The Zennist

The two self-natures

In the Heart Sutra it is says that the Bodhisattva Avalokitishvara “perceived the Five Aggregates to be empty of self-nature (svabhâv-shunyâ).”  This means that while ordinary people perceive and believe physical shapes (rupa), such as the first aggregate, are real—they are not.  Altogether, the phenomenality of the Five Aggregates has no essence or inherent special quality.  Such we might call a false self-nature which means the aggregates are illusory.  About this kind of false self-nature Candrakirti says that “We do not accept that as self-nature which is brought about by, contingent on, relative to something else.”  

True self-nature or svabhâva according to Candrakirti means “own being, the very nature of a thing.”  Nagarjuna, in the same vein, says that “self-nature is not brought about by anything else, [it is] unproduced, [being] that which is not dependent on, not relative to any thing other than itself, non-contingent, unconditioned.”  Nirvana, for example, is this kind of self-nature.  

Self-nature rightly understood mans absolute reality.  Phenomenal things like the Five Aggregates are not absolute—they never can be.  They have relative or contingent natures (parabhâva).

Using the example of a pot made of clay, there is really no intrinsic pot-ness in the raw clay of the pot.  The shape of the pot is an abstraction that is completely empty of clay, clay being, let us say, the true self-nature.  When, by accident, the pot breaks, the pot is gone—but it never actually existed in the first place as something unique or with a self-nature.  Only the clay remains.  The pot, if we think about it, is conditioned clay being totally dependent upon the clay whereas the raw clay is independent of pot-ness.  Moreover, there is no real production of a pot beyond the clay itself.  There is only the fabricated pot dependent on clay.  In reality, the pot is empty, like an illusion.

To find our true self-nature or true self, which is the Tathagatagarbha, we have to look beyond the conditioned illusory world which we hold to be dear and true, including the psychophysical organism.  In other words, we first have to stop clinging to phenomena which are always changing (anitya) and unsatisfactory (duhkha) which have no self or self-nature.  But finding such a true self or a body of self-nature, that is, svabhâvika-kaya, is not easy, especially given the fact that we are conditioned to believe illusion is real and true reality is an illusion! 

 

Are Buddhists intellectually lazy?

I am beginning to believe, with the exception of the Buddhist academic world, that most Buddhist practitioners (not all!) are intellectually lazy—I mean why bother with the Pali or the Mahayana canon?  Here is something I found on Zen Forum International which fits with what I just said.  By the way, the brackets are mine.

“Anatman [lit. not the self] is an antidote the the assumption of a subjective essence. The assumption that there is an ultimate experiencer of experiences is deeply rooted. Anatman is an antidote to that. Anatman is used up in resolving this erroneous assumption. Anatman and Atman are both dropped in practice”

The author misses the essence of the Buddha’s teaching by a nautical mile.  Anatman is not an antidote for the assumption of a subjective essence; it is the fact that what is impermanent and suffering, such as the Five Aggregates, is not the self or the same, not our true self.  Nor should we assume that the Buddha denied the self.  

Above all, the Buddha didn’t want us to mistake the Five Aggregates or skandhas, with our true self—this is what anatman is about, namely, the skandhas are not the atman.  What else might explain why the Buddha, looking at each aggregate, said: “This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self.”  Obviously, the self or atman of the Buddha was not identified with any aggregate!

It is also a fact that in the Pali canon and the Mahayana canon we can find no clear evidence that the Buddha denied the true essence of reality otherwise known as nirvana, Suchness, luminous Mind, Dharmakaya, Tathagatagarbha, Buddha-nature, the unborn, the true-self, etc.

As for the phrase “subjective essence” this is obviously a modern term with its own peculiar meaning.  If the author intends it to mean a Buddhist practitioner who sets out to realize nirvana cannot realize it because his realization of it would make it a subjective essence, then the author is wrong.  The author’s intention doesn’t tally with this passage from the Majjhima-Nikaya:

“He [thus] dwelling contemplating impermanence in those feelings, contemplating dispassion, contemplating cessation, contemplating renunciation, does not grasp at anything in the world, and not grasping he is not perturbed, not being perturbed he attains utter nibbana in his very self (paccatta.myeva parinibbâyati)” (M. i. 255).

In the above it is obvious that the subjective experiencer is not grasping at anything in the phenomenal, samsaric world.  Yet he attains transcendent nirvana in his very self (paccatta) which is beyond his carnal body, which makes him not of the body!  Oh, but this is not Buddhism.  Well, yes it is Buddhism.

And what about terms like pratya-atma which is rendered as “self-realization” found in the Lankavatara Sutra or other terms like praty-atma-arya-jñâna?  When the Buddha says in the Lankavatara Sutra, a Sutra that formed the basis of  early Zen:  "Now, Mahamati, the highest Reality is the state of inner Self-realization (pratyatma) by means of Noble Wisdom (aryajñâna)" are we not to take this as a personal religious experience when beholding ultimate reality?  Certainly, we as a subject of many experiences can also experience a higher reality that transcends our carnal body.  In fact, intrinsically, we are this higher reality—we just don’t remember or recognize it because we are suffering from spiritual amnesia (avidya).

