The Zennist

Looking within

Looking externally for enlightenment in the example of trying to find the perfect teacher, is more than often an exercise in futility.  While such an endeavor might soothe our mental discord for a limited period of time, actually seeing our Buddha-nature is seldom accomplished by external means such as finding the right teacher.  

What adds to the difficulty, making matters even worse, is that growing up in a culture of hucksters in which everyone is trying to sell you something, it is virtually impossible to tell who is spiritually accomplished and who is a huckster.  What should be obvious is that it is extremely easy to fake sagacity.  As one Rinzai Zen abbot told me several years ago who trained and lived in Japan running a small temple in Osaka, the task of being a good Buddhist priest is being able to pretend to be the Buddha for an hour!

Perhaps looking externally for enlightenment might be a form of psychological compensation hence serving to mask one's inability to ‘look within’ with any satisfactory result.

This leads me to say that looking within has nothing to do with finding teachers or even sitting in meditation with a group.  There is no evidence in the canon of Buddhism that the Buddha, when he was still a Bodhisattva, won enlightenment by doing zazen.  Meditation only helps facilitate the deeper spiritual and intellectual task of looking within.  

Perhaps the most puzzling part of uncovering our Buddha-nature or the same, our pure Mind, involves first understanding what it actually means to ‘look within’.  Somewhat on a lighter note, looking within is not about following our thoughts as if we were a member of the audience and our thoughts and emotions were like actors on a stage.  Looking within is much more subtle.  If you can imagine that our thoughts are like the images on our computer monitor, then looking within is trying to see the pixels.  Another way to put it.  If looking within were looking at a golden lion that was so intricately made it even had delicate golden hair and golden eyes that moved, the looking within would be like looking at the gold free of the mesmerizing image of the golden lion with its beautifully crafted parts.

Turning to our own thoughts, looking within involves seeing the Mind-stuff from which our thoughts and emotions are made which, incidentally, is animative.  By no stretch of the imagination is this easy.  This is why the Buddha in the Catusparisat Sutra said,  “The dharma obtained by me is profound, of deep splendor, difficult to see, difficult to understand, incomprehensible, having the incomprehensible as its scope, fine, subtle, the sense of which can only be understood by the wise.”

If only for a split second we could see the Mind-stuff, which is the basis of all phenomena, we would truly be amazed.  From the most insignificant thought to the universe itself, all is a product of Mind.  Nothing is apart from Mind—not a single thing. 

A Buddhist look at U.S. heath care

The present health care debate, which boils down to public need versus private greed, is representative of particular thoughts or manas as a system of compassion (karuna) versus particular thoughts as a system of cruelty which in Buddhism is regarded as the antithesis of compassion.  

Supplying some background, in Buddhism the Buddha understood that the outcomes or the events in our lives, and by implication our country, are the direct result of certain kinds of thoughts (manas); are led by certain kind of thoughts, and made up of entirely of thoughts (cp. Dhammapada 1).  

With the aforesaid in mind, if our health care system is inadequate for the many but works well for the few, this is the direct result of certain kinds of thoughts which lean heavily towards the selfish ideology of capitalism which was first defined by Louis Blanc in 1850 as the “appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others.”  Expanding on this, the government, over the years, has let the ideology of capitalism dominate its thinking so much so that it has turned over the health of a nation to profiteers.

However painful and anger provoking this might seem for those who unwittingly support capitalism’s ideology of greed in which our health care system is basically run by profiteers, they have no leg to stand when it comes to either history or conscience. 

First, as a matter of economic history, the U.S. economy was never based on capitalism but, instead, a modified form of mercantilism developed by Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay, the main elements of which consisted of high revenue and protective tariffs.  Accordingly, the economic good of the nation came first—not the high profits of the few at the expense of the nation which is the unfortunate situation the U.S. is in today.  

