The Zennist

When Buddhism isn't Buddhism & chili beans ain't chili beans

Modern Buddhism is a Buddhism which tends to over placate.  By this I mean Buddhism placates insofar as it makes rather deep concessions to materialism having little or no awareness or compunction about doing so.  This leads me to suspect that those who are in the driver’s seat of contemporary Buddhism have little or no deep spiritual interest in Buddhism (which they should); who may even believe that Buddhism champions materialism.  

Let me further say, this thought is not far fetched on my part.  Look at what they teach in some of our junior colleges and universities.

“The Buddha’s psychological principles [are] derived logically from his materialist metaphysics.  Lacking soul or permanent entity, distinct individual personality is an impossibility.  What is mistaken for self is only a bundle of attributes (the senses and consciousness) held together temporarily as the spokes of a wheel are fastened around the hub” (World Civilizations, Volume 1, ninth edition, page 114).

How does this grab you?  Well, it grabs me the wrong way—by the short hairs as we used to say in the Navy.  I can envision, one day in the future, when Buddhism will be all about how to make samsara better, for example, by eating more fresh fruits and vegetables, sitting in meditation at least once a day, recycling, and learning to live in the moment as might a modern day Candide in Voltaire's novella, Candide, ou l'Optimisme.  And maybe we are already there.  I wouldn’t be surprised to learn this.

Placating, that is, making concessions to modern life, to a certain extent, can be tolerated I suppose.  Yes, it is okay to eat fresh fruits, and even meditate while you are driving your Honda Civic to work.  But should the very principles of Buddhism be tossed out which are primarily esoteric; which have to do with the attainment of enlightenment?  By analogy this is like getting rid of the chili in the chili beans but still calling the dish you serve, chili beans.  At some point somebody has to put a stop to this trend.  Indeed, not all change is good.  

Conventional self is a killer

Recently, some Buddhist scholars, based on textual evidence, have had to acknowledge at least a few positive uses of self by the Buddha.  This concession on their part takes the form of an empirical, conventional self or to be more precise, the person of physical appearance, feelings, thoughts, inclinations and awareness more technically, the Five Aggregates.

On the surface this looks hunky-dory.  The conventionalists allow self to be used in a very limited way no doubt thinking to themselves, “Yep, Buddhism has a self, but it is a conventional, nominal self.  It just stands for the Five Aggregates.”  However, below the surface, when you search through the Buddhist canon, there is something wrong with the theory of the conventional self especially when it is made to signify the Five Aggregates.  Let's use for our example the following passage which is taken from the Digha-Nikaya, ii. 100:

"Wherefore, Ananda, go along having Self as lamp [dipa], Self as refuge and none other refuge; having dhamma as lamp, dhamma as refuge, and none other refuge" (trans. Coomaraswamy & Horner). 

Now envision this.  The Buddha is dying from food poisoning or some other ailment.  We are supposed to believe, according to some Buddhist scholars and clergy, that he is telling his followers that after he has departed to the yonder shore of complete nirvana they should make their empirical, conventional self a refuge as well as the Dharma.  In other words, the Buddha is really telling his followers to make the Five Aggregates their refuge since there is no higher Self.  Said again, there are only these temporal aggregates which are yourself; which are your refuge, etc.  But this is balderdash.  And why?  Because the Five Aggregates—the conventional person—belongs to Mara or the killer who is better known as Mara the Evil One.  Here is the evidence from a translation by Bhikkhu Bodhi. 

“When there is form, Radha, there might be Mara, or the killer, or the one who is killed.  Therefore, Radha, see form as Mara, see it as the killer, see it as the one who is killed.  See it as a disease, as a tumor, as a dart, as misery, as really misery.  Those who see it thus see rightly.  
When there is feeling ... When there is perception ... When there are volitional formations ... When there is consciousness, Radha, there might be Mara, or the killer, or the one who is killed” (S. iii. 189).

