The Zennist

A serious spiritual division

Although it is hardly mentioned, there is a very serious spiritual division in the world of Buddhism.  While the public assumes such a division is between those who elect to become monks or nuns and the non-monastic followers of the Buddha, the actual division is a spiritual one.  

This particular spiritual division is between those who are aryan, oftentimes translated ‘noble’ as in noble disciple (P., ariya-savaka, trans. noble disciple) and the prithagjana (P., puthujjana), translated as ordinary or run-of-the-mill person.  

To digress a little, some of the confusion between the noble and the ordinary person lies, I speculate, with the problem of rendering Sanskrit or Pali into equivalent English.  To say the least, something gets missed in the translation—and this something is substantial.  What the English should hint at is the difference between aryan and prithagjana is akin to saying of this group it is the chosen ones and the other, the damned.

When we consider the real meaning of aryan, perhaps the simplest way to explain the depth of the spiritual division is the aryan or ariya-savako, in Pali, realizes that their self is not anyone of the Five Aggregates.  In other words, they don’t identify with form or shape, feelings, perceptions, habitual tendencies, or even consciousness.  This is evident from the following:

“But monks, an instructed disciple [ariya-savako] of the pure ones...regards material shape as: ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self;’ he regards feeling as:  This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my  self;’ he regards perception as: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my  self;’ he regards the habitual tendencies as: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my  self;’ he regards consciousness as: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my  self.’  And also he regards whatever is see, heard, sensed, cognised, reached, looked for, pondered by the mind as: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my  self’” (M. i. 136).

Again, from another canonical source.

“There is the case, monk, where a well-instructed disciple [ariya-savako] of the noble ones—who has regard for nobles ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma—does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He does not assume feeling to be the self... does not assume perception to be the self... does not assume fabrications to be the self... He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness” (M. iii. 18).

These passages are unambiguous: the aryan’s self is not the Five Aggregates.  

Turning now to the prithagjana or in Pali, puthujjana, they deeply believe they are the Five Aggregates—this is their self, in other words. 

“In the same way, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person [puthujjana] regards form as: 'This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.' He regards feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as: 'This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.' If he walks, he walks right around these five clinging-aggregates. If he stands, he stands right next to these five clinging-aggregates. If he sits, he sits right next to these five clinging-aggregates. If he lies down, he lies down right next to these five clinging-aggregates. Thus one should reflect on one's mind with every moment: 'For a long time has this mind been defiled by passion, aversion, & delusion.' From the defilement of the mind are beings defiled. From the purification of the mind are beings purified” (S. iii. 151).

Least we are of the opinion that this spiritual division is not substantial, no prithagjana or ordinary person has ever won enlightenment.  So long as they believe that their self is the Five Aggregates they are doomed and forever fixed to the wheel of samsara.  Until one knows a hundred percent that their self is not the Five Aggregates, they are not even included in the Triple Gem Sangha!

This brings up an interesting thought.  If I know that my self is not anyone of the Five Aggregates, isn’t the doctrine of no self, frankly, implausible?  Surely, one can’t argue that not identifying with the Five Aggregates means one has no self!  Holding on to this thought, that the aryan is not aggregated, it can only mean that the aryan is, intrinsically, what the Five Aggregates are not which is logically the self!  This is as good as checkmate concerning sects which claim the Buddha categorically denied the self or atma. 

Looking at the perfection of wisdom

Negating what is not me, to arrive at the essential me or negating what is changing to arrive at the unchanging, is much different than describing who I am and what is unchanging.  Turning to the first part, that is, removing what is not me or the same, what is not my self, is the path that characterizes important levels of praxis oriented Buddhism.  The second part is the Western path which tries to reach the absolute truth by guesswork by positing, as it were, a multitude of hypotheses.

Buddhism, it can be stated for obvious reasons, is not interested in the Western approach.  It simply doesn’t go far enough.  It is too content to tarry with thoughts, seemingly unaware that thought, itself, is an artifact of something primordial which is unthinkable and completely substantive.  

In Buddhism, the fundamental stuff or substance (prakriti) of all things is mind which defies conventional explanation meaning that it can only be hinted at which makes the whole subject esoteric.  As a matter of fact, the only way to reach mind is by means of deep meditation removing, as a matter of negation (via negativa), both external and internal phenomena, such as our thoughts, arriving at unremovable Mind which is our original nature; which is transparently luminous.  

