The Zennist

Zen's real allegiance

The first patriarch of Zen, Bodhidharma, is not actually a patriarch of Zen, instead, he is the patriarch of the Lankavatara Sutra tradition, sometime refered to as the Lanka School or Lanka Realization.  The preeminence of the Lankavatara Sutra was eventually, and oddly, replaced by the Vajracchedika Sutra (Diamond-cutter Sutra).  

Nevertheless, Zen retained almost entirely its allegiance to the Lankavatara Sutra by embracing the notion of Mind (with a capital ‘M’ denoting that it is absolute); in particular pure Mind devoid of appearance (nirabhasa ).  

Also, from the Lankavatara Sutra, Zen understood that this pristine Mind is set in contrast to sva-citta-drisya-matra, that is, mind, itself, in the mode of appearance.  There are many more facets of the Lankavatara Sutra that Zen embraces.

According to the Lankavatara Sutra, the only way to apprehend Mind is by a non-theoretical path.  Zen, to be sure, subscribes to this in a very big way.  It is the main feature of Zen unlike other Buddhist sects which engage in theoretics. 

Because of its distaste for theoretics, it is easy to see why Zen is regarded as the mystical wing of Buddhism.  Its goal concerns catching a glimpse of pure Mind—if only for a second.

It hardly needs further comment that this glimpse is extraordinarly difficult to accomplish.  Without dragging in my own experiences, it is no less extraordinary than having the Buddha appear in one’s room.  After such an experiece—Sutras like the Lankavatara take on a new meaning.  To be sure, one is also awed by the mystical depth of the Zen masters of old.

On the same thread, the great awakening comes when the totality of our mental life, which is only an appearance, and the external world (bahyartha), which also is only an appearance, are both fully transcended by seeing pure Mind sufficiently.  Indeed, Mind, itself, is neither subjective nor objective.  It is, in fact, our very self as it stands (svapratyatmagati) according to the Lankavatara Sutra.  This state (gati), in addtion, puts us elsewhere preceptually than in the body or with the world.  To be sure, it is a unique experience.  We are at once disembodied—and not of this world or any other.

The aery flower

It is noteworthy to point out the that Mahasanghikas were one of the early sects of Buddhism that was credited with propounding the notion of “beginnings and endless pure mind” (anadi-ananta-vimala-citta) which is the seed of Buddhahood that lies unawakened in every creature.  Their rivals, if we can call them that, were the Sthavira who later became the Theravada.  Their doctrinal emphasis, unlike that of the Mahasanghika, was not so much on comprehension of anadianantavimalacitta as it was the rejection of substantiality (anattavada).

If we are going to take up the path of getting to the cognition of such a pure mind (vimalacitta) it is doing so with the understanding that our present perception of the world is a gestalt or, somewhat the same, a phenomenalization of pure Mind.  The world that we perceive, according to the Lankavatara Sutra, is svacittadrisya, that is, an appearance of mind, itself, in the sense of being only a mind configuration (cittamatradrisya).  

As regards mind’s fundamental error, or nescience (avidya), it is bound to gestalting; unable to break from the enchantment (asrava) of its gestalted appearances.

Turning to the process of mind purification, it must be understood that it is not like dusting something off.  There is nothing, actually, to remove.  To understand how purification is achieved, it is first necessary to understand mind’s present condition.  The problem is mind’s habit (vasana) of gestalting whereby it keeps wanting to see itself as phenomenalized instead of seeing itself in its pristine nature.  Consequently, mind is lost in the diabolical process of gestalting:  lost in the vision of the world that it is continually shaping.  

The key to purification is whether or not mind can reverse gestalting and, by doing so return, for a moment, to its non-gestalted, unconditioned state.  Otherwise, it can only look into a vast depth and complexity that looms before it that has no end.  This endlessness, it should be mentioned, is time (samsara) as the unfolding of primordial mind into appearance in which it beholds only impermanence, pain, and insubstantiality.  The loss of itself in this time process is no less than catastrophic.

Mind purification is really about mind successfully un-gestalting itself, as it were, returning to its originary, unshaped state.  This purification is also done in time.  But over time, this practice gradually awakens one to the fact that the world really is made of mind and that the world, from this standpoint, is like a mirage or the same, dreamlike.  As a result of seeing the world this way it becomes a valueless phenomenon—for certainly there is nothing about it to desire.  One can only look upon the world as beauteous, as one might look upon an “aery flower” (khapushpa), according to the Lankavatara Sutra.