Here is how the passage should read, if the author spent more time with the canon of Buddhism.

Anatman, which literally means “not the self” always means, do not identify your self with what is impermanent and suffering such as the Five Aggregates.  Anatman is not telling us there is no self or atman but that what we have identified our self with is not our true self.  Fundamentally, we are the ultimate experiencer and true self but an experiencer who has not yet recognized and awakened to their true self, who continually identifies their true self with something that is impermanent and suffering in the example of their corporeal body and its world.

 

Empty is the phenomenal world

I was reading this interesting discourse from the Samyutta-Nikaya (S. iv. 54) last night.  It is entitled, Empty Is the World.  I hope to show the reader how a normal sane Buddhist might read it; one not stung by nihilism.  First, here is the discourse.  It is Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation.

Then the Venerable Ananda approached the Blessed One ...and said to him: “Venerable sir, it is said, ‘Empty is the world, empty is the world.’  In what way, venerable sir, is it said, ‘Empty is the world’?”

“It is, Ananda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’  And what is empty of self and of what belongs to self?  The eye, Ananda, is empty of self and what belongs to self.  Forms are empty of self and of what belongs to self.  Eye-consciousness is empty of self and of what belongs to self.  Eye-contact is empty of self and of what belongs to self.... Whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as condition—whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—that too is empty of self and what belongs to self.

“It is, Ananda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’”

Now, here is the way the above discourse should be comprehended by someone who is not suffering from nihilism; who understands that the self is the Tathagatagarbha according to the Nirvana Sutra and that our phenomenal world is not the supramundane world, i.e., lokuttara.

Then the Venerable Ananda approached the Blessed One ...and said to him: “Venerable sir, it is said, ‘Empty is the phenomenal world, empty is the phenomenal world.’  In what way, venerable sir, is it said, ‘Empty is the phenomenal world’?”

“It is, Ananda, because it is empty of our true self and of what belongs to our true self that it is said, ‘Empty is the phenomenal world.’  And what is empty of our true self and of what belongs to our true self?  The eye, Ananda, is empty of our true self and what belongs to our true self.  Forms are empty of our true self and of what belongs to our true self.  Eye-consciousness is empty of our true self and of what belongs to our true self.  Eye-contact is empty of our true self and of what belongs to our true self.... Whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as condition—whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—that too is empty of of our true self and what belongs to self.

“It is, Ananda, because it is empty of our true self and of what belongs to our true self that it is said, ‘Empty is the phenomenal world.’”

Our phenomenal world is an illusory, empty world which is filled with the potential of great suffering for those who would tenaciously cling to it and their corporeal bodies.  Our true self is not naturally connected with phenomenality except that we firmly believe the phenomenal world is our self including our senses like the eye and what they perceive.  Our greatest problem is that as the self we are unable to recognize it in the deceiving confusion of phenomenality.  But besides our self, we cannot recognize nirvana, the Tathagatagarbha, our Buddha-nature, the Dharmakaya, pure Mind, Thus-ness, etc.

 

The problem with clergy Buddhism

Religious robes, no matter how beautifully made, can offer us no refuge.  Such vestments cannot protect us from the horror of rebirth, always beholding something we are not.  In spite of this, many act as if the outer forms of Buddhism are somehow capable of acting as a refuge.  In fact, we find ourselves giving deference to those who wear robes, not because they are wise or have obtained the fruits of stream entry or genuine Bodhisattvahood, but because they wear the vestments of Buddhism.  Such a tendency is not the fault of Buddhism but the fault of those who believe, so to speak, the clothes make the man.  This leads to a further problem—a problem with clergy Buddhism.

We must keep in mind that the Buddha once said, “A man is not easily known by outward form nor should one trust a quick appraisal” (S. i. 79).  Taking this one step further, clergy Buddhism or clergy Zen is exactly the practice of Buddhism through the outward form, putting our trust in the words of those who wear robes, not in the true teaching (saddharma). But such people who are the clergy, using the Buddha’s words, might well be like a bronze halfpense coated with gold.  Also, what they teach us could be like rat meat served on the finest  china dinnerware.

Clergy Buddhism is where the major entrance to deception begins in which we get Buddhism wrong.  This happens, I need to say, not because all Buddhist clergy are deceivers but because we lack the maturity to distingusish between real gold and a halfpense coated with gold.  The fault, I dare say, lies somewhat with us.  We support clergy Buddhism because we are too lazy to look beyond the glitter that surely is not gold as we believe it is.

Traditionally, becoming a Buddhist monk or nun only afforded one the time to unravel the Buddha’s recondite teachings—nothing more.  Nobody became wiser by donning robes.  Any layperson or a hermit/rishi living in a cave can win nirvana with a great deal of effort and open-mindedness.  It is not the exclusive property of clergy.  

While the old discourses of the Buddha tend to glorify the importance of clergy the only thing that mattered to the Buddha was