Turning now to the conscience of a nation, the present American health care system is clearly not predicated on compassion so much as it is predicated on cruelty, concisely defined as “indifference to the pain or misery of others.”  And what greater evidence of such indifference than 47 million Americans who lack health insurance while many go into bankruptcy because of a catastrophic illness in their family.  Add to this the high cost of private health care with its gross inefficiencies when compared to one of the best health care systems in the U.S. run by the Veterans Administration, and you have a clear-cut case that the U.S. health care system needs a radical overhaul to make it both compassionate and affordable.

Not good for religion

Is neuroscience good for religion?  Probably not.  Especially, if its agenda is to make minds and brains identical.  As a matter of fact, for some time the goal of neuroscience as been to get away from the dimensions of consciousness or mind and move to physical dimensions, preferably brain's this amounting to a single variable.  Neuroscience is, in effect, trying to prove that mind is not greater than the sum of the biological body’s physiology and anatomy.  This, in short, could end up being a hammer blow to Buddhism which rests on the knowledge that immaterial mind when fully realized is intrinsically free of the psychophysical (skandha) system—and the brain.     

In this direction, to make us believe that mind is not greater than the body, neuroscience is taking ordinary correlation and stepping it up to plausible identity.  Indeed, neuroscience lays out an identity theory that all mental states are identical with physical states.  For example, by means of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) neuroscientists can watch the red glow of fear waxing from a structure of the brain known as the amygdala, although they have no idea what the particular emotion of fear is about if they did an MRI on a frightened person who has told them nothing specific about their fears.   

And here before us is the essence of the identity theory, viz., that fear of losing my job, for example, and the physical change in the brain at the same time add up to identity which can only mean the brain is producing fear—with me being a hapless, fictional witness of this brain’s fear.  

However, it should also be pointed out that other parts of the body, too, can come under the identity theory.  Perhaps the stomach also creates fear since fear and gastrointestinal problems often go hand in hand!  I have seen stage actors run to the toilet to vomit just before their scene comes up they are so frightened.  Giving weight to this, the use of antacids is widespread in the U.S. which means that the gastrointestinal system is creating a lot of fear these days—if we are to believe in the identity theory.

In light of the above, the question can be raised, are minds and brains correlational rather than identical? The answer is yes.  Correlation always implies interdependence of two variables, for example, a column of mercury and ambient air temperature.  Between the two variables, namely, the mercury and the air temperature, we say there is an absolute correlation.  Still, this is not identity—and never can be.  The ambient temperature of the air in my laboratory and the mercury are not identical as any knave can see. 

From this, it begs the question that mind and brain are even in the same category.  First of all mind is not a physical object.  An object, that is a scientific object, must have shape and background.  If we assume that mind is a physical thing, it has neither shape nor background as might a table or or a human brain.  Mind, to be sure, is even difficult to define.  

Do we equate mind with Hegel’s Geist or spirit?  Is mind like Schopenhauer’s ‘will’ or Bradely’s ‘sentience’?  Is mind simply the soul?  If we turn to psychology for a plausible definition, is mind the conscious process including dispositions and predispositions which individualize and constitute our mind?  Does this same mind include capabilities such as intelligence, aptitudes, both innate and learned?

There is simply no way to conclude that the mind and brain are identical or the same, a single variable (in this case the brain).  Yes, there is correlation and we might add—absolute correlation—between our mind and our brain.  But still, even absolute correlation isn’t automatically, identity.

Thus far, it appears that religion is safe from neuroscience as safe as is mathematics and cosmology.  These fields of study, I need to say, don’t have physical objects either such as brains.  Things like space, time, force, mass, density, velocity, volume, etc., are metaphysical objects having neither shape nor background as might a physical object.  And still we worship mathematicians and cosmologists.

Lessons of piggy bank emptiness

If I take all the change out of my piggy bank what is left is the emptiness or shunyata of my piggy bank.  Now, if you shake my piggy bank you would probably say, “It’s empty” and you would be correct in your assessment.  But keep in mind, the piggy bank is still there.  It hasn’t disappeared into thin air.  It is just empty of non-piggy bank small change.

On the same track, if I empty out everything that is not pure Mind what I have left over is pure Mind, that is, its emptiness or just its suchness as Mind-only.  Let me add that even the act of emptying comes from pure Mind as it self-actualizes itself; returning to its native state of pure being.