There is no void

At risk of teaching a not so thorough going ontology, the Buddha wants us to empty out the most subtle thought (vikalpa) so that we end up in a true place where mind is purely having been absolutely de-phenomenalized.  But there is risk with this.  It can easily turn into skepticism avoiding at every turn positive implication.  This can further lead to nihilism, that is, to the invincible belief that all is void.  But this is a prevarication of the Buddha’s teaching.

The idea of the void, or of emptiness, has to be based on mind (citta) and the purification of mind leading to the cognition of pure Mind.  There is no void (shunyata) independent of mind.  The praxis of emptiness consists of emptying out of mind’s adventitious impressions until it is fully restored to its pristine fullness.  

When the Pali Nikayas speak of “the supreme ultimate void” in the Cula-Suññata Sutta this refers strictly to mind which is free from the influences (asrava) of becoming (bhava) and ignorance.  Mind is now ultimately devoid of the body of the senses and liberated. 

Of those, on the other hand, drawn to some void, as it were, some inexistent absence or nihil, they can certainly be charged with spiritual blasphemy.  This position, when carried forth as a philosophical system, is skepticism which is the bane of philosophy.  And many Buddhists fall into this view who follow the Madhyamaka philosophy of Nargarjuna without considering the preeminent role of mind (citta) in Buddhism.

While the Madhyamika skeptic is seemingly invincible in showing the nullity of every word, meaning, and inference he is unawares, also, that this is the disintegration of truth (satya) the consequence of which is the establishment of radical subjectivism that is subsequently directed against transcendence.  This position cannot be overthrown by disputation—it will rot away from the inside. 

A vacant body without a self

There is a much different spiritual flavor in the Upanishads as compared with the Pali Nikayas, especially in the older portions of the Pali Nikayas.  Even the notion of atman is used differently by the Buddha which follows, it seems, the old Prakrit, appâ, generally referring to the realized or the obtained.  

If somebody were to ask me to characterize the uniqueness of the Buddha’s teaching I would have to say that it is taught from the perspective of a teacher who has realized disembodiement—who is trying to make this fact very clear for those who are clueless about this state of being.  

One gets the sense, consistently, that the Buddha is speaking, not from the point of view of his body, but always from the point of view of being spiritually distinct from it.  He sees, in a word, a vacant body whereas before he thought, “This is mine, I am this, this is my self.”  Steven Collins tried to address this in his revised thesis, Selfless Persons, but missed the boat.  

The matter is not about selfless persons.  Far from it.  It is about being transfixed and internally coordinate with what can only be described as a vacant three dimensional image which I call my body.  The important issue for the Buddha is where we are in relationship with the three dimensional image.  Maybe the self is, in fact, independent of this enclosing shell-like image in which case it only seems like we are this body.

We need to bear in mind that the Buddha never once taught that there is no self (nattha atta).  What he taught, instead, is that phenomena are not the self (anatma) in which case the absence of self (anatma) works adjectively, meaning it is qualifying “phenomena”.  If I say “John is big”, “big” modifies John pointing out a unique feature of John.  This is why “no self” in Buddhism is always used as an adjective—not an abstract noun.  Its task is to specify or designate that transitory phenomena are insubstantial.  In plain language, any phenomenon is without a self—a mere vacant image.  In this regard, the Buddha’s teaching is an attempt to teach me that my coveted temporal body is not myself!

The Buddha is also teaching, however, a new position relative to the body without a self.  It is a new and unique position (ayatana) I can achieve by meditation (dhyana, etc.).  But first I have to disown my temporal body by retracting mind’s deep connection with it.  I have to rescue my life (sattva) that is deeply involved and interwoven in the physical body without a self (anatma).  Only then, from that vantage point of mind’s ultimate freedom, can I look upon the physical body as an ownerless, vacant body and say, “This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.”  In addition, from this vantage point is the greater self (mahatman) recognized who needs no property or home, so to speak; who is disembodied (nirvana). 

Yoga v. negation

The real battle between Yogachara and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka is the difference between a middle-way that is the unchanging substance (vastu) of all finite existence, and the middle-way as the interplay of illusory antitheses that add up to nothing (shunyata).  

Of Nagarjuna’s postion, there is no real basis for the world we perceive.  Such a basis is vastu-shunya, i.e., substantially absent.  By comparison, for Yogachara appearance depends on pure reality, i.e., vastu-matra.  In fact, there is nothing except vastu-matra in the analogy of a clay pot, that despite its form—and its destruction into fragments—the clay-ness remains unaffected.  The pot, in other words, is an appearance of clay of which it could be said, hides the clay-ness.