In effect, the accepted view of Buddhism has the Buddha telling his followers, before he crosses over, to make Mara the Evil One a refuge as well has his teaching or Dharma!  Frankly, this makes the Buddha sound like someone who has a couple of screws missing.  By comparison, this would be like Jesus telling his disciples that after he has departed from them, to make Satan their comforter!

I know some will argue with my position.  And well they should, after all they’ve invested a major part of their life in nonsense and would be, I suspect, unfain to admit their blunder.  Nevertheless, my logic is not easily overturned.  A conventional self or personality cannot but otherwise stand for the Five Aggregates—and the Five Aggregates are synonymous with Mara, the killer; the Buddha’s adversary.

For those of us who have not bought into the sectarian no-self doctrine, we understand the Buddha told his followers to make the higher Self their refuge along with the Dharma and all that Dharma implies as ultimate reality and the teaching.  And shouldn’t a refuge be one which is perdurable instead of temporary?

The pure substance of Mind

If we sincerely wish to awaken from our sleep of ignorance, a sleep that causes us to transmigrate from one temporal container to another, we have to awaken to the nature or pure substance of Mind.  When we look at our ordinary thoughts we are ignorant of the fact that they are made of Mind.  For us they are just thoughts, nothing more.  This is because we haven’t as yet awakened to the luminous Mind of which they are composed.

The relationship of pure Mind to thought is illustrated by Fa-tsang’s Essay on the Golden Lion.  When Fa-tsang was explaining the recondite Avatamsaka Sutra to the Emperor, the latter became puzzled.  He couldn’t wrap his mind round what Fa-tsang was trying to teach him.  To help the Emperor, Fa-tsang used the statue of the golden lion that was guarding the palace hall, as a means of helping the Emperor grasp the essence of the Sutra.  

Of the substance or element represented by gold, which is really the luminous Mind, Fa-tsang described it as “clear, pure, all-perfect, and luminous.”  Tsang said it was the substance of the Dharma-nature.  It is never stained nor does it require purification.  There is no obscurity that this luminous substance cannot illumine.  

On the other hand, the ‘lion shape’, itself, Fa-tsang went on to explain, is devoid of gold, hence, its emptiness.  When we think about it, outside of the gold, the shape or form is really nothing.  The lion is an illusion.  Nevertheless, it is a creation of Mind which demonstrates Mind’s great inherent power to shape itself. 

Moving on, we can envision our thoughts to be like the golden lion and the pure, or luminous Mind to be like the gold from which our thoughts are made.  While it is easy to get the meaning of this, it takes almost a lifetime’s journey to get past the bewitching thought-shapes—and see the golden Mind!

Zen master Bassui (1327–1387) takes this up in much the same way but uses a different analogy.  (The following is taken from Thomas Cleary’s book, The Original Face.  My only change to Cleary’s translation has been to capitalize ‘m’ in mind.)

“This Mind is originally pure:  when the body is born, it shows no sign of birth; and when the body dies, it has no sign of death.  Neither is it marked as male or female, nor has it any form, good or bad.  Because no simile can reach it, it is called the enlightened nature, or Buddha nature.

Furthermore, all thoughts arise from this inherent nature like waves on the ocean, like images reflecting in a mirror.  For this reason, if you want to realize your inner Mind, first you must see the source of thoughts arising.  Whether awake or asleep, standing or sitting, deeply questioning what thing is your inner Mind with the profound desire for enlightenment, is called practice, meditation, will, and the spirit of the way.  Questioning the inner Mind like this is also called zazen.

One moment seeing your own Mind is better than reading ten thousand volumes of scriptures and incantations a day for ten thousand years; these formal practices form only causal conditions for a day of blessings, but when those blessings are exhausted again, you suffer the pains of miserable forms of existence” (p. 94).

Notice how Bassui treats the Mind as the substance.  Our birth body is just a form, like the form of the golden lion.  Turning to our thoughts, Bassui sees them to be like ocean waves in which Mind is the water element.  Bassui is absolutely correct in saying that one moment of seeing our own Mind is better than reading the entire Tripitaka.  

