The Zennist

Stepping off the wheel

“I am this” speaks for the embodied condition in which mind has localized itself by a powerful desire and propensity to be a formation of the Five Aggregates, knowing nothing else.  In nirvana, on the other hand, the "I am this" (i.e., the Five Aggregates) and the world perceived by means of the senses, is surpassed.  One directly beholds a field or plane that is utterly devoid of phenomena—yet it is substantially real, in fact, more real than any phenomenon.  (In Zen it is described as thieves breaking into a house that is empty—the house is real but it is totally empty of things to steal.)  Coming with this realization is also the realization of one’s independence from sensory dependence which is liberation from the wheel of samsara.

For one who has achieved such independence (i.e., nirvana), they fully understand the danger of being dependent on phenomenal arisings which are the result of mind as sensory consciousness (vijnana) determining itself objectively, as something sensory.  This can be quite delusive because for sensory consciousness there is presupposed nothing besides sensory phenomena—even subtle thoughts.  However, this is not even close to the apperception of the pure field of nirvana.  

It should be underscored that phenomena, of which we are conscious, are never in nirvana.  To look for nirvana in the sensory world around us through our sensory consciousness is like being on a vicious circle.  No matter how much we refine our search, we are sensory bound, unable to see the escape (i.e., nirvana).  It is only when consciousness transcends the sensory realm that it is set to apperceive nirvana. 

Mind's importance

With regard to nirvana, mind (citta) is said to be, among other things, free from the perturbation or influence (asrava) of ignorance/avidya (M. iii. 106-08).  We must conclude from this that both 'ignorance' and 'liberation' are borne by mind and mind alone.  Again, we must also conclude that the labor of moving from ignorance to enlightenment or nirvana, is the Buddha’s path which is directed to mind and mind’s ability to realize its universal nature which frees it from its samsara.  

In light of the foregoing, why is the singularly important role of “mind” undervalued in Western Buddhism and/or so misunderstood?  If all of Buddhism is fundamentally based on mind cleansing and developing itself so that it can subsequently attain nirvana, or the same, liberation, why isn’t mind treated in a way that underscores its importance?  In addition, granting mind’s importance for the sake of argument, if mind’s importance is marginalized doesn’t this make Buddhism, in some measure, unsystematic and incoherent?  I think it does.  And here would lie much of the confusion that attends the modern presentation of Buddhism.

One last word, very popular books about Buddhism hardly touch upon the subject of mind (citta) in Buddhism let alone its importance with regard to nirvana.  This seems strange in light of this passage from the Pali canon.

“If a monk’s citta is without need for the element of form [feeling, ideation, the activities, consciousness] and is released from it without attachment to the obsessions [âsrvavas] , it is immovable by its release; by its immobility it is satisfied; by its satisfaction it is not excited; without excitement it by itself attains nibbana [nirvana].  And it knows: ‘Destroyed is birth...’” (trans., E.A. Johansson [S. iii. 45]). 

Buddhism on its own terms

We all like evidence that confirms our views, opinions, and beliefs however weak it might be.  We don’t much care for disconfirming evidence, which might very well be true, but which undermines some of our strongest opinions.  In fact, we often go out of our way to make sure that we give a low weight to any and all disconfirming evidence especially with regard to religious matters.  

This leads me to say many who take up the study and practice of Buddhism have preexisting ideas about Buddhism that may not, in fact, be found in Buddhism.  Furthermore, they elect to become Buddhists because they believe that Buddhism falls in line with their present grasp of reality which might not be the case.  In fact, it is unlikely that the Buddhism found in the canon agrees with modern Buddhists, especially  the canon of Mahayana Buddhism which is decisively mystical requiring cognosis.

Presently, a lot of people who call themselves Buddhists believe that Buddhism has much in common with science; also, that Buddhism is a pragmatic religion that teaches us how to live in the here and now with contentment and much less pain.  This view of Buddhism reflects a number of cognitive biases the most important of which is that many take up Buddhism without really studying it, assuming that their view of it is pretty accurate.  Yet, these same people may have only read one or two books by an author whose Buddhist erudition is hardly profound; whose view of Buddhism falls into the general category of pop Buddhism.