This leads us to the Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra.  The perfection of wisdom (prajna) commences with direct insight into luminous Mind this being Bodhicitta (the life of a Bodhisattva begins with Bodhicitta).  Subsequently, we come to learn this Mind cannot be apprehended by our awareness or by any of the Five Aggregates which are all illusory.  Nor is Mind something that can be determined by way of thought or metaphysical speculation.  

During the practice of the perfection of wisdom, the luminous Mind becomes progressively more outshining while the phenomenal side of being loses its influential power over the Bodhisattva as he advances.  The Buddha says that the Bodhisattva “does not train in any phenomenal thing (dharma) at all” since things do not actually exist the way ordinary people perceive them to exist.  On this same track, the Buddha says ordinary people do not “see the path which is that which truly is” thus they are unable to wake up to the bhûtakoti (the true end).

The Buddha in the same Sutra says that the Bodhisattva should not develop any position with regard to the Five Aggregates: not on physical shape, feelings, conceptions, inclinations, consciousness; not on the senses either or their respective fields.  Fundamentally, perfect wisdom or prajnaparamita does not rely on any of the Five Aggregates nor yet is it other than they since in truth these aggregates are product of Mind which perfect wisdom, beginning with Bodhicitta, discloses.  This is difficult for many Buddhists to understand who seem mystified by the paradox contained within such Sutras.  This is cleared up much more in the Lankavatara Sutra in which Mind is treated as the ultimate substance of the universe; everything else is a phenomenon.

Transcending God

Does this title sound strange?  God is believed by many to be the big cheese of the universe—the supreme galactic master of all.  Some believe God also created this planet which, I hasten to add, is not the best of all possible worlds.  It has a lot of problems.  There is too much gravity for one thing.  The geology is unstable, the life forms could have been better designed.  The list goes on of the imperfections.  But most of all, God treats his creations horribly.  One is forced to conclude that God is really one twisted deity who should be retired like all the gods of the past.

We really need to seriously think about transcending God.  Theology has outlived its usefulness if it ever was useful at all (which I can’t imagine it was).  I am willing to bet that of the three hyper-evolved civilization types described in the Kardashev scale, all have transcended the idea of a God.  We can even imagine a hyper-evolved civilization where beings no longer inhabit finite, temporal bodies; who are not even bound to a planet or solar system.  We might consider these beings to be Buddhas or Buddha-like.  

Under this consideration, keeping in mind that the substance of the universe is a self-evolving medium which, figuratively speaking, more or less pulls itself up by its own bootstraps, evolution would complete itself when the medium recognizes all phenomenal externalizations to be itself.  Such an arrived at state of being is not, however, theological—nevertheless it is absolute.  

Such an evolutionary trajectory doesn’t depend upon the fictions of prophets but, instead, begins with our own suffering (a kind of acute disharmony) and our seeking of its cause—just as Siddhartha did before he became a Buddha.  What the Buddha discovered, in a nutshell, is that our craving of the corporeal body of birth causes us to get sympathetically locked into the world of suffering which is very difficult to reverse.

Yet, with such a dark cloud there is a silver lining.  Each living creature or sattva is, at its core, the universal substance and medium of Mind which is naturally free.  Each creature can also advance beyond the veiling non-knowledge (avidya) of Mind and its ultimate freedom and become a Buddha or at least win rebirth in higher worlds.  

From this we may conclude that no creature need be a puppet of a creator God who, depending on how he feels at the time, might make his creatures feel bliss or woe as he sees fit, in the example of Job from the Old Testament who is mercilessly tortured by Satan at the orders of God.

Different dharmas

Among its many uses, dharma can mean ultimate reality or truth.  Thus, it makes sense to us when the Buddha makes this well known statement:  "He who sees dharma sees me, he who see me sees dharma" (S. iii. 120).  The reason we are sure this is the right meaning of dharma, at least in this context, is because the Buddha is said to have realized the dharma, i.e., the truth or ultimate reality, upon his awakening.

“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” (Catusparisat Sutra).

Almost conversely, dharma can refer to finite things, mental states, or qualities.  Accordingly, anything that is an effect or, the same, dependently originated is also a dharma.  In the Mahahatthipadopama Sutta Sariputta attributes the following saying to the Buddha, himself: 

“He who sees dependent arising sees dharma; he who sees dharma sees dependent origination” (Ps II 230).  