The authority for the Yogachara postion comes through direct meditative conformaiton in which the absolute is cognized, directly.  Over against this, for the Madhyamika, there is thorough negation with no positive implication beyond.  One simply stops clinging to the belief in an absolue (vastu-matra).  The Madhyamika accepts the interdependent play of antithetical phenomena—internally and externally.  

Madhyamaka, to be sure, is evocative of nihilism.  For what else can nihilism be except surd phenomenalism?  In addition, as we might draw from this, there can be no deep gnosis, either.  Nor is this non-noetical position exactly in accord with the Lankavatara Sutra which affirms vastu (reality) in which mind is purified leaving no traces of defilement, save that vastu is the truth that is pure (LS X: 250).

Turtles all the way down

 

According to some schools of Buddhism, dependent origination denotes the principle of essential dependence of one phenomenon on another, sometimes referred to as ‘mutual interdependence’ which, incidentally, is a Vedanta concept rendered in Sanskrit as parasparapeksa.  In one word, this can be summed up as relativity-only which, I hasten to add, is an important discovery of modern science, but not in Buddhism.  

 

At any rate, it is inaccurate to presume that dependent origination is the main principle of Buddhism being, essentially, relativity.  Buddhism does have an independent absolute, therefore, it is not relativistic in its outlook.  The absolute is disclosed to us when we remove the illusion that phenomena are real.  

 

Buddhists who maintain such a theory as ‘mutual interdependence’, i.e., relativity-only, seem unaware that it can also lead to absurd conclusions.

 

In Stephen Hawking’s book, A Brief History Of Time, he starts with an interesting anecdote.  It seems a well-known scientist gave a public lecture on astronomy.  He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how, in turn, the sun orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.  As Hawking relates the humorous part of the anecdote, at the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the hall stood up and smartly said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant turtle."  The scientist gave a haughty smile before rejoining, "What is the turtle standing on?"  "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down."

 

The little old lady's view of the universe is quite Buddhist—Buddhist in the modern relativistic sense, but not as the Buddha's true teaching (saddharma).

 

And just as with the little old lady, modern Buddhists have used the turtle explanation, that is, there are phenomenons going all the way down each mutually dependent on the other.  There is nothing, therefore, which is independent having non-relative being.

 

Ironically, this presents a kind of eternalism of phenomena because these Buddhists don’t actually wish to even consider that what is dependent rests upon the independent, that is, something which is its own support (svabhava) which is rightly nirvana.  

 

A new orientation

Taking up the first term in the eightfold path, the word “right”, as in “right view” means the reversal of dirction from one of spiritual neglect to spiritul correctness or samyak.  With regard to “view” it has the characteristic of insight (darsana) in the sense of purifying insight.  Only by such an insight, which is devoid of defilements (asrava), can we be led to nirvana. In fact, right view leads the way.

The Zen way of looking at right view in terms of meditation (dhyana) is that it is mind which is defiled and needs to be purified so that one, at least, catches a glimpse of the pure Mind with right view.  If we are clueless as to the intrinsic purity of Mind, without first obtaining right view, how can we take up the path that leads to nirvana?  We will always be oriented in the wrong direction (mithya) never the right (samyak), as it were, always searching in vain among appearances.

As long as mind is under the domination of its own creations, unable to see its pristine nature, it remains firmly tethered to the corporeal body.  This is why right view is so important.  Mind must be reoriented in a new direction (samyak).  It can’t remain in its old defiled orientation and still expect to overcome the vicissitudes and pain of samsara. 

Incomprehensible dependent origination

The Buddha considered “dependent origination” (pratitysamutpada) almost incomprehensible for the ordinary person to grasp with any degree of precision.  Its elucidation is lacking in the canon although it is somewhat explained.  Contrasted with nirvana, dependent origination is non-ultimate.  In short, it is kindred with phenomenality.  We might further suggest that dependent origination is about non-ultimate creations.  

So how shall we personally consider dependent origination?  Our thoughts which arise and fall in front of our mind’s eye are dependent originations, that is, they are creations or the same, mental phenomena.  

