lose touch with what animates our physical body wherein the key to the koans lie. Indeed, of what use is our temporal body and its sundry mental experiences in solving various koans? They are of no spiritual use, in other words. If all Zennists comprehended the Buddha-nature they would, in an instant, see the golden key that enabled Chao-chou to say, "Wu", thus settling the issue of a dog's Buddha-nature once and for all.

The way of unlearning

It is a truism to say that in order to learn Zen you must unlearn. Indeed, Zen is not difficult at all once enough barriers are removed. Pure Mind, Buddha-nature, Bodhisattvas, Buddhas—they are all present for us if our mind is not obstructed. So the difficult part of Zen is, let’s say, learning to unlearn the belief that the world we perceive through our physical bodies is the real world.

While this present world seems irresistible for us—it is not the highest world. Nevertheless, so long as the veil of wrong learning is over us, obstructing our vision, there is no authentic road to truth—there is no clearing. There is only the changing (anitya), disturbance (duhkha), and the false self (an-atman). Some are so deluded who even believe these three marks of finite existence are the Buddha’s real teaching. But they are confusing his diagnosis of the disease with the cure.

Yes...it is a difficult matter to unlearn when we acknowledge just how hard-wired we are in delusion. How, for example, can we see what Zen master Rinzai saw if our brain is muddled with mundane views about the world? And what a huge mistake we make if we expect Zen to conform with our mundane beliefs. In so doing, we have made up our minds that we don’t wish to unlearn.

To reiterate, Zen is not that difficult if we make up our mind to unlearn. This may explain why children learn so quickly. They simply don’t have to unlearn very much. Unfortunately, what children off learn quickly from their parents—much of it—if they come to the gate of Zen as adults, will have to be unlearned. Indeed, in order to regain the spiritual eye we must learn in a new way—a way that is very unfamiliar. Still, this learning merely attempts to restore our spiritual faculties; trying not to reinforce our temporal vision.