In the above, the dharma is not truth or ultimate reality or nirvana.  It something else.  It is something finite—an effect.  This dharma will also pass away since its nature is inadequate to the real Dharma which is never originated so that it cannot pass away.

After the Buddha realized the real Dharma (not the finite one) he attempted to teach his followers the Dharma by the dharma, dharma now meaning the body of teachings.  He likened this dharma, or the body of teachings, to a raft which is instrumental in crossing a great stretch of water to the yonder shore which is secure.

“Monks, as a man going along a highway might see a great stretch of water, the hither bank dangerous and frightening, the further bank secure, not frightening, but if there were not a boat for crossing by or a bridge across for going from the not-beyond to the beyond, this might occur to him: `This is a great stretch of water, the hither bank dangerous and frightening, the further bank secure and not frightening, but there is not a boat for crossing by or a bridge across for going from the not-beyond to the beyond. Suppose that I, having collected grass, sticks, branches and foliage, and having tied a raft, depending on that raft, and striving with hands and feet, should cross over safely to the beyond?' Then, monks, that man, having collected grass, sticks, branches and foliage, having tied a raft, depending on that raft and striving with his hands and feet, might cross over safely to the beyond. To him, crossed over, gone beyond, this might occur: 'Now this raft has been very useful to me. I, depending on this raft, and striving with my hands and feet, crossed over safely to the beyond. Suppose now that I, having put this raft on my head, or having lifted it on to my shoulder, should proceed as I desire?' What do you think about this, monks? If that man does this, is he doing what should be done with that raft?”

“No, Lord.”

“What should that man do, monks, in order to do what should be done with that raft? In this case, monks, it might occur to that man who has crossed over, gone beyond: 'Now, this raft has been very useful to me. Depending on this raft and striving with my hands and feet, I have crossed over safely to the beyond. Suppose now that I, having beached this raft on dry ground or having submerged it under the water, should proceed as I desire?' In doing this, monks, that man would be doing what should be done with that raft. Even so, monks, is the Parable of the Raft dhamma [dharma] taught by me for crossing over, not for retaining. You, monks, by understanding the Parable of the Raft, should get rid even of (right) mental objects, all the more of wrong ones” (M. i. 134-135).

The Buddha, of course, didn’t mean for the man to leave the further shore of nirvana which had just reached which was the Dharma.  He meant for him to set aside the teachings and disciplines which were instrumental in getting the man to the safety of nirvana.

We can see that dharma has a number of different meanings.  We have to be careful how we read the words of the Buddha.  For example, when we read the following passage from the Lotus Sutra we have to understand that "all dharmas" refers to dependently originated things which are finite and subject to destruction.

“He who knows these things and that all dharmas have the nature of illusion and dreams, that they are pithless as the stem of the plantain, and similar to an echo; and who knows that the triple world throughout is of that nature, not fast and not loose, he knows rest.”

A voyage on the ship of modern Buddhism

Without an ultimate refuge from suffering, Buddhism’s cure for suffering, by default, is basically learn to accept suffering which implies that death is final (i.e., there is no nirvana).    

Of the many years I’ve spent in Buddhism visiting other Buddhists, reading and listening to what they have to say, it is my hunch that some of these Buddhists propose, in a round about way, that we should just accept suffering.  In their minds, no transcendence or ultimate refuge is necessary or even possible since death is the actual end.

When I think about this, I envision a great ship sailing on a stormy ocean.  It is believed by the captain and his crew that the ocean is without land.  Next, the passengers have been told that land will be found eventually.  In the meantime, they must have faith in the captain who knows where this land is, which will be a refuge from this frightening ocean.  

During the voyage, the duty of the crew is to help the passengers calm down.  The crew teaches the passengers how to meditate as an effective way to relax them.  What the crew doesn’t tell the passengers is they all will eventually drown in the waters of this raging, cold ocean.  But thankfully, they will never be reborn because death is final.

Modern Buddhists are not unlike these passengers who have a great deal of faith in the teachings of the Buddha and their modern teachers.  But what they don’t know is the teachers—many of them—have never reached the other shore, or remain skeptical that Buddhism has an actual other shore.  