Where all this takes the unwary Buddhist, who is new to Buddhism, is not otherwise than back to their own general opinions about religion, not to mention their limited views about the meaning of existence and what to expect from life.  In this respect, their core biases will forever remain unchallenged and unchanged—and this isn't good.

Buddhism wants us to see Buddhism on its own terms—not by way of our own assumptions about Buddhism which may very well lack sufficient evidence.  To say the least, this demands that we invest a number of hours of rigorous study and sweat into this project.  Studying what the Buddha actually said—not what he didn’t say—can’t be done in a fortnight or two, in other words.  From Buddhism’s own side, we are being asked to spiritually prepare to climb the equivalent of Mount Everest if we wish to go all the way with Buddhism.  Especially, when we consider the lives of Buddhist saints such as Asanga and great Zen masters and Lamas, Buddhism is a tough climb but one not without substantial rewards. 

Interdependence

The Chinese Hua-yen teaching which rests on the Avatamsaka Sutra (C., Hua-yen ching) puts forth the idea of interdependence of one thing with another (C., shih-shih wu-ai).  However, this idea of interdependence between things or phenomena doesn't exactly explain through what such coordination might be possible.  Picturing the matter, how does a bulldozer interdepend with a wasp—through what?

The idea of interdependence between phenomena is flawed without a transcendent medium through which each unique thing interconnects with the rest.  Hua-yen's notion of interdependence, which is intellectually profound, only describes the surface of temporal reality not the more fundamental depth in which the difference between phenomena is overcome which accounts for their interdependence.  This deep reality is, of course, the Womb or Matrix of the Tathagata (S., tathagatagarbha). It is described as being self-luminous, immaculate, immanent in all beings, unchanging (nitya), permanent, eternal (shâshvata) and blissful.

This matrix, being universal, makes possible the interconnection between different phenomena.  In other words, it is the absolute medium, like the ocean from which countless differing waves arise.  However, not a single wave is obstructed by another.  They reason they don’t obstruct each other is that they interdepend by means of water which, it is important to underscore, has no dependence whatsoever on its wave phenomena.  

Taking this to our own thoughts, a sage like the Buddha can directly see this matrix which is devoid of phenomena—and from that supreme vantage point he preaches the Dharma which liberates ordinary minds (sattvacitta) that are tormented by the birth and death cycle of wavelike phenomena. 

In the moment awarely

Have you ever been talking with a friend or a colleague only to find them staring?  It is almost as if they had the psychical electricity on but no light bulb in the socket.  From a Buddhist standpoint, staring is the height of unawareness.

When I lived with my Zen teacher his first instruction to me was, “Stop staring!  I never want to see you do that again.”  And so, I never did it again.  My teacher forced me to be focused and observant of all my external actions including my mental life.  I even had to watch out for daydreaming!  

Practicing awareness like this can be a very grueling practice.  But over time you actually get used to doing it.  To be sure, it is life in the moment—being always grounded.  But then there are many ways of living in the moment.  

Living in the moment from the perspective of Buddhism means throwing all of your attention to the task at hand thus being very aware of your thoughts and mental habits.  By contrast, a life lived in the moment carelessly, without awareness of both the external and internal side of your being is not a life lived at all.  It almost guarantees that your next rebirth will be a sorrowful one.

Looking within

The expression “look within” is not a call to subjectivism—far from it.  It is really a call to remove the layers of involvement the sufferant has acquired with the temporal body.  These layers are the result of various kinds of unwholesome practices which only serve to anchor us to the temporal body and its life thus increasing our vulnerability to suffering.  

