The Zennist

Mickey Mouse has no Buddha-nature

Before I went to Disneyland in the early sixties, I never gave Disney's mouse much thought.  Sure, I watched the Mickey Mouse Club but mainly to see Annette Funicello.  After my visit to Disneyland I gave Mickey even less thought.  Disneyland was only a high class county fair, minus the livestock and the chickens.

Now I realize that this little three finger human-like field mouse is the messenger of nothingness.  He is not all that innocent with his squeaky little voice.  Sure, we all know he is not a real mouse; that Walt Disney created the Mickey Mouse character in 1928.  He appeared in the first sound cartoon in 1928, Steamboat Willie.  Not much later Roy Disney decided to copyright the character.  This led eventually to a contract with George Borgfeldt who would make toys using Mickey and Minnie Mouse.  After that, Mickey ruled the world.

The real truth is that Mickey rules over a soulless false utopia which brings the masses security, consumerism, scientism, banality, the police state, not to mention bad faith (Sartre).  All of this helps to give rise to a soporific collective consciousness.  Such a state makes capitalist predation possible and achievable.  But worse it closes the door on spirit, that is, the Buddha-nature.  

The Buddha-nature is replaced with happiness.  Mickey Mouse, who doesn't have a Buddha-nature, represents this kind of happiness.  All sentient beings have the right to experience happiness but a happiness twisted into a kind of petty-bourgeois cheerfulness.  On the same score, but to put it differently, keep poverty, homelessness, disease and death out of this picture—all this interferes with my happiness.  These things are happiness sucking.

As far as Mickey's compassion is concerned.  He has none—not a trace.  What Mickey Mouse does stand for is comfort. Mickey is the modern paraclete. 

The Mickey Mouse ethos rules religion, too.  There is not a dime's worth of difference between one modern religion and another—all believe in happiness and comfort.  Nirvana or heaven, this is a place of happiness.  And if you are in a lot of pain, physical or psychological, the priest will comfort you.  

The higher need to contemplate the living substance of the universe which is the same substance that makes up our thoughts and dreams is unnecessary.  There is no such thing, according to Mickey.  There is only nothing.  But it can be a happy, cuddly, cozy, warm nothing with lots of candy and mousy kisses. 

 

Mind and nirvana

One can read into The Awakening of Faith (Hakeda’s translation), which by the way is a very important treatise for Mahayana Buddhists, that the nonarising of the deluded mind, in which the marks of the deluded mind are nullified, constitutes nirvana (cp. 61).  By implication, the realization of pure Mind, that is, Mind minus its self-generated fluctuations which constantly bewitch it, is nirvana.  Stated otherwise, pure Mind, Suchness, and nirvana are fungible.

In advancing from samsara to nirvana, which is entering the realm of Suchness and pure Mind, it has to be understood that Mind, fundamentally, is completely devoid of any form or mark.  From the perspective of sensory consciousness, Mind is completely indeterminate.  If our sensory consciousness resembles something like a fishing net trying to catch Mind, it will be unable to capture it because Mind is space-like and empty.  Incidentally, this strongly suggests that Mind has to be realized on its own terms—not the seeker’s.  Again, whatever we might imagine Mind to be, it isn’t.  By imagining we are trying to shape Mind into something for determinate thought (samjñâ).  Truly, Mind is beyond what it is thought to be.  

Speculating about nirvana without meeting pure Mind face to face, is almost like being on a fool’s errand.  Moreover, it only increases the difficulty of understanding what the Buddha actually meant by nirvana.

Hirakawa & Groner give a rather nice description of nirvana as it relates to mind which really describes mind becoming Mind, that is, Mind which is free, insofar, as it has come to realize itself as the absolute, there being no higher.