So now a critical question needs to be asked.  From whence do our thoughts arise and into what do they return?  Is the whence, the increate?  It would seem to be so.  For the sake of clarity, it can be said the dependent originations, such as our thoughts, are finite creations whereas the increate upon which they depend is, itself, neither finite nor dependent.  It is realized in nirvana.

One final word, in the Avatamsaka Sutra it is said that “everything in the Triple Realm is due to Mind...the twelve links of conditioned origination (pratityasamutpada) are all dependent on the One Mind.”  Thus, according to Mahayana Buddhism, dependent originations arise from the One Mind and return to it.  Our suffering, one might infer, is due to our ignorance of the reality of the One Mind, that is, the increate.

The true middle-way

Some Western Buddhists believe that there is no absolute in Buddhism, which is nihilism even though they may deny it.  When a Western Buddhist says, for example, "The middle-way is the ultimate because it repudiates both being and non-being with nothing else to realize or analyze" this is a strong indication of nihilism.  The middle-way is not repudiation or just the absence of being and non-being.  It is as if this person were to suggest that Siddhartha, before he became a Buddha, only had to repudiate both the sensual world (being) and the ascetic world of denial (non-being) in order to become the Buddha!  But this is nonsense. 

Such a position forgets that our internal world of thoughts that arise (being) and fall (non-being) do so depending on the medium of pure Mind.  The true middle-way, in other words, is the absolute medium upon which both being and non-being depend which is, itself, independent and non-ascertainable by either being or non-being. 

It is not enough just to repudiate being and non-being to establish the middle-way.  To be sure, the problem goes much deeper than averring, “I am done with being and non-being, therefore, I am the Buddha.”  In fact, the main problem for the unawakened is with their thoughts arising and falling; not seeing the beyond (param).  What is to be noetically seen, instead of nothing, is the glory or radiance of the pure Mind, itself, from which the arising and falling of thoughts have their dependence.  

The truth of the matter is that even the most learned of Buddhists are not wise enough if they have not cognized that (tathata) which is beyond the measure of being and non-being.  At stake is whether or not they can see the transcendent which is the very stuff of thoughts which is beyond the category of being and non-being.

Do such people actually believe that a sage like the Buddha is like they are?  If this is true, such people are quite mad.  The Buddha was more than an ordinary person.  The Buddha transcended suffering in a very real sense.  The Buddha lived, continually, in the glory of his attainment so that he was able to empower many—awaking in them the pure Mind which is the true middle-way.  Thus, they were able to testify, for themselves, the correctness of his teaching.

The Buddha had no desire to live as a king, although he could have done so.  Nor did the Buddha wish to continue the ascetic path.  He realized that both paths were a mistake, leading only to more suffering and rebirths.  The true middle-way he attained is the awaking of spirit from its deep sleep so that it touches the world and everywhere opens up the hearts of beings (sattva) previously lost in suffering.  Had the Buddha realized the spirit when he was still the young Siddhartha there would have been no need to leave his father’s kingdom to take up ascetic denial.  

Relative meditation and prayer

Religious relativism is often, to be blunt, disguised self-centeredness, or even a kind of laziness that refuses to move past the immediacy of man, the biological creature, believing in this regard, there is nothing higher. Ironically, the one who falls into the category of religious relativism is one who may practice religion but has no sense of the divine—the actual divine that is free from suffering; that dwells within each of us.

Both meditation and prayer may serve to explain religious relativism by contrasting their spiritual forms with the relative forms.  

In the case of Buddhism, meditation (dhyana) is the pathway that opens us up to the living reality behind sensory things.  It leads to illumination (bodhicitta).  By meditation, one directly experiences the animative power that, for all of their life, has moved them.  Meditation thus leads to an awakening (bodhi).  We awaken from the sleep of the biological creature to the light of the beyond upon which the creature has always depended.

As for prayer, prayer is remembering God's presence within us which has been sundered and almost lost by living as mere biological creatures.  In other words, prayer is very much akin to meditation (dhyana).  The words of the prayer are, first of all, a call to remembrance, that is, to recall the image of God within us.  The prayer is almost a mantra which positions the mind (manas) to tune into God.

For the religious relativist, there is no radiant, animative power with which he can connect, or the image of God, in the sense of universal love that forsakes no created thing.  In sharp contrast, the religious relativist uses meditation as a means to calm down their neurosis, or uses prayer as a request, asking for something in the name of God.  

Furthermore, in the name of religious relativism it is perfectly okay to meditate or pray, either for the purpose of relaxation or to make a request of God for a better job.  After all, all is absolutely relative.