Zen is no non-sense Buddhism.  It strips away the superfluous.

A clever way to dodge our main task

Someone says, “I want to save the planet” and so I think to myself, has this person sufficiently first saved himself?  Our first duty, according to the Buddha, is to work out our own salvation with diligence.  This doesn’t mean deferring this task to some global project first and then when it is complete (most likely never) switch back to working out my own salvation.  

It makes more sense to say that our planet will be saved when we really begin to dump our outworn life harming values taking up, instead, a proper spiritual path that leads us to seeing our true nature.  I should mention, also, that it is possible to pursue a proper spiritual path, become a member of the Sierra Club, use energy saving light bulbs, recycle, and get rid of the gas guzzling SUV or pickup.

What I have noticed lately is that we are always trying to find some clever way to dodge our main task, that is, to work out our own salvation.  In fact, there are countless ways we can put off doing what, deep down inside, we know we should be doing.  If there is one diversion, there must be tens of thousands more.  This is also to say, I can always find some matter that requires my attention which means my spiritual practice has to be postponed again.

To make up a term on the spot, we have importantized and made essential, the nonessential which means we’re really living bizarrely.  We spend a great deal of our lives postponing engaging with the spiritual side of our being whence comes our real strength, intelligence, and wisdom.  Another way to picture this, we are like a country that lets its infrastructure fall into decay and disrepair choosing, instead, to indulge our desires all for the greater glory of our vanity. 

Zen made too simple

I blew the dust off of Zen master Joko Beck’s book, Everyday Zen (1998) and opened it to find I had underlined in green ink this part.

“Wisdom is to see that there is nothing to search for.  If you live with a difficult person, that’s nirvana.  Perfect.  If you’re miserable, that’s it.” (p. 151).

It came back to me why I had underlined it.  I thought Beck’s advice was off the wall and counterproductive—especially for a beginner.  Moreover, Beck’s remarks trivialized nirvana and the Buddhist notion of wisdom this being prajñâ.  

Perhaps Beck assumes that the Buddha’s teaching, which aimed at the beyond (param), which is treated as being synonymous with nirvana, is some kind of clever teaching strategy.  But what kind of strategy is it, in the context of religion, to tell a person that nirvana is simply about living with your ornery husband and your toddler?  Or that it is about being miserable?  It doesn’t make any sense; not if you’ve read much of the Pali canon and the major Mayahana Sutras.

So what’s going on here?  Why does someone like Joko Beck wish to oversimplify Zen Buddhism to the point where it has, essentially, nothing to do with the fundamental teaching of Zen or Buddhism in general?  

Unfortunately, I can only guess.  And one of my guesses is that Zen is easy to mistake for a religion that is telling us to live in the here and now while, at the same time, we must learn to accept things the way they are—not really changing but adapting.  

My next guess is that Joko Beck is presenting Zen as she sees it from her own personal history; not according to what the Buddha actually said or what Bodhidharma said, but what she finds in their teachings that chimes with her own set of ideas and values.  This, alone, is not a bad thing.  It becomes problematic when what Beck teaches and what the Buddha taught are not even on the same page.

There is always a human tendency to take what we find unfathomable, at the time, and attempt to simplify it—even oversimplify it.  But in religion, you can’t really do this because the religion is established on something other-worldly, of extreme subtlety.  Especially with Buddhism, the Buddha’s awakening sees what is truly deathless and untouched by suffering.  It is a profound reality (dharma); a very subtle reality (saddharma) of which he was reluctant to teach to us mortals.  He was also aware of the consequences of teaching such a profound and deep reality, in particular, that it might easily be misconstrued eventually leading to unforeseen problems down the road.

When you actually study the lineage of Joko Beck, namely, Sanbo Kyodan (Three Jewels Organization), reviewing its seminal text, The Three Pillars of Zen, by Philip Kapleau, the importance of Mind is gone over extensively in the section entitled, Bassui's Dharma Talk on One-Mind and Letters to His Disciples.  But in the subsequent works of Joko Beck, Mind is not treated in the same way Bassui treats it.  In fact, from what I can tell, it is not treated at all which is astonishing given that Mind is the centerpiece of Zen—at least Zen before it lands in the U.S.  Incidentally, Bassui (1327–1387) belonged to the Japanese Rinzai school of Zen who was celebrated as a religious genius (he surely was because of his emphasis on Mind).