As a consequence, modern Buddhists are never taught exactly how to transcend suffering; moreover, that deep within them, if they can cut through the veils of obstructing illusion, there lies the other shore, a place of eternal safety. 

Truth be known, many of their teachers are not unlike the captain of the aforementioned ship who, we come to learn, can’t read the maps he has.  In fact, he knows next to nothing about navigation.  He is just one of the passengers who decided that wearing the uniform of a captain might be exciting and earn him a lot of respect.

Buddhism and self-identity

Seeing into our Buddha-nature comes as the result of a long tenure with spiritual training.  But learning who we are, in a psychosocial sense, is much different.  The greater portion of it concerns getting beyond what psychologist Erik Erikson calls the stage of identity vs. role confusion (the 5th stage) to the higher stage of young adulthood (the 6th stage).  The essence of this can be found in Shakespeare's Hamlet in the scene where Polonius gives his son Laertes some fatherly advice who will travel abroad being on his own.  In this regard, memorable are the words of Polonius: "This above all: to thine own self be true.”

Failing to arrive at psychosocial identity in which one should have a psychosocial self to which they can be true is a serious matter.  As might be expected, not having achieved identity one is always in a continual state of role confusion and incompleteness; switching from one role to another trying to find out what works best.  This is somewhat akin to Freud’s ego which is supposed to establish the reality-principle but lacks sufficient power to control the id, as it must.   

All of this becomes intensely problematic when a lack of identity is pushed onto the world of Buddhism—Buddhism being expected to get one over the psychosocial mountains of role confusion.  But this may end up, however, turning Buddhism into something it is not.  It may also serve to obscure the real mission of Buddhism which wants us to see our Buddha-nature.  

Speaking now in light of my own observations over these many years, it is rare not to meet role-confused young adults who are struggling to join the adult world; who are still in a search for identity.  When such individuals enter the world of Buddhism, Buddhist teachers are often expected to correct past child rearing mistakes, almost magically presenting identity on a silver platter to those who are still role confused!

Well, Buddhism doesn’t work this way.  When entering into the world of Buddhism, foremost, one needs self-identity insofar as Buddhism by design appeals to reason and circumspection which are the main components of this self.  But if one is still intensely preoccupied with the questions of role as in, "Who am I, how do I fit in?  Where am I going in life?" they can’t be much good at accurately following the path of Buddhism which demands we acquire the aryan or noble vision.  

In more detail, the aryan vision consists in being able to noetically distinguish the temporal aggregates of body, feelings, thoughts, inclinations, and sensory awareness from the self (atma), or the same, our Buddha-nature.  Here, the self is not a psychosocial self.  It transcends it, that is, transcends the temporal aggregates just mentioned.  Whereas the normal adult self or ego continually works on behalf of the aggregates, to maintain their health and integrity, the higher self or Buddha self is removed from the fear, inherent in the aggregates and their dissolution.  It alone fully knows the end of suffering.  It is also our refuge, as the Buddha points out before his own aggregated body died.

The difference between Hinduism and Buddhism

What is the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism?  Stop!  Hold it.  Dumb question.  First, we need to go to Mr. Peabody's apartment and use his Wayback Machine (remember the The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show during the 60s?). We really need to do some serious fact checking.  

First, let's travel back to ancient India during the time of the Buddha where he was born, and ask some people there if they've ever heard of Hinduism.  Okay.  Done with that.  Nobody has ever heard of Hindu, Hindooism, Hinduism, etc.  

Next, lets go to the Oxford English Dictionary and see what they have to say about Hinduism.  Hum.  The only thing the dictionary says is Hinduism is “The polytheistic religion of the Hindus, a development of the ancient Brahmanism with many later accretions.”  I hasten to add to this, the word aappears to have entered into the English lexicon in 1829.  Now, I think we need to look up the word "Hindu".  Ah, found the definition of Hindu. Here it is. 

“An Aryan of Northern India (Hindustan), who retains the native religion (Hinduism), as distinguished from those who have embraced Islam; hence, any one who professes Hinduism; applied by Europeans in a wider sense, in accordance with the wider application of Hindustan.”

Wow!  Well, since the Buddha was born in Northern India, I guess that makes him kind of a Hindu dude even though the term Hindu is of European coinage and is never used in ancient India.  Nevertheless, I think we can safely conclude that Buddhism falls within the framework of Hinduism.  