To overcome such a state of being, if we were to train throughout the better part of a day for three months in mindfulness and clear awareness (P., sati-sampajañña) in a deeper sense of being mindful and knowingly observant of all our actions such as sitting, walking, standing, looking, speaking and so on, we couldn’t fail but to notice a profound change in our mental condition and outlook.  It would be fair to say that just by practicing mindfulness and clear awareness of our bodily movements, speech, and mental actions we would, in effect, be removing many layers of conditions that are the cause of suffering.

As these superficial layers are eliminated, how we deal with the external world would also change.  Being more focused we would make better decisions regarding our external conduct.  It is enough to say that we would feel better by practicing mindfulness and clear awareness than not practicing it.  We would also be correct in thinking that we are negatively conditioned by the degree of unwholesome reinforcement of our desires and inclinations which build up such layers that require their eventual removal or reduction if we wish a degree of mental sobriety.

What is hard to understand, let alone believe, is that as we use our mind in this fashion, in which it is concentrating, it is actually moving towards itself so as to eventually know itself (bodhicitta) if only initially and briefly.  We can think of it this way, also:  that non-concentrative actions in which unawareness and carelessness dominate act as precursors of suffering.  

Suffering is lessened only when the arc of mind is turned back upon itself instead of away from itself.  With such a practice, mind can begin to penetrate into its own immacuate ground of being.  This explains why, in traditional Buddhist training so much emphasis is placed on external and intermal awareness.  Our depth of awareness works towards the Mind ground—a return-to-self.  With this kind of practice under our belt, so to speak, we can then enter into the world of meditation (P., jhana; S., dhyana) which is far more profound in which mind initially awakens to itself (bodhicitta).

Tenets not Buddhist

Of the teachers who competed with the Buddha for followers; who differed with the Buddha on certain important religious topics, there was Makkhali Gosala, Purana Kassapa, Ajita Kesakambali, Pakudha Kaccayana, Sanjaya Belatthiputta, and Negantha Nataputta.

I have made a list of some of the tenets of these teachers which are not out of our modern ballpark of ideas; which are held by a majority of people.

●      There is no merit or demerit. It doesn't matter if the person destroys life or reduces all of life on earth to a single heap of flesh, there is ultimately no sin.

●      There is not after-life.

●      No one has reached perfection or has experienced the world beyond.

●      No one survives death.

●      The primary elements of which we are made cannot be destroyed.  Besides these elements there is nothing.

●      All things in samsara will eventually become purified. 

●      There is not such thing as karma.

●      Nothing can be truly known.

Keep in mind that the Buddha never taught such tenets.  Indeed, the Buddha taught, example, that one can reach perfection; moreover, there is, in fact, a world beyond.

“As there is indeed a world beyond, if anyone has the conception that there is not a world beyond, it is a false conception of his....As there is indeed a world beyond, if he convinces others that there is not a world beyond, that convincing of his is against true dhamma, and because of that convincing which is against true dhamma, he is exalting himself and disparaging others” (M. i. 402).

On the same track, the Buddha taught karma and rebirth which implies survival after death since he knew, firsthand, that mind (citta) is essentially unbodied (asharia) hence continuous and not therefore discrete and terminable.

Through the veil

If we are able to look through the veil of our our ordinary human mind of mental formations—even if for a single moment—we will naturally yoke with pure Mind which is transparently luminous (prabhasvara) and utterly empty.  

With such a profound penetration and insight, we will realize that pure Mind is very real.  And for the yogi (bodhisattva) who can engage with pure Mind continually, such a Mind is far from being subjective as ordinary people are wont to believe.

In this regard, the difference between the ordinary person (prithagjana), who may even be a Buddhist monk or nun, and the Bodhisattva, is the latter sees Mind shorn of thoughts and other mental formations which otherwise act to hide the pristine nature of Mind.  Unlike the Bodhisattva, the ordinary person has no such ability to see this way; who is stubbornly unwilling to believe that such an intuition is possible or that the substance of their mental formations is incorporeal and transcendent.

