The Zennist

Enlightenment certification

One of the major paradoxes of Zen, especially in medieval Japan, involved the importance of what can only be called enlightenment certification which was a legal matter that required a legal document.  Given that the authentic transmission in Zen is considered to be a "Mind to Mind transmission" (J., ishin denshin) which is wholly spiritual, that it should have to be further instantiated by a legal document is certainly paradoxical.  

Adding to the seriousness of this paradox there is no record of the Buddha, himself, being transmitted by another.  When we look through the Pali canon to shed some light on certification it strikes us that the Buddha’s own charisma was more likely the Buddha’s imprimatur—not a piece of paper.  And even this may not have been very effective.  

According to the Ariyapariyesana Sutta (M.i.160), when challenged by an Ajivika ascetic named Upaka as to the basis of his recent enlightenment, the Buddha replies with some bravado, “By knowing for myself, whom should I point to?  For me there is no teacher—one like me does not exist in the world with its gods.  No one equals me."  However, Upaka is not impressed with the Buddha’s words who, shaking his head, walked away saying, "May it be so, my friend."

Turning to the realpolitik of certification, to be able to obtain such a certificate, technically called an “inheritance certificate”, often meant the difference between being a heir to a thriving religious business, in a manner of speaking, or being a nobody.  Faced with this, some monks, desperate I suppose, were not adverse to using underhanded methods to obtain a certificate—including forgery. Supposedly, even the certificate (J., Shisho) given to Dogen by his teacher Ju-ching turns out to have been a medieval forgery (Steven Heine, Did Dogen Go To China?, 260).

As modern scholars deconstruct the religious institution of Zen, in effect deflating its once powerful myths, modern Zennists may have no choice but to look at Zen the way they might view the Tao To Ching of Lao-tzu which is understood to be “philosophical Taoism” which is not in the same ballpark as “religious Taoism”.

The negative way

While on the surface the spiritual belief that the way to enlightenment demands the suppression of desire—the suppression of desire alone can't reveal the true.  But it is correct to say that being in direct communion with our true nature will quench desire.  Likewise, giving up the worldly life will not, in anyway, bring us spiritual felicity.  But should we attain genuine spiritual bliss, we would not want anything worldly.  In light of this, the path of negation is not without its problems.  

Turning to introspection (S., vipashyana; C. kuan), will avoiding external distractions make us able to see pure Mind which is space-like?  Likewise, will avoiding the impure produce spiritual purity?  The answer to both should be obvious.  Zen master Seng-ch’ou (480–560), who is from the Shao-lin line, saw the problem with the negative way who wrote:

“If one abandons deconcentration in order to seek concentration, what he will attain is the deconcentraton but not concentration.  If one turns his back on impurity in order to get purity, he will get impurity but not purity.”

Zen master Seng-ch’ou also understood that right introspection (cheng-kuan) is positive—not negative—which gains access to spiritual reality.  As such, right introspection sees the false while maintaing the real, which is the true meaning of wisdom.  Moreover, such introspection apperceives true Suchness so that we are in constant communion with it.  And lastly, true Suchness has no arising which, I hasten to add, means that true Suchness is not in the biological sphere of birth and death.

Giving rise to serious problems

Both silent illumination Zen, the practice of which consists mainly in ‘just sitting’, and koan study, which is directed to the investigation of the critical phrase or ante-word (C., hua-t’ou) can give rise to serious problems if they are practiced incorrectly.  

The practice of ‘just sitting’ can lead to quietism and the neglect of awakening so that it does not teach awakening as an event, namely, the actual penetration into pure Mind.  Instead, stillness is viewed as the highest principle which of course it isn’t.

Koan study can easily turn into “literati Buddhism” in which Zennists go for conceptual interpretations (ch’ing-chieh), missing altogether the real intention of the koan by unconsciously “depending upon words and letters.”  According to Zen master Yuan-wu  (1063–1135) who added the “Introductory Words” to the now famous Zen koan work, The Blue Cliff Records:

“If you produce words upon words, phrases upon phrases, and meaning upon meaning, making up interpretation and conceptualization you will not only get me into trouble, but you will also turn your back on Hsueh-tou [who compiled The Blue Cliff Records; later so named after the residence of Yuan-wu].”