The Third Noble Truth, the extinction of suffering (duhkhanirodhâryasatya), concerns the eradication of thirst.  This state is called "nirvana" (P. nibbâna).  Because the mind is freed from all the fetters of thirst, nirvana is also called emancipation (vimukti, vimoksa, moksa).  A person is first partially freed through wisdom, a stage called “emancipation through understanding” (prajñâ-vimukti).  Next, all the defilements are eradicated and the entire mind is freed, a stage called "emancipation of mind" (ceto-vimukti).  In this state the mind operates in complete freedom, unaffected by thirst.  Because true bliss (sukha) is experienced, nirvana, is sometimes said to be the bliss of extinction.  Because the term "nirvana" maybe translated as "extinction," some people have considered nirvana to be a nihilistic state.  However, only thirst is extinguished, not the mind itself. (Hirakawa & Groner, A History of Indian Buddhism, pp. 40-41). 

 

Where deception ends

One morning, after your usual morning cup of coffee, you read the header on Huffington Post.  Wikileaks has just revealed that the U.S. never went to the moon.  It was all a hoax.  NASA always knew that in order to go to the moon it would require a spaceship that was 266 times larger than the Saturn 5 rocket!  The next day there is more bad news from Wikileaks.  9/11 was an inside job.  The Bush Administration needed a pretext by which to take control of the Middle East and Central Asia.  This was it.  In fact, Osama bin Laden is on the CIA’s payroll!  “Oh my God,” you say trying to control your emotions.  You imagine the whole world is coming apart.  Everything you believed in turned out to be a fucking lie.  The only thing that could be worse than this would be to learn that your certified Zen master is not really enlightened at all.  In other words, he has never realized pure Mind—nor has he ever discussed it in the past that you can recall; and you’ve been at his center for over twenty years.  Pure Mind is off his radar unlike with the great Zen masters of the past who tirelessly taught their students about Mind and helped them to realize it.

But in reality nothing has changed.  Only your staid beliefs have changed.  For a number of reasons, you were deceived. Deception is a major part of modern life.  Or let’s be nice and call it fiction.  At best modern life presents a useful fiction—that’s all.  There is really no big bang.  There is no string theory.  It’s mathematical fiction at its best.  Ready for more?   Medical doctors are the third leading cause of death.  For the most part they don’t cure disease.  For the most part they just suppress the symptoms of a disease then send you a huge bill.  It’s all one big profit making scheme.  That you believe in this medical fiction is useful.  It helps you get through life.  It gives you hope.

Religion, specifically Buddhism, is not immune either.  One Dharma center after another is staffed with deceivers.  Do you really believe they’ve been to the other shore?  Look into their eyes.  Do you really believe they have crossed the vast ocean of birth and death and stand on yonder shore of nirvana?  Their whole scam rests on authority—yes, authority—in addition to your obedience and credulity.  Obedience is pretty much what you learned during those years of K thru 12 in which your brain was scrubbed clean of critical thinking skills and spirit.  If you were lucky, you escaped.  You ran to the arms of nature and found her solitude.  You sat still under a large granite overhang and let her wind, like a leaf blower, blow away the debris of civilization which incrusted your heart.  

In raw nature there are neither lies nor deceptions.  In this exquisite solitude, you can search for the mysterious substance of reality.  It is the stuff space is made of, including electrons and positrons.  It is what your thoughts are made of including every fiction you lived in or chased after.  See this substance, otherwise called ‘pure Mind’, and you’ve crossed to the other shore.  Then on that shore looking back over the crossed waters you will, for the first time, learn what the world is—but not until then.

 

Thanks to the ghost of Bukowski past

On Christmas day I accidently came across Charles Bukowski's poem, "The Genius of the Crowd."  (Maybe it wasn't an accident.  It could have been late blooming karma.)

His poem is about what I consider to be perhaps one of the greatest evils of the modern age.  It is mediocrity, or in Bukowski's poem the "average man the average woman."  Bluntly, their averageness is a killer.  The average people are those who, without realizing it, daily attempt to kill any spiritual sense the human heart might have left.  They do all this, mercilessly, without being conscious of the fact they are even doing it.  This is the really evil part:  the unconsciousness of it.  It's like they are programmed to search for spirit then destroy it.  

This begins the part of Bukowski's poem that resonated with my own sense of how much average Buddhists are destroying Buddhism. The poem warns:

Beware
The Average Man
the Average Woman
BEWARE.  Their Love
Their love is Average.  Seeks
Average
But There is Genius In Their Hatred
There Is Enough Genius In their 
Hatred To Kill You, To Kill
Anybody.