Other than boring

If we lived in a region without wind, never even feeling so much as a slight breeze, we would be shocked if not terrified of a storm with almost gale force winds.  This is somewhat analogous to the experience of awakening to the power of pure Mind (bodhicitta) for the first time.  The psychophysical body is unexpectedly and strongly energized.  There is nothing you can do to stop it.  And in this gale of energy you realize, however strange it may seem to your conventional wisdom, that whatever is energizing your body is far greater than you and yet, this force is intimately connected with you in a most mysterious way. 

If the foregoing description seems a little unbuddhist, rest assured it is not.  It is one of those major religious experiences that provides a key to unlocking the mystery of Buddhism.  The strangeness of the account is such because the primary focus by Buddhist scholars and clergy has been mainly directed towards the most boring and uninteresting aspects of Buddhism.  In light of this, when was the last time you came across something like this in your Buddhist studies?

“From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties. Just as if a man were to draw a reed from its sheath. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sheath, this is the reed. The sheath is one thing, the reed another, but the reed has been drawn out from the sheath.' Or as if a man were to draw a sword from its scabbard. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sword, this is the scabbard. The sword is one thing, the scabbard another, but the sword has been drawn out from the scabbard.' Or as if a man were to pull a snake out from its slough. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the snake, this is the slough. The snake is one thing, the slough another, but the snake has been pulled out from the slough.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties” (Samaññaphala Sutta, Digha-Nikaya 2).

Generally, neither scholars nor Buddhist clergy wish to bring up a subject like a mind made body (manomayakaya) or share with you that the baby Buddha was born from Queen Mayadevi with a mind made body according to the Mahavastu.  The reason for this is very simple: they simply can’t explain it because their conception of Buddhism will not allow them to see Buddhism’s higher Mind as anything except their own mind which is hardly anything profound. 

By taking the path of Buddhism, one has to be open to the belief that when they read about the more profound elements of Buddhism, it is directed to adepts having already connected with Mind’s power which is purely animative rather than cognitive.  Such power is nothing ordinary and anyone who thinks it is, is not a spiritually developed person—and they have a lot to learn and not a lot of time to learn it.

Death is nirvana

Nihilism has taken possession of us when we believe that death is final.  When someone dies that it—there ain’t anymore.  In this respect, death is meant to annul our existence.  It is a zero sum game in other words.  Our good deeds and bad deed come to naught.  Even science assures us that there is nothing beyond death since we are the sum of our biological parts which, in time, will eventually stop working.

Death is the nirvana of nihilism.  The transcendent has no appeal for the nihilist nor does resurrection.  And perish the thought of an eternal Self!  Belief in a beyond such as heaven (or even a hell), or the continuity of consciousness after death are the last enemies of the nihilist.  There is nothing beyond death he avers.  That there is nothing is the bet of the nihilist; a bet he finds little risk in taking.

Where such nihilism is strongest, in which death is its nirvana, is in the rejection of out of body experiences (OBE) and near deathexperiences (NDE).  In the February issue of the journal Resuscitation (2001) a British scientist studying heart attack patients claimed he found evidence that strongly suggests consciousness survives operative after the brain has completely stopped functioning and a patient is clinically dead.  Of course, this is an anathema to the ears of the dedicated nihilist since the implication is that consciousness is continuous; moreover, it is independent of the body which means those who have had OBEs or NDEs might have a winnable case.

Of especial interest, why should there be such a strong objection to OBEs and NDEs?  It is surely not unreasonable to keep an open mind about whether or not consciousness is continuous or discontinuous in which it might possibly survive after the death of the body.  At least to my mind, this kind of skeptical response demonstrates the degree to which nihilism has taken possession of our time.  It simply cannot tolerate any thought of transcendency which would otherwise mean that death is a moment of transition from one state of being to another.  

Worth adding, I dare say that if nihilism takes possession of Buddhism, Buddhism is finished.  To a great extent, Western nihilists, including some Asians, have done their best to undermine the message of the Buddha with incorrect interpretations of no-self, nirvana, and emptiness which are not supported by the Buddha’s own words.