The above almost needs no further comment.  Wrestling with koans by using the intellect will never penetrate into the mysterious hua-t’ou of the koan that preexists language, mental conceptions, and images.  In fact, this is what is so remarkable about koans, in general.  They tantalize the intellect to provide an answer, yet serve to almost destroy it by continually frustrating its expectations to reach an answer.  

Unfortunately, it appears that ‘just sitting’, unlike the koan, doesn’t have such a built in mechanism to deter the intellect which believes that by sitting one is already a Buddha which, I hasten to add, is the confusion between the potential and the actual. 

An inherent danger

It has troubled me that some Westerners, who are engaged in some kind of Buddhist practice, are of a mind set that Buddhism does not teach a methodology that is consistent with and aimed at transcending mind’s deep attachment to the temporal body by realizing, intuitively, pure Mind.  

These Westerners, I dare say, are not really engaged in true Buddhism (saddharma).  They are like people who, calling themselves explorers, have only managed to explore their backyards—and who resist leaving their little backyard world.

Buddhism is really meant not only to challenge our petty—all-to-human—assumptions about the world, but it is also meant overturn are all-too-human mode of sensory perception which is overly preoccupied with sensuous things, their determination, and acquisition.  In this regard, I can see why many Westerners ignore the most important side of Buddhism, namely, the transcendent so that their practices mainly consist of learning how to calm down so as to make everyday life a little easier to endure.  But to repeat myself, this ain’t true Buddhism.  It is an adaptation of Buddhism to human needs.  And to the degree that it is capable of meeting those human needs, it remains popular, much like Yoga is these days, although Yoga, like Buddhism, also aims at the transcendent.

But there is an inherent danger in being subtly compelled to meet human needs.  If the transcendent in not one of those needs, figuratively speaking, into the trash bin the most important part goes.  And much of Buddhism, I dare say, has been put into the trash bin, or the same, has been put into university libraries where it silently lies unstudied, with hardly a leaf being turned except by scholars.

Right now what is needed to resurrect Buddhism—true Buddhism, that is—is audacity.  But such audacity, as it directly concerns Buddhism, must be a tireless champion of the transcendent proclaiming unambiguously that the full and complete realization of the animative principle of our temporal body, which has no locus, is the Buddha.  Short of this, true Buddhism will eventually die out. 

No need to do anything special

The following I have taken from D.T. Suzuki's book, The Zen Doctrine of No-mind.  It presents the modern Zennist with a clear-cut distinction between zazen (tso-chan =  sitting meditation) and the realization of Tathagata Dhyana or ultimate meditation.

"In the eleventh year of Kai-yuan (723 C.E.) there was a Zen master in T'an-chou known as Chih-huang, who once studied under Jen, the great master.  Later, he returned to Lu-shan monastery at Chang-sha, where he was devoted to the practice of meditation (tso-chan = dhyâna), and frequently entered into Samadhi (ting).  His reputation reached far and wide.

At the time there was another Zen master whose name was Tai-yung.  He went to Ts'ao-ch'i [Sixth Patriarch Hui-neng] and studied under the great master for thirty years.  The master used to tell him:  'You are equipped for missionary work.'  Yung at last bade farewell to his master and returned north.  On the way, passing by Huang's retreat, Yung paid a visit to him and respectfully inquired:  'I am told that your reverence frequently enters into a Samadhi.  At the time of such entrances, is it supposed that your consciousness still continues, or that your are in a state of unconsciousness?  If your consciousness still continues, all sentient beings are endowed with consciousness and can enter into a Samadhi like yourself.  If, on the other hand, you are in a state of unconsciousness, plants and rocks can enter a Samadhi.'

Huang replied:   'When I enter into a Samadhi, I am not conscious of either condition.'

Yung said:  'If you are not conscious of either condition, this is abiding in eternal Samadhi, and there can be neither entering into a Samadhi nor rising out of it.'