Now we come to the important part.  Just substitute the word "spirit" for "solitude" and "art" then bear in mind that Bukowski's warning, which is meant for the artist, is also meant for those who seek the invisible light of spirit.

Not Wanting Solitude
Not Understanding Solitude
They Will Attempt To Destroy
Anything
That Differs
From Their Own
Not Being Able
To Create Art
They Will Not
Understand Art

The poem then goes on to say these average people will turn their failures as creators against those who have any sense of spirit left in them such as the artist.

And Their Hatred Will Be Perfect
Like a Shining Diamond
Like A Knife
Like A Mountain
LIKE A TIGER
Like Hemlock
Their Finest
Art

The genius behind such hatred is not to be taken lightly—it is a genius moved by and anchored to a deep fear of spirit, spirit which is the very substance of our universe including all of life.  History tells us they, the average ones, are quick to administer hemlock, crucify, burn at the stake, if need requires, and most sinister of all, the average create all manner of institutions that pretend to teach goodness and love, or teach about a merciful God.  Their real purpose, however, is much different.  Their main purpose is to lure those who have a small measure of spirit still left in them, then crush it.  

Turning now to the phenomenon of average Buddhism (which includes Zen) which is for the average man and woman, if there were such a device as spirit-o-meter, it wouldn't register.  Those who follow average Buddhism, the Buddha called "puthujjana."  They have always made up the bulk of the Buddha's followers.  The Buddha was well aware of their presence.  According to the Buddha, puthujjanas are subject to suffering in all of its forms; they are subject to repeated rebirth; they are continually bound up with the Five Aggregates which belong to Mara the Evil One.  In addition, a puthujjana unlike a noble disciple does not put an end to suffering—in fact, has no urge to do so.  They are enveloped in darkness, remaining inconversant with the Dharma; wallowing in their dung-like happiness (M. i. 454).

This is not a spiritual division born of elitism but a division created by the average Buddhist who is still strongly attached to the phenomenal world; who cannot see through its deception.  Entranced by such a world, the average Buddhist refuses to let go of their belief, hoping it will lead to ultimate satisfaction and liberation.  But such a belief neglects what is most precious of all, the true substance of all—a spiritual substance—that allows the Buddha to say in all certitude "there is nothing but what is seen of the Mind itself" (Lankavatara Sutra).  This means that phenomena are intrinsically nothing; there is only Mind.   Thus to cling to them is to experience a lack or a thirst that can never be quenched.  Rather than accept this as truth, the average wage war against it. 

 

 

Unpacking the ordinary mind

The Zen phrase "ordinary mind" (C., pingchang-xin) or "everyday mind" which is equated with the true Way or the same, enlightenment, requires some unpacking.  In other words, this phrase cannot be taken literally as referring to the common, all-too-human mind—far from it.  Unfortunately, today some Zennists teach that the everyday, all-too-human mind is the Way.  It is not.  Used this way undermines Zen’s true  core.  It kills the mystical Mind to Mind transmission.

So, what is the source of this misunderstanding?  It seems to have come from a conversation between Chao-chou (J., Joshu) and his teacher, Nan-ch'uan (J., Nansen).  The former asked his teacher, "What is the Way?"  His teacher said, "Your ordinary mind is the Way."  Then Chao-chou, again, asked of his teacher, "Is there any way to approach it?"  Nan-ch'uan replied, "When you approach it, you are on the wrong track."  "But how can you know it if you don't intentionally seek it?"  To this Nan-ch'uan said, "The Way transcends knowing and not-knowing.  Knowing is really delusion—not-knowing is indifference.  To attain the Way which is without doubt is like infinite space which is free from obstruction and limitation.  How can such be determined or denied?"  At these words Chao-chou had a profound awakening.

To reiterate, the term “ordinary mind” has a much different meaning in Zen.  In the aforementioned, it was used to refer to the absolute.  Baso (C., Ma-tsu/Mazu), its creator, gives it a distinctly Buddhist technical meaning who steadfastly insisted that Bodhidharma transmitted the “teaching of One Mind (ekacitta/yixin).