Emptiness in this way is not a state of being like Mind.  It is a syncategorematic term meaning that it cannot stand on its own.  In other words, it must be joined to a categorematic term like piggy bank.  Still it can be argued that emptiness from Sanskrit shûnyatâ is an abstract noun which means it can stand alone.  But this is not so.  As an abstract noun it simply expresses the hollow (shûnya) condition of my piggy bank when it is empty (shûnya) of my small change.  This is not any different than saying, “The brightness of the signal flare was almost blinding,” brightness being an abstract noun which must be understood as brightness-relative-to-signal flare.

Tying this all together, the emptiness of my piggy bank is emptiness-relative-to-my piggy bank.  On the same track, turning to pure Mind, emptiness means no perturbations or signs are in Mind—just Mind itself.  The complete lack of perturbations or signs is thus emptiness-relative-to-Mind.  

The idea of a state of emptiness that is something concrete and categorematic doesn’t exist in Buddhism, at least in the Buddhism of the Pali Nikayas.  Especially in the Culasuññata Sutta (M. iii. 104) it is evident that the mind is being purified by the practice of negation or the same, the via negativa.  As far as the praxis goes, the monk is removing all that blocks or obscures the final realization of Mind in a state of incomparably highest emptiness (paramanuttarsuññata).  

As with the emptiness of my piggy bank, which means my piggy bank has no non-piggy bank things in it such as spare change, likewise the emptiness of Mind means that it is without wavelike agitations.  Its full, sheer luminosity is finally revealed.

Stuck on mundane awareness

Zen means awareness to such an extent that all becomes one. 
                                          —The Complete Idiot's Guide to Zen Living

Awareness is the state of being aware.  To be aware means to have cognizance or to know.  Even to be aware of awareness is still the same, to have cognizance.  In a way, we can describe awareness as bare consciousness—consciousness of the general state or quality of existing as a biological entity.  

When I am cold I am aware of being cold.  My body begins to shiver.  I think to myself, "I can't wait to get back to the cabin by the warm fire."  If I am in pain or angry I am aware of pain and anger. I find it hard to escape from pain without medications.  Such awareness is connected with the physical body and my mental life.  But in no way should this awareness be confused with our Buddha-nature; nor is being aware of awareness the enlightenment of Buddhism as some Buddhist are inclined to believe.

What is more important to understand about awareness is there is a lot of which I am unaware.  For example, I have no awareness of my Buddha-nature or the pure, luminous Mind.  I have no awareness of what is beyond the pale of the Five Aggregates.  Generally speaking, I am only aware of sensory matters and of course the Five Aggregates such as physical shapes, sensations, conceptions, dispositions and yes, I am aware of being also conscious.  In sum, this is ordinary awareness.  By this I mean there is yet no awareness of the transcendent.  

Directly tied in with this, if some today in the popular circles of Zen believe that Zen is just awareness they’ve missed the big Dharma boat to the other shore. They can’t possibly come to any cognizance or realization of the Buddha-nature or the pure Mind.  In a word, they’re stuck on mundane awareness—and this ain’t Zen.

Zen, 2009

Modern Zen is so modern it doesn’t require any help from classical Zen, classical Zen being anything prior to 1900.  For all you romantic Zennists who imagine Zen is about awakening to Huang-po’s “One Mind” forget it!  Zen has a new goal, it is to be in the moment and thus to be the real you.  Of course this could change in another year or two.  But for now let’s put it this way, liberation is to see the highest reality is this moment.  This moment isn’t born nor does it persist or perish it just moments!  

To keep Buddhism current with 2009, perhaps we need to also change Buddhist history slightly.  The official 2009 version, to be brief, should go something like this.   The Buddha-to-be (the Bodhisattva) drank the maiden Sujata’s magical drink, Madhupayasam, then made his way to the Bodhi-tree and became the fully awakened Buddha by simply realizing this moment was it.  (Forget all the crap in the Pali canon and the Mahayana canon, especially the Avatamsaka Sutra which deals with the Buddha’s awakening!)