For me, Zen master Joko Beck’s treatment of Buddhism and specifically Zen underscores how easy it is, once you are in a position of authority, to go your own way forgetting the fact that you were transmitted to carry forth your founder’s lineage, in the case of Joko Beck, Sanbo Kyodan.  You are only permitted to deepen the lineage, that is, to take its elements and enrich them—but not ignore them or oversimplify them.  I see very little evidence that Sanbo Kyodan Zen made any radical changes except to permit Zen to be more open to the lay population.  Given this, Joko Beck’s teaching is quite different as is the teaching of those whom she transmitted.

Mind left out in the cold

Pivotal to a deeper understanding of Zen’s message is grasping the importance of Mind (which I will capitalize when I use it in an absolute sense).  This is something the great majority of modern Zen teachers shy away from or remain in the dark about, having insufficiently studied the Buddhist canon and especially Zen literature.

When I heard my first lecture on Zen Buddhism in 1964 (I think that was the year), our teacher knew Dr. D.T. Suzuki well enough to have had ice cream with him, one of Dr. Suzuki’s favorite dishes.  In other words, the professor I was taking a class from  knew the subject of Zen Buddhism better than most of his peers.  The course was interesting to say the least.  I even went out and bought several books by D.T. Suzuki.  I read them hastily and enjoyably, although looking back, I didn’t learn anything profound about Zen.  During the class, the importance of Mind was never discussed.  Not a word.  

When I went on to study Zen with a teacher and living with him, did the importance of Mind come up?  No it did not.  I was basically being taught how to do funerals for the Japanese community in the U.S.

During this same period, it is important to keep in mind that in 1964 you could find John Blofeld’s two great books in most good bookstores.  The first was The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, published in 1958.  The second was The Zen Teaching of Hui Hai which was published in 1962.  In addition, in Fun Yu-lan’s A History of Chinese Philosophy, published in 1953, there is a good helping of material on Mind in volume II for the Zen student.  It wasn’t a difficult book to get a hold of in a library.  What I want to emphasize is that texts already existed before I took up Zen which were about Mind in Zen.  But the important place of Mind in these books was never given the great weight it deserved in Zen centers which were beginning to spring up in the U.S.  

What took possession of U.S. Zen was zazen.  Mind was left out in the cold while Zen practitioners fluffed up their zafus and sat in zazen.  At least one theory behind the growing popularity of zazen was that sitting, for as long as you could stand it, was getting you closer to enlightenment.  In this respect, it had appeal and selling power so that it could be easily marketed to the public.  

When I first caught a glimpse of Mind back in 1969 having been steered in the right direction by, of all people, a Nichiren Bishop by the name of Nippo Shaku, I was flabbergasted to realize what I had been missing, without which Buddhism—and Zen—made very little sense.  This realization, however, put me outside of mainstream Zen.  I could see that not only was modern Zen going fundamentally nowhere, but so was Buddhism, in general, if it didn’t grasp the importance of Mind.

Presently, a lot more material has been translated which addresses Mind.  I hasten to mention that Tibetan Buddhism has added its vast stores of knowledge about Mind (sems) to modern Buddhism, especially through the teachings of Mahamudra and Dzogchen.

While this is good news, much of Buddhism and Zen is still focused on meditation as if the only thing that the Buddha taught was zazen!  But in truth, meditation does little to bring us closer to seeing Mind—which has nothing to do with whether or not you sit or stand.  Meditation’s importance comes after one has attained a glimpse into Mind.  It is a way to remove the thick plaster of internal dialogue, picture thinking, emotional turbulence, and anxiety, so that Mind’s inherent luminosity becomes more apparent.