“Mazu used the term pingchang-xin (J. heijôshin or byôjôshin) in its authentic meaning, i.e., the mind (or self) of no defilement and no discrimination, and he contrasted it with another term, shengsi-xin (J. shôji-shin, "the life-and-death mind (or self)), which to Hisamatsu is nothing other than defilement. Critics of Mazu's thought fail to see this point” (Shin'ichi Hisamatsu, Gishin Tokiwa, Christopher Ives, Critical Sermons of the Zen Tradition, 152 n. 59). 

I would add to this that the mind of no defilement is also the luminous Mind which first  appears in the Pali canon which in Mahayana Buddhism will become dramatically expanded.

Nan-ch’uan’s so-called “ordinary mind” (C., pingchang) is anything but ordinary which if it were would be the life-and-death mind!  From the lofty peak of enlightenment, to be authentically ordinary means to be fully awakened or the same, enlightened. 

 

 

Another whacky Western Zen master

Just recently another whacky Western Zen master said, in so many words, that nirvana is impermanent just like samsara and that parinirvana is death.  Wow!  

For me this is not too surprising. Looking over Western Zen literature, popular Western Zennists, including teachers, seem bent on trying to turn Buddhism into something that it is not, something, I hasten to add, that any materialist would dearly love.  In addition, most Western Zen masters are not very knowledgeable about what the Buddha actually taught and was pointing to.  Most is seems are only familiar with the tiny Heart Sutra and the Diamond Sutra—okay, maybe the Vimimalakirti Sutra.  

Maybe this Zen master can rehabilitate himself, and acquire some good karma, by reading what I have proved below (I even typed it out for him!).  It is from D.T. Suzuki who, by the way, ranks in my book as a great scholar and Zennist (I think I like him because he ignored Dogen—Western Zen’s naked king).

"When Nagarjuna says in his Madhyamika Shastra that:  'That is called Nirvana which is not wanting, is not acquired, is not intermittent, is not non-intermittent, is not subject to destruction, and is not created;' he evidently speaks of Nirvana as a synonym of Dharmakaya, that is, in its first sense as above described.  Chandra Kirti, therefore, rightly comments that Nirvana is sarva-kalpanâ-ksaya-rupam, i.e., that which transcends all the forms of determination.  Nirvana is an absolute, it is above the relativity of existence (bhâva) and non-existence (abhâva).  Nirvana is sometimes spoken of as possessing four attributes; (1) eternal (nitya), (2) blissful (sukha) (3) self-acting (âtman), and (4) pure (shushi).  Judging from these qualities thus ascribed to Nirvana as its essential features, Nirvana is here again identified with the highest reality of Buddhism, that is, with the Dharmakaya.  It is eternal because it is immaterial; it is blissful because it is above all sufferings; it is self-acting because it knows no compulsion; it is pure because it is not defiled by passion and error" (Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, Outline of Mahayana Buddhism, p. 347–348).

I have to admit this is nice stuff.  How the heck this great Western Zen master comes away believing that nirvana is impermanent is beyond me.  I would have to drink a half bottle of Jack Daniel’s whiskey to follow his reasoning, and that goes with most Western teachers. Are these people crazy? 

This also might be of help.  It is from The Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment (Kihwa’s comment).

The opposite of change is called “suchness.”  “True suchness” is the teaching that dispels falsity and dissolves distinctions.  The opposite of defilement is called bodhi; the opposite of samsara is called nirvana.  Bodhi and nirvana are the dharmas resultant of transforming defilement and separating from samsara (Muller, The Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, p. 76).

 

Zen is primary

I know people who joined the U.S. Army to hopefully get a college education.  In their heart of hearts they didn’t join the Army mainly to kill America’s enemies and if need requires, die trying (this is more for U.S. Marine types).  

Where I am going with this as far as Zen is concerned is that many Zennists, in their heart of hearts, practice Zen in order to learn how to cope with the stresses and strains of trying to realize their middle-class dreams.  Zen is not primary, in other words.  Such dreams might include owning a home by the ocean, owning a SUV or hopefully a BMW, having a great job with a good retirement, not to mention children, including a pet or two.  I should also throw in the ability to consume lots of neat stuff from Wal-Mart, Target and other middle-class dream fulfillment stores.