Huang made no reply.  He asked:  'You say you come from [Hui] Neng, the great master.  What instruction did you have under him?'

Yung answered:  'According to his instruction, no-tranquillization (ting-Samadhi), no-disturbance, no-sitting (tso), no-meditation (ch'an)—this is the Tathagata's Dhyâna.  The five Skandhas are not realities; the six objects of sense are by nature empty.  It is neither quiet nor illuminating; it is neither real nor empty; it does not abide in the middle way; it is not-doing, it is no-effect-producing, and yet it functions with the utmost freedom:  the Buddha-nature is all-inclusive.'

This said, Huang at once realized the meaning of it and sighed:  'These thirty years I have sat to no purpose!'"

Neng’s instruction points to pure Mind in which nothing is lacking or needs to be added.  When one truly grasps the totality of pure Mind, there is nothing one has to do to make it more (such as zazen)—or even fear its loss.  The problem with understanding this is nicely illustrated in Hua-yen Patriarch Fa-tsang's Essay on the Golden Lion which is a teaching to help us grasp the idea of identity-in-difference in which a single substance, in this case, pure Mind, interpenetrates all (i.e., differences).

"The various organs of the [golden] lion, down to every hair, all include the whole lion in so far as they are all the gold.  Thus each and every one of them permeates the eyes of the lion.  The eyes are the ears, the ears are the nose, the nose is the tongue, and the tongue is the body [in virtue of gold].  They each are freely established and do not impede one another....in the lion's eyes, ears, limbs, and every separate hair, the gold of the lion is present."

Of course there is much more to this.  Pure Mind is not passive like gold so as to require a craftsman to shape it into a lion.  Mind is dynamic.  At the same time it can be self active, changing into a difference-from-self in which it only sees its lion side without the gold.  But if a great teacher comes into the world who is able to show us the gold—our suffering is put to an end.  There is no thing that is not of pure Mind even though it is completely different from something else next to it.  For one who has this vision, there is no need to do anything special like zazen. 

Our Buddha-nature

Our original Buddha-nature is not lacking.  The problem is that it is implicit and not accessible by means of ordinary human sensory perception.  We might also say that this nature is empty—empty in the sense of lacking any object-ness or determination.  Nevertheless, our original Buddha-nature is very real.  All the phenomena that we perceive, including our thoughts, depend on this pristine nature.  Things, in other words, are its shapes.  

It is certainly amazing and, at the same time, tragic to think that everything we are looking at and thinking about is a composition of our Buddha-nature of which we are completely ignorant.  And try as we might to get a glimpse of it, it eludes us.  More importantly, being so wedded to sensory compositions brings us nothing but degrees of suffering.

From this we can imagine that the highest enlightenment would be to see all this, that is, phenomena, as configurations of pure Mind which is really what the realization of Buddha-nature entails.  How amazing this would be.  No longer would we have to intellectually assume or believe that things are various determinations of pure Mind which, in itself, presents a kind of subtle barrier that keeps us directly from realizing our Buddha-nature. 

What is this?

There is a funny story about the Zen master Seung Sahn and the Tibetan Lama, Kalu Rinpoche, who met for the first time.  As the story goes, the Zen master held up an orange in front of the Lama then asked him, "What is this?"  The Lama spoke to his translator who then repeated it in English saying, "What's the matter with him? Don't they have oranges where he comes from?"

For those who are somewhat immersed in Zen, the Zen master's question was really a trick question.  He was alluding to something beyond the sensual orange which defies normal human comprehension in which the orange is its formation.  This, is pure Mind.

This is somewhat akin to a Zen encounter found in the Mumonkan (number 40) in which Pai-chang took a water jug, then placing it on the ground asked, "This must not be called a pitcher.  What do you call it?"  The head monk answered and said, "You can't say it's a fence post."  Then Pai-chang turned to the monk Kuei-shan who then kicked water jug over and left.

I think Zen master Seung Sahn might have done better to have saved his Zenic performance for someone who was familiar with Zen’s teaching method.  