Maybe Buddhism is both

It is not infrequently mentioned that Buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion.  I might agree since the typical dictionary meaning of ‘religion’ has to do with a personal commitment to serving God.  In the Oxford English Dictionary the first definition of religion I read was this one:

“A state of life bound by monastic vows; the condition of one who is a member of a religious order, esp. in the Roman Catholic Church.”

Would I be wrong in harboring the opinion that Christianity has hijacked the word religion and made it its exclusive property?  I think not.  But it wasn’t always this way, not when I thumb through my old Cassell’s Latin Dictionary.  Spotting the word “religo” I found two good definitions.  The first one is respect for what is sacred.  The second one to catch my eye is respect for conscience.  

I have to admit both definitions seem adequate.  Both are universal enough to include Buddhism, yet specific enough to exclude any kind of irreligious notion or attitude.  

Philosophy, too, might be included under religion if we regard it as the love and pursuit of wisdom or truth which is fundamentally to be found through knowledge in oneself which is one of the Latin definitions of conscience found in the above mentioned definition of religion.  But now, let’s look at a rather remarkable definition of philosophy given by Hierocles of Alexandria who taught around 430 A.D.  It has much in common with Buddhism’s praxis.

“Philosophy is a purification and perfection of human life:  a purification from our irrational, material nature and the mortal form of the body, a perfection by the recovery of our proper happiness, leading to divine likeness.”

Using Hierocles’ definition of philosophy as a standard, Buddhism chimes philosophical.  It teaches purification and perfection of one’s true nature.  It also teaches purification from ignorance, conditioned existence, and from the Five Aggregates so that the Buddhist adept might eventually attain nirvana.

I think it is fair to conclude that Buddhism is not far from philosophy as was understood in Rome around 500 A.D.  It also falls within the scope of religion—at least religion as an educated Roman citizen might have understood the term.

Changing gears, I like the Latin definition of religion because I think it is important to have respect for what is sacred.  And there is much that we should regard as sacred, for example, our planet and all that lives upon it—and the very principle of life (prana) itself.  We should also regard ourselves as sacred if we strive, above all, to realize wisdom and truth; not just living, day to day, to acquire material possession and indulge in sensual pleasures. 

What I find unsettling with the modern definition of religion, in which God is made sacred, is that everything else, by implication, is not sacred.  And anyway, why should I hold God sacred?  I’ve never met the guy.  For all I know he is a figment of some prophet’s wild imagination.  At any rate, I choose to see the sacred as being potentially within me and in others.  The sacred also includes the earth and all its creatures.  This is a better definition of religion.

Heath care: for the benefit of all

Measuring the present U.S. social safety system by Buddhist standards, the greatness of a country is to be judged by how it uses its wealth, that is, whether it is used for the benefit of all or not.  

Turning back the pages of history, looking at the achievements of the great Indian Emperor Ashoka, third century BCE, who supported the central aims of Buddhism, we learn that he created an extensive social safety system for the benefit of his people and in fact, all creatures.  

Among Emperor Ashoka’s many humanitarian achievements, he built universities for the benefit of all.  He constructed roads and extensive water systems for such things as irrigation.  Perhaps most importantly, he created, by modern standards, an advanced health care system for all people, including animals.  Health care professionals were also trained to staff these facilities. 

With regard to health care for his people, no one can say of Emperor Ashoka that he was a friend of a for profit health care system.  It seems likely the thought never occurred to Emperor Ashoka that profiting off the misery of others was moral.  Of the vast wealth Ashoka controlled, it was used for the benefit of all—not just the rich or his family.  

When compared against Emperor Ashoka’s health care achievements, the U.S. appears to have very little humanitarian interest in using its great wealth to create a system of universal health care for all.  Indeed, such a lack of interest is one of America’s more shameful traits.

When we look back at the creation of Social Security Insurance and Medicare, U.S. history has shown there is always been an acrimonious war of ideology going on between the forces of capitalism and those who champion the exploited victims of capitalism.  But what this really boils down to is a continuing war in the American psyche between greed and compassion.  But perhaps there is hope when the forces of compassion are courageous enough to push back against those who want to profit from suffering.