As we might expect, not everyone thinks this way.  Einstein, for example, was drawn to physics and mathematics because he wanted to figure out God’s mind.  He wasn’t drawn to physics and mathematics hoping that he could make enough money by which to enjoy a middle-class life and have a good retirement.  Nor was he drawn to physics and mathematics to help with stress.  Figuring out the universe was primary for Einstein.  Everything else was put on the back burner, so to speak. 

If we are going to get to the heart of Zen—I mean really see its principle—everything else has to take a back-seat.  There can be no compromise.  In terms of priority, for anyone who expects to discover what the Buddha discovered, there can only be one lodestar above them—not two.

Zen which caters to the masses so as to meet their needs is not real Zen.  Anyone who believes it is deluded and incorrigible.  By comparison, Zen which is honest and frank; which tries to lay out Zen’s important principle which is the comprehension of pure Mind, is the only Zen one should study.  Putting materialist needs before our spiritual needs is a path that begins and ends with suffering. 

 

A true man of the way

In the koan collection the Wumenguan/Mumonkan which is quite popular in the West, among many interesting cases is number thirty-six which is about meeting one who has attained enlightenment or the Way.  The case goes as follows:

Goso said:  "When you meet a man of the Way on the road, you cannot face him with words or silence.  So tell me, how do you meet him?"

First let me say that this case becomes a monkey pitchball trap if one is so naive as to believe that this case refers to a human being like a Zen master or some Theravada Bhante.  The man of the Way really means ultimate reality which is buried deep within us of which we know exactly nothing.  Let me also add, that all koans are only concerned with opening us up to catch a glimpse of ultimate reality which comes in many different names such as pure Mind or pure will, atman, Dharmakaya, emptiness, or Buddha-nature.  The list goes on.  But names are not as important as directly meeting this man of the Way, face to face.

If we get lucky and actually meet this man of the Way we won’t have any problems with him or the rest of the koan.  Preparing tea or coffee, cutting firewood, carrying water from the spring (as I used to do years ago), such actions come directly from him.  

The “man of the Way” in this particular case reminds us of Rinzai’s unconditioned True Man.

“Over a mass of reddish flesh there sits a True Man who has no title.  He is all the time coming in and out of your own sense-organs.  If you have not testified to the fact, look! Look!" (Shibayama, A Flower Does Not Talk, p. 55).” 

Such a man of the Way or a True Man are personifications of absolute Mind, which has never been apart from us.  Still, we are blind as to this man’s actual whereabouts because he is so pure and devoid of marks.  We would be so lucky to meet such a fellow!  But we are heaped up with too many defilements—the world is too much with us.

 

 

Zen books for keeping us in the box

A common question asked by  those who are curious about Zen is, “What are some good books on Zen?”  The short answer is usually, “A really good book is Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind—it is really helpful.”  However, the longer and better answer comes only after one decides what exactly do they wish to know about Zen, that is, do they wish to learn about its history or learn of its teachings?  If the latter, the next question would seem to be, “What do you expect Zen to teach you?”  Depending on how a person answers this question will decide the books about Zen they might enjoy.  But this is not all. 

The curious especially need to be aware that they are victims of a subtle trap which they made a long  time ago.  It lies with unconscious egocentricity such that the individual ego is the presupposition of all knowledge.  This means the individual believes that they cannot know anything beyond themselves.  Speaking like such an individual, “I expect from Zen to learn essentially what I already know and am comfortable with.”  While sounding a bit odd, it is not, when we consider that what we often learn seems always to agree with us.  There are no fundamental surprises.

Turning back to the subject of books there are lots of ‘Zen books’ that can help the curious who wish to learn about Zen who will learn essentially from reading these books what they already know!  These particular books also reflect the modern view of reality—no thinking out of the box is required.  Our trunk load of presuppositions is okay, in other words.  Our ego will not be put into jeopardy.  But if we ever expect to get to the way Rinzai (C., Lin-chi/Linji) saw the world—real Zen—we will have to climb out of our box of presuppositions.  There we will find a strange jungle  and a path to the Land of Jewels (cp. Lotus Sutra) which will be a lifetime journey with things happening to us that are difficult to imagine.  