I need to underscore this, 2009 Zen doesn’t require any validation from the past.  So don’t expect any citations from the Pali canon or the Mahayana canon.  It can do what it wants.  And while it is true that neither the Buddha nor the great Zen masters of the past said liberation consisted of being the moment we should, according to 2009 Zen, just ignore this fact and the canon.  Anyone is backwards who doesn’t believe that Zen’s great liberation is to see the reality of this moment.  

For all of you Zen romantics who refuse to go along with this you have only one course of action to take, continue visiting this blog and other like blogs and Internet sites that teach about something other than the moment, for example, the Buddha Mind, the Unborn Mind, the One Mind, the Dharmadhatu, the Tathagatagarbha, or the foundational Buddha-nature.  

In the meantime expect Zen, followed by Buddhism, to become something it never was when we compare what is taught today with the canon itself.  By the way, the Buddha called this the counterfeit teaching.  It marked the end of the true teaching.

Meditation and the placebo response

How much of zazen’s psychological benefit really stems from the so-called placebo response?  Keep in mind that the placebo response is quite powerful and constant often being underestimated in its overall effectiveness.  Psychologist Fredrick Evans describes its therapeutic effectiveness.

“In other words, the effectiveness of a placebo compared to standard doses of different analgesic drugs under double-blind circumstances seems to be relatively constant.  This is indeed a rather remarkable and unique characteristic for any therapeutic agent!  The effectiveness of the placebo is proportional to the apparent effectiveness of the active analgesic agent.
It is worth noting that 56% effectiveness ratio is not limited to comparing placebo with analgesic drugs.  It is also found in double-blind studies of nonpharmacological insomnia treatment techniques (58% from 13 studies) and psychotropic drugs for the treatment of depression such as tricyclics (59% from 93 studies reviewed by Morris & beck, 1974) and lithium (62% from 13 studies reviewed in Marini, Sheard, Bridges & Wagner, 1976).  Thus, it appears that placebo is about 55–60% as effective as active medications, irrespective of the potency of these active medications” (E.L. Rossi, The Psycholobiology of Mind-Body Healing, 16).

 

Reviewing some of what the placebo response has been most effective with it includes hypertension, stress, cardiac pain, headaches, adrenal gland secretion, diabetes, colitis, menstrual pain, thyrotoxicosis, the common cold, fever, asthma, multiple sclerosis, just to name a few of the modern maladies.

 

It is not unusual after several weeks of doing daily zazen for a typical practitioner to notice a general clearing up of their former malaise.  We need to keep in mind that zazen is the preeminent mind recharging exercise which can, to some extent, reboot the body’s invisible homeostatic system.

 

I would hope that some Zen centers and researchers take up a study of zazen and its possible connection with the placebo response.  I think zazen offers more than just helping us feel good for a while.  In fact, its true benefit all along may have been to induce the placebo response as no other exercise can do.  On this line of thought, in the future we might see zazen and certain Tibetan Vajrayana practices incorporated to bring about the maximum placebo response which no drugs can possibly hope to do. 

 

 

 

Science and religion

Some are asking the question these days, “Are science and religion compatible?”  Well, frankly, I didn’t know there was any problem between science and religion in general.  In fact, I am no quite sure what is meant by the word ‘science’.  Like the word ‘religion’, science has a lot of differnt meanings.  Some are quite novel.

In Johnson's Dictionary (1836) by Samuel Johnson, Science is defined as follows: “knowledge, art attained by precepts; the seven liberal arts are grammar, rhetorick, logick, arithmetick, musick, geometry, astronomy.”

Turning to more familiar definitions, according to Clerk-Maxwell science “is that department of knowledge which relates to the order of nature.”.  This definition is pretty terse—maybe too terse. It lacks the notion as the great philosopher Hegel might say.  

According to Niels Bohr, “the task of science is both to extend the range of our experience and to reduce it to order.”  Okay.  Not bad Niels. 