Nets and traps

The most pressing goal of Buddhism, especially with regard to Zen, is to get a momentary glimpse into the luminous or pure Mind thus to experience it, directly, face to face (keep in mind that luminous Mind is interchangeable with other terms like One Mind, Unborn Mind, Buddha Mind, etc.).  

In order to do this, the Zen practitioner has available two tools, namely, Buddhist  scriptures and other forms of literature which can be likened to a huge set of very detailed road maps, and secondly, certain meditational practices.  In respect to the latter, the Zen practitioner uses meditation to remove the perturbations that are thickly plastered over the luminous Mind so that its clear light nature can be eventually disclosed. 

However, each of these tools is not without its problems.  Turning to Buddhist scripture it is easy to get drawn into metaphysics clinging to mere concepts as if such concepts were in actual possession of Mind.  What constitutes true reality, namely, the realization of the luminous Mind is thus taken up by means of fanciful thought determinations much like creating a great work of fiction which never gets off the pages but vividly lives in the reader’s mind. 

Turning to meditation, it can quickly turn into sitting for its own sake as if the longer one is able to sit (so the belief goes) the more likely they will return to their natural pristine nature, whatever that is.  But this is not the real purpose of meditation.  First of all, such a practice as just sitting can’t bring one face to face with the pure Mind.  Correct meditation is only intended to facilitate mind’s own interpenetration into itself such that as it goes into itself it must pass through its own phenomena, which are like vibrations, until only it remains. 

Both the tools of Buddhist scripture and meditation are not meant to be ends in themselves.  If one attempts to make the means the end they are hopelessly lost.  This is like keeping the fish net and forgetting the fish or clinging to the rabbit trap and forgetting to catch the rabbit.  

The whole point of studying Buddhist literature and practicing meditation is to catch the big mysterious fish of Buddha Mind—not to enshrine the Sutras at the expense of awakening or indulge in sitting meditation thus to remain clueless as to what actually animates this lump of flesh.

Is Buddhism right for you?

How do you know if Buddhism is right for you?  Okay, let me cut to the chase and say that Buddhism is right for you if you see that the life you have left to live is not going to be without suffering and, at the same time, you have a hunch that there is a transcendent path that leads beyond this world of suffering.  But also important, Buddhism is right for you if you can accept the fact that there is no creator God who is going to save you from your mistakes and suffering. 

The last part is especially important if you want to know if Buddhism is right for you because the idea of a creator God who runs the universe as he sees fit is an idea that was rejected by the Buddha since it goes against the way the world really is.  In fact, according to Buddhism God is unnecessary since the world is a phenomenalization of mind; mind itself being transcendent and absolute when cognized directly. 

In considering if Buddhism is right for you, you must accept that the search for the absolute that transcends suffering falls within you and is found and verified within you.  This can only be accomplished when mind’s perturbations have been sufficiently removed so that mind’s inherent luminosity comes forth which is mind’s disclosure of its absolute nature.  

In light of the above, to practice Buddhism involves a much different approach than is normally done in religions like Christianity.  This means that if Buddhism is right for you the approach to what constitutes ‘religious practice’ will involve chiefly respect for the place of mind and the varied processes entailed in its purification so that eventually your mind will become linked with Buddha Mind.

Understandably, in considering Buddhism, what I have presented here might seem too esoteric and unapproachable.  Nevertheless, this is what Buddhism is about.  But this shouldn’t bar anyone from practicing a part of Buddhism hopefully that one day they will grow into it.  The decision to take up Buddhism really involves a series of little steps.  However, it is also important not to delude yourself into believing Buddhism is like some pop cult which teaches you to be in the big Now as you enjoy every kind of sensory pleasure.  Far from it.  Buddhism to reiterate is a path of transcendence.  This especially entails transcending sensory craving; seeing pure Mind which is ever blissful and beyond the pale of suffering.