We are not spiritually equal

Some, not all, modern Zennists tend to believe that Zen is somehow egalitarian and, for that matter, so is Buddhism.  For anyone who has spent a little time reading the history of Zen and Buddhism, its parent, this is almost laughable.  It is certainly disheartening, because it shows that the teachers of these Zennists are not teaching them properly.  

The Buddha of the Pali canon certainly distinguished between his ordinary followers, the puthujjanas, and those who were spiritually advanced, the ariya-savaka which, by the way, is often rendered, noble disciple.  Of the noble disciples, the lowest are the stream entered; the highest are the Arhats.  Does this sound egalitarian?  Hardly.  Human beings may be equal under the eyes of the law, and even that is debatable, but spiritually, human beings are not equal.  While the spiritual light of the Buddhas is certainly universal, not all see it or want to see it—certainly not those who are clinging to shadows like the Five Aggregates consisting of form, sensation, perception, predispositions, and sensory consciousness.

Turning briefly the the Mahayana canon, the Lankavatara Sutra lists for kinds of Zens or dhyânas.  Please note that this is hierarchical.  This is not egalitarian. 

Further, Mahamati, there are four kinds of Dhyanas. What are the four? They are: (1) Dhyana practised by the ignorant, (2) the Dhyana devoted to the examination of  meaning, (3) the Dhyana with Tathata (suchness) for its object, and (4) the Dhyana of the Tathagatas. 

Moving on to early Zen or Ch’an, Zen master Tsung-mi (780–841) described four major Zen lineages, his being the highest.  He used the analogy of a clear jewel when placed on a black background.  

According to Tsung-mi, one tradition of Zen believes in the clarity of the jewel but sees only the black background.  It concludes the jewel’s clear nature is obscured by the blackness which must be wiped away.  Another tradition of Zen believes that any background is the pure clarity of the jewel; the jewel, itself, cannot be seen.  The next Zen tradition believes the background, no matter what color, and the jewel are empty and unattainable.  The last tradition and the highest, realizes the clarity of the jewel so that no matter what background is present, the jewel is always seen.  There is nothing egalitarian here. 

In modern Zen, citing from The Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion, there are listed five kinds of Zen or meditative practice.  Beginning with the lowest they are 1. Bonpu Zen; 2. Gedo Zen; 3. Shôjô Zen; 4. Daijô Zen; 5. Saijôjô Zen.  (These can all be found on the Internet—I am too lazy to type them out!)  In regard to Bonpu Zen it is Zen practiced by people mainly for health benefits. There is no religious motivation; certainly one is not interested in attaining enlightenment. 

I hasten to add Buji Zen which is about the lowest on this totem pole.  This refers to people who when they read “all beings have the Buddha-nature” imagine they are like the Buddha.  Or they may believe that the Buddha’s way is just being in the here and now.  In many ways, Buji Zen is just another name for the Beat Zen of the early 1960s.  Many fall into the trap of Buji Zen who take up Dogen’s Soto Zen.  They take his words literally in the example of, “Seeing the Buddha-nature is seeing a donkey's jowls or a horse's mouth"! 

The history of Buddhism and Zen is not without spiritual elitism and other kinds of hierarchies.  There are religious ranks, especially in Japanese Zen.  If you are a new Rinzai Abbot you are at the bottom of the totem pole.  You’d better learn to kiss the arse of your superior or else.

There is much more I could add like the superiority of Mahayana over Hinayana, or the superiority of the Bodhisattvas over the Arhat and so on.

 

Comments

[Zenhg]

Only stubbornchildren and young punks think they know everything. Until wisdom is beaten into them with a big stick. World is full of young punks playing at being Teachers of the way. So much talking it hurts my ears.

[JB]

With regard to your closing paragraph, as I'm sure you know, the word "hinayana" is a pejorative term that most accurately translates as "despicable vehicle." It is incorrect to apply the term to the Theravada school. Perhaps that was not your intention, but I feel it's worth clarifying.

Also, the way in which some self-described "Mahayanists" choose to understand the concept of an arahant is likewise not applicable to Theravada.

More generally, regardless of whether a being has attained to any of the noble fruits or paths, the Buddha's teaching is to radiate lovingkindness to all beings without discrimination. These gradations of attainment that you describe are not supposed to be a basis for judging others. They are only a basis to support understanding along one's own spiritual journey. Anyone who tries to judge whether another person is a worldling or a saint is in that moment not practicing Dhamma teachings.