Next we turn to Einstein who says, “The object of all science, whether natural science or psychology, is to coordinate our experiences and to bring them into a logical system.”  Not bad, either.  He adds at bit more to the definition of science than Bohr.

Nosing through a few more books I found this definition of science.

“Science refers to those systematically organized bodies of accumulated knowledge concerning the finite universe which have been derived exclusively through techniques of direct objective observation. The content of science, then, consists of organized bodies of data. These data are acquired, checked, and verified through techniques of direct observation. The data are organized within various schemes or systems of interrelated conceptual propositions” (Lachman, The Foundations of Science, 15).

As the reader can see, this definition is not without its problems.  The problematic phrase as I see it is: “direct objective observation”.  To get to the point, a lot of things like space-time curvature, super strings, black holes, and the big bang haven’t been objectively observed.  They are still in the category of fiction, that is, what could or might be.  As for the “organized bodies of data” what is this supposed to mean? Taxonomies are just ways of categorizing things we don’t really know much about but like to think or imagine we do.  

Next, according to Masakata Ogawa science is "a rational perceiving of reality".  Ogawa, in fact, argues that there are many different legitimate sciences.  I think Ogawa is on the right track.

The esteemed Oxford English Dictionary gives the following as the definition of science.

“The state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something specified or implied; also, with wider reference, knowledge (more or less extensive) as a personal attribute.”

The definition of science from the O.E.D. has sufficient latitude to include even religious gnosis such as the Buddha’s awakening or sambodhi.  If we accept Schleiermacher’s definition of religion that “All religion expresses itself in such an awareness of something outside and beyond nature” then a direct cognition of that something beyond nature counts as science.  There can be hardly any dispute on definitional grounds.  

Those who might argue against this argue from the point of view of the other sciences, for example, the physical sciences whose objects of study fall within nature.  Of this pack, the so-called physicalists are the most rabid who believe that reality can only be expressed in terms of physical properties and laws—beyond this, one is dealing with Leprechauns.

In my estimation, who is generally nosing around in Buddhism and challenging some of Buddhism’s major tenets like rebirth are the physicalists.  We Buddhists, from what I can gather, are supposed to turn over our religion to these ideologues as if Buddhists for thousands of years have been fools, only getting a few things right.  Well it is not going to happen.  Buddhism is a science just as psychology is a science.  For anyone who has ever cognized the luminous Mind, which is pretty much the overarching goal of Buddhism, it is certainly very real and beyond nature, or the same, samsara.

The ego is the good guy?

On the subject of ego in Buddhism, first of all, I am not going to call anyone an under educated dolt for using the term ego in a negative, derogatory way.  However, on that previous note, it hardly shows any intelligence to use ego in a way it was never intended to be used or to imply that the concept of ego was known by early Buddhists.  Let’s start with the last, first.  I think this quote from Mrs. Rhys Davids sums up all that can be said about the notion of ego in Buddhism.

“Remember that our modern oddly depreciated idea of "self" and selfishness as "egoism" did not exist for the Indian of old, any more than it existed for say, Samuel Johnson.  The modern Buddhist as more or less learnt this from us.  The self as egoistic is practically non-existent in Buddhist Suttas.”

Anyone who has gone through the Pali Nikayas finds almost nothing that might remind them of the modern notion of ego that was arguably popularized by Freud.  So what did the good doctor mean by ego?

“In popular language, we may say that the ego stands for reason and circumspection, while the id stands for the untamed passions” (New Introductory Lectures).

Whoops!  That doesn’t fit too well with the way ego is used in a modern day Zen center which is treated in a pejorative way.  Here is still more from Freud.

“The ego has taken over the task of representing the external world for the id, and so of saving it; for the id, blindly striving to gratify its instincts in complete disregard of the superior truth of outside forces, could not otherwise escape annihilation” (New Introductory Lectures).

The ego sounds like the good guy if you ask me.  The ego here is more like a Bodhisattva trying to save the intoxicated id from its own self-destructive tendencies.