Everybody really needs to stop asking the question, “What is the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism?It is almost like asking the question, “What is the difference between religion and Buddhism?”  Foremost, there is a lot of question begging going on when anyone straightaway assumes that Buddhism is neither Hindu nor, for that matter, even a religion.  

Perhaps more pertinent to this discussion, wouldn't it be better if we just dumped, altogether, the term “Hinduism” and just accepted the fact that Buddhism is an Indian religion?

While it has become commonplace to use the term Hinduism when referring to the religions of India with the exception of Buddhism, what the term signifies only begins in the nineteenth century when Western scholars began to study, seriously, the religions and customs of India of which they knew very little about at the time.

In all the worlds and universes

One cannot but be awed by the pictures which come from the Hubble telescope which has recently been upgraded.  No words can fully describe some of the pictures.

While this particular image at the left looks like something created from Photoshop it isn't.  This is one of 59 images that was released over a year ago by the Maryland-based Space Telescope Science Institute.

Seeing such beauty—and this is what it is—also seems to initiate in us a subtle desire to explore the profound; to know, in other words, what this all means and what am I in this mystifying universe.

Seeing such beauty also seems to prioritize things inside of us to some degree.  Perhaps now we are more open to the call from the beyond (P., parato ghoso) which summons us to attempt to lift the veil of appearance and look upon the creative substance of all from which even galaxies and solar systems are made.  This is, in fact, what the Buddha realizes upon his awakening as depicted in the Avatamsaka Sutra.  We could even say the Buddha merges with the creative substance of the universe, itself, which is his real body.  From a deeper reading of the Avatamsaka Sutra we get the impression that the whole of the universe is to be seen as a grand integrated matrix of spiritual forces which are always moving towards the fulfillment of awakening (buddha).

To get a sense of the immensity of the Buddha's vision from the perspective of his spiritual vision under the Bodhi-tree as he gazes upon the world this quotation from the Avatamsaka Sutra seems fit.

                               "By the blessings of Tathagata’s magic power,

                                In the ten directions I see every place

                                In all the worlds and universes

                                Pervading the vast expanse of space...

                                Some worlds of pure light are [made],

                                Suspended steadily in space...

                                Some are shaped like flowers,

                                Lamps adorned with jewels,

                                Some are vast as the ocean,

                                Spinning like a turning wheel...

                                Some are slender, some are small,

                                For they have countless forms—

                                And spin in various ways...

                                Some worlds are like a glowing wheel

                                A volcano...lion or a sea shell...

                                Infinitely different

                                Are their forms and shapes..."

If we think about these words uttered by Samantabhadra whose words are animated by the Buddha's spiritual power they poetically describe what the Hubble telescope sees as it looks deep into space.

Mind is not limited

The importance of Zen's “inheritance certificate” (ssu-shu) in the Sung Dynasty is not to be overlooked or underestimated.  It provided an aura of legal sanction.  Such certification is deeply connected with the “Mind to Mind transmission” (i-hsin ch'uan-hsin).  It serves to maintain an authorized branching lineage that begins with the Buddha’s transmission of Mind to Mahakashyapa who then transmitted it to Ananda and so on (Jeffrey L. Broughton mentions that a Zen encyclopedia published in Japan in 1979 contains a lineage chart of almost fifty pages).  

Somewhat of a digression, the transmission that we find in the Denkoroku and other similar works is a Sung Dynasty fabrication taken from various sources.  It is myth made to appear as history.  In the entire Pali canon, there is no mention of certification or a Zen lineage.  Another noteworthy fact concerns the early Ch’an record entitled Former Worthies Gather at the Mount of Shuang-feng Sutpa and Each talks of the Dark Principle.  What has to be noted here, of especial interest, is Dhyana Master Buddha followed by Reverend K’o who is always regarded as the  successor of Bodhidharma.  First, it needs underscoring that Dhyana Master Buddha is not Bodhidhara (in fact, Bodhidharma is nowhere mentioned in this record).  Master Buddha or Fo’s Indian name is Buddhabhadra (395–429 A.D.).  His tradition is more than likely Sthavira (known today as Theravada).  Also Dhyana Master Buddha was the first abbot of the Shaolin Monastery on Mount Sung.