 

Buddhadasa Bhikkhu’s heresy?

The indented excerpt is from a lecture entitled, Anatta & Rebirth, given to students of Puget Sound University in Seattle by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, who is a controversial monk with regard to his views about rebirth/reincarnation.  In this blog, I intend to show another way of looking at Sâti’s heresy which Buddhadasa touches on in his lecture.  Almost all of my information is drawn from O. H. De A. Wijesekera’s journal article, The Concept of Vinnana in Theravada Buddhism (Journal of the American Oriental Society 84.3 [1964]: 254--259).  The parts dealing with Sâti’s heresy which are in quotes are from Wijesekera.

The Lord Buddha forbade his disciples to believe that consciousness or a spirit (vi—öa) goes to be born. A certain bhikkhu named Sâti stated that “As I understand the Dhamma as taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through samsara (the cycles of birth and death), not another.” When other monks objected, Sâti stubbornly clung to his “pernicious view.” When this was brought to the Buddha’s attention, he himself interviewed Sâti. The later repeated his view, to which the Buddha scolded him richly. “Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in that way? Misguided man, in many talks have I not stated consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness?”  Clearly, the Buddha did not accept that the “same consciousness” is reborn from life to life.  

Sâti’s heresy was not that he believed that consciousness goes to be reborn but that he “erred in saying that it did so ‘without change of identity (tadeva ... anaññam)’ and also in regarding it as the ‘speaker and experiencer (vado vedeyyo)’.”  The following passage is Sâti’s claim (M. i. 256).

“Insofar as I understand Dharma taught by the Lord it is that this consciousness itself runs on (sandhavati), fares on (samarati), is immutable (anañña).” (My translation.)

In other words, the consciousness Sâti had in mind is immutable or self-identical like the self (attâ/atma).  But consciousness is not like the self since it is so variable.  Somewhat related, self only seems to be connected with the Five Aggregates or khandhas, by way of consciousness which is always mutable.  But in no way does self transmigrate nor is it really connected with the Five Aggregates. The effective linker is always samsaric consciousness.

Going a little further, this particular, mutable form of consciousness is called ‘samvattanika-viññana’, that is, consciousness “that evolves (into the next life).”  It is the same as the stream of consciousness also called the stream of becoming (bhava-sota).  Because this consciousness can evolve into a next life it is capable of descending into the mother’s womb whereas if it does not there will be no development of the embryo (D. ii. 63), hence, no rebirth.

Given other passages in the Pali Nikayas which address samsaric consciousness that evolves into a next life, consciousness—not the self—is the surviving factor of the indivudual that can re-enter samsara through the womb again and again (Sn. 278, cp. D. iii. 147).

As the reader has observed, I’ve ommitted critizing Buddhadasa Bhikkhu’s view of self or attâ which is frankly nuts.  For example, when he uses anattâ (lit. ‘not the self’) he never lets the listner observe it at work in its proper context which is the way the Buddha uses it.  Seeing anattâ in its proper context is proof enough that self is the good guy—an aggregate is always a bad guy.

“Bhikkhus, form is nonself [anattâ, lit. not the self].  What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus:  ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’Feeling is nonself... Perception is nonself ... Volitional formations are nonself ... Consciousness is nonself.  What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom:  ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my  self [na meso attâ]’” (S. iii. 22–23). (trans. Bhikkhu Bodhi.  Brackets are mine.)

As any rational person can see, according to the Buddha, what is nonself, namely, the Five Aggregates, is not to be attached to as “my self/attâ”!  The self and its fundamentality is further taken up in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra.  In short, in this Sutra the self turns out to be the Buddha-nature.  Hence, the Buddha is really saying in the Nikayas, “Form (ditto with the rest of the aggregates) is not the Buddha-nature.  What is not the Buddha-nature should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus:  ‘This [aggregate] is not mine, this [aggregate] I am not, this [aggregate] is not my Buddha-nature.”

To sum it up, yes, there is rebirth but the self is not the transmigrant.  We have to look to consciousness and mind which are the active agents in this process.