Frankly, in my humble opinion, the negative use of ego smacks of cult dynamics, in particular, depersonalization.  Indeed, there is a lot to be gained by depersonalizing students, and by the use of other brainwashing techniques if you are a Zen teacher whose authority comes by way of a certificate which, itself, rests on no actual authority since the Buddha never transmitted his teaching to a successor.  Incidentally, the stories of having transmitted to a successor are apocryphal.  Period.  In point of fact, the Buddha in the Avatamsaka Sutra even said  great disciples like Mahakasyapa “were not capable of perpetuating the lineage of Buddhas.” (One wonders how this particular section of the Gandavyuha chapter has gone unnoticed for so long?)

Turning to the Four Noble Truths, the cause of suffering is not the ego at all—nor the atman.  In particular, the cause of suffering is craving the Five Aggregates which are not the self (anatma).  In other words, it is craving that which is not our true self which causes suffering.  This is not too far from Freud who saw the problem as being not with the ego but, instead, the id.

Roots of the Bodhi-tree

From the beginning of Indian civilization the Bodhi-tree or the same, the ashvattha tree, was believed to be endowed with supramundane qualities.  Gautama, the Buddha, attained enlightenment under the ashvattha tree.  Other Buddhas attained enlightenment under different trees like the sirisa tree and even bamboo.

 

A side note, the oldest canonical works of Buddhism make no mention of such a tree.  The Bodhisattva, i.e., the Buddha-to-be, instead, found a peaceful stretch of land on which to pursue enlightenment.

 

It is in the Digha-Nikaya of the Pali canon that we find explicit reference to the ashvattha tree under which Gautama (P., Gotama) won Buddhahood.

 

Connected with the ashvattha tree, in the canonical literature it is mentioned that the Bodhisattva sat on the Bodhimanda (i.e., bodhi-essence) which surrounded the Bodhi-tree.  Supposedly the Bodhimanda marks the center of the earth, otherwise familiar to us as the axis mundi.  Incidentally, we also learn that the Bodhimanda is devoid of growths which carries with it certain symbolic meanings.

 

The ashvatta tree is mentioned, too, in the Katha Upanishad making it related to Brahmanism.  It is an inverted tree, meaning that the roots are above and the branches are below.  Brahman is also the ground of the ashvattha tree which strikes us as being somewhat like the Bodhimanda.

 

“This is the eternal Ashvattha Tree with its root above and branches below.  That root, indeed, is called the Bright; That is Brahman, and That alone is the Immortal.  In That all worlds are contained, and none can pass beyond.  This verily, is That” (II. iii. 1).

 

“Whatever there is—the whole universe—vibrates because it has gone forth from Brahman, which exists as its Ground.  That Brahman is a great terror, like a poised thunderbolt.  Those who know It become immortal” (II. iii. 2).

 

Least some Buddhists think the Buddha had nothing whatsoever to do with Brahman (those who don’t read the Pali canon) this following passages from the Pali canon might be of great interest.

 

“Formerly I was deluded: now delusion exist no more: that is good.  Thus in this very life he is free from craving, he is released, he has become cool: he, by the self (attanâ), abides (viharatî) in experience of bliss (sukha), by becoming Brahma (brahmabhûtena)” (A. i. 197).

 

“The Lord knows what should be known, sees what should be seen, he has become vision, become knowledge, become dhamma, become Brahma, he is the propounder, the expounder, the bringer to the goal, the giver of the Deathless, dhmma-lord, Tathagata” (M. i. 111).

 

However a few modern scholars who have tried to cut Buddhism’s ties with Brahmanism can’t dispute the popularity of the term “Brahma” used throughout the Pali canon and that the term is never used in a bad light—in fact, quite the opposite.  On this subject Jennings writes, in his book, The Vedantic Buddhism of the Buddha: 

 

“It should never be forgotten that Buddhism is a reformed Brahmanism, as is evidenced by the invariably honorific use which Gautama makes of the title ‘Brahmin’ and it therefore takes for granted certain Vedic or Vedantic postulates.  The background of Buddhism, as that of Brahmanism, is Brahma, the impersonal divine unity underlying and harmonizing all individualities, all egoism, all difference, and all strife.”