Shifting gears, I learned a long time ago that good Tibetan Lamas understand the this in the question, "What is this?"  They know that Mind, when it comprehends itself, is dynamic and very real, with which Kuei-shan was intimate, winning the approval of Pai-chang.  

To shed more light on the this, the Lama's words provide more detail who wrote: "The open and luminous nature of mind...is an open clarity [prabhâsvara] that, at the level of pure mind, is aware in and of itself...”(Luminous Mind by Kalu Rinpoche, Denis Töndrup).  This reflexive or introspective awareness of pure Mind by pure Mind, as in the Mind to Mind transmission, is what any Buddhist worth his or her salt realizes.  But how they might present this recondite substance to their students or to others is up for grabs.  Zen master Seung Sahn tries to teach it one way—the Lama uses another method. 

This aside, it might have been entertaining to see the old Lama stand up and walk over to the Zen master holding his orange and give him a uppercut to the chin or tell his translator to demand of the Zen master, “Tell about this one who stands before me—does he have a name?”

The fundamental teaching

When we peel back the religious veneer, for over twenty-five hundred years Buddhism has fundamentally taught only one teaching and that is the direct contemplation of Mind.  This is not the mind that we are familiar with on an everyday basis.  This is not mind that is shaped into thoughts, various mental images or dimensionalized into this world.  It is not the mind of sensory consciousness or awareness, either.  This Mind is pure Mind without any modification.  It is Mind-only (cittamatra) which is pure as one might expect pure water to be water-only.  

In pure Mind there is no birth and no death.  Only in modified mind is there the plane of birth and death which appears again and again through desire.  For those who apprehend Mind correctly, they see beyond the pale of birth and death so as to make their refuge there.  Thus they put an end to the mind that is regenerating itself entering, again and again, into the plane of birth and death that makes up samsara.

If we think of pure Mind as the increate medium of all things, then all things are its forms or shapes which arise from this medium or matrix.  Because all things are its form, there is no need, if we wish to apprehend Mind, to look into things to find our answer.  Things cannot help us because they are ever changing unlike pure Mind.  Moreover, they are a disturbance (duhkha) of Mind.  Nor are they our true abiding self which is fundamentally the nature of Mind.

As we might expect, the search for Mind with a capital "M" is not easy since Mind, in its native purity, offers no trace of itself.  In the words of Zen master Huang-po, "This Mind, which is without beginning, is unborn and indestructible.  It is not green nor yellow, and has neither form nor appearance.  It does not belong to the categories of things which exist or do not exist, nor can it be thought of in terms of new and old."

While this all sounds terribly difficult, there is a silver lining.  The good thing is that because mind is naturally incomplete (avidya), since it doesn't realize itself in its unmodified purity, this incompleteness amounts to wholesome desire in the sense of mind wishing to comprehend itself.  

Because of this primordial incompleteness, we only have to be steered in the right direction such that mind goes straight towards Mind instead of away from it.  Accordingly, on this path we will eventually have an intuition of pure Mind that will comport with the teachings of the Buddha and, in addition, be self-verifying and self-evident. 

Another silver lining, is that as mind approaches Mind, the Buddha's teaching becomes clearer which, in turn, leads to even deeper understandings so that we become even closer to Mind than before.  As a consequence, we begin to see the golden thread that unifies all the differences in the teaching of the Buddha and for that matter all religions.  Also, in the daily life that we pursue we naturally gravitate to those practices which make for greater harmony with Mind thus naturally putting aside the inharmonious.  I should emphasize, that there is nothing artificial in this or anything that might lead us to religious hypocrisy or the cult of piety.  As we move closer to Mind, we change from the inside out—not from the outside in which is hypocritical.  

In briefly discussing religious morality, morality should only concern ways of behaving that accord with coming into proximity with pure Mind.  As paradoxical has this might sound, not all morality is capable of helping us to advance to pure Mind.  In fact, much of what we call “morality” isn’t moral at all.  From the perspective of Mahayana Buddhism what deters us from the path to the realization of pure Mind can hardly be counted as moral.  According to the Lankavatara Sutra, it is the simple minded who observe the rules of morality, piety, and penance.