Such certification brings with it a limitation of the Mind to Mind transmission which implies of Mind that it lacks the ability to confirm itself of which it must be capable if it is absolute truth.  As we consider this matter carefully, it implies that a lonely mendicant or rishi sitting in a cave meditating, who one day awakens to Mind, has not actually awakened to Mind (i.e., become enlightened) unless, of course, he gets his hands on a transmission certificate or forges one.  Incidentally, Dogen’s inheritance certificate he supposedly received from his teacher, Ju-ching, is believed to be a forgery (Steven Heine, Did Dogen Go to China?, 85n, 260).

Arguably, the strange requirement that one's enlightenment should be properly and legally certified assumes something about Mind that early, pre-Sung Zennists did not completely assume.  Commonsense dictates that Mind doesn't limit itself to being recognized only by someone who is in the Zen or Ch'an school of Buddhism.  Like the full moon above which can be seen by anyone who looks up, Mind can be intuited by anyone with a sincere desire to do so.

The ABCs of Buddhism

The ABCs of Buddhism begins with you, the sufferant, who is bearing some kind of painful burden.  The sufferant tries everything in its power to overcome present and future suffering.  The history of all the world's sufferants, however, has a rather dismal last chapter.  It says we will all die—some in extreme pain some not.  It also mentions that since we've already been born once there is no certainty we won't be born again.  Who knows, we could end up being reborn in some war torn country or reborn in some horrible state of being.  Fortune may not be on the side of the sufferant.  Right now this life is the only one we have.  More importantly, we can do something about suffering.

The Buddha’s teaching is remarkable because he discovered the problem of suffering and how to end it.  Foremost, he discovered that the sufferant and the body it bears are not one and the same thing.  The sufferant can actually be liberated from the body.  The sufferant, however, finds this hard to believe.  The sufferant believes, with regard to the psychophysical body, this body is mine, I am this body, this body is my true self.  This is unlike the Buddha who sees his relationship with the psychophysical body differently as, “This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.”  

The fundamental cause of suffering the Buddha discovered, in a nutshell, is craving.  Craving begins with the powerful belief that the psychophysical body is mine which then leads to “I am this body” and finally, “It is my self” which is not actually true.  As one might expect, distinguishing the bearer from their burden of suffering, which is the psychophysical body we inherit at birth, is no easy task.  As a matter of fact, it is almost an impossible task to discern between pain and the one who bears the pain because the sufferant, i.e., the bearer, craves the body.

In order to liberate the sufferant the Buddha, to facilitate the process of first discerning the psychophysical body of suffering from the bearer who craves such a body, breaks down the body into five aggregates.  They are as follows:  physical form, feelings, thoughts, inclinations, and consciousness or the same, sensory awareness.  The Buddha then teaches that each aggregate is impermanent, suffering, and not actually our self.  

The fact that one might be able to distinguish themselves fully and completely from the psychophysical body of suffering thus to attain complete liberation certainly counts as a pivotal discovery made by the Buddha which he tried to teach to his followers.  

But perhaps just as important, the Buddha realized that the primary medium and substance of all existence is mind (citta) which is never truly embodied but nevertheless can bind itself to the psychophysical body.  In fact, it was during his awakening that the Buddha awakened to the full nature and power of mind which can bind itself to a self-caused cycle of perpetual suffering or free itself.  Accordingly, the Buddha was able to pass beyond this shore (i.e., the psychophysical dimension) to the highest other shore in which he saw mind in an utterly purified state of being which is naturally free from any possibility of psychophysical bonding leading to rebirth.  This state he accomplished by introspective meditation purifying his mind until he beheld its deathless element, that is, nirvana.

Knowing the real nature of mind, the problem of suffering arises when as mind we blindly crave phenomena beginning with the psychophysical body we engage with in our mother’s womb.  Strongly connecting with it we have, over the years, become gradually enshrouded in it losing the basic sense of unbodiedness which is mind’s natural state.  This can further be envisioned as a higher vibration getting pulled down into a lower one.  This happens, for example, when atoms combine into molecules. The vibratory rate of the atoms decrease.

It is important to understand that as mind when we lock onto the psychophysical body by craving, being always in sympathy with it, we also lock on to its torment and thus come to suffer its fate, sympathetically.  On the other hand, when as mind we see by introspective meditation that mind, empty of all possible constructions, transcends the psychophysical body, like the Buddha did, we too awaken from the spell that this body is mine, I am it, it is my self.  This is rightly the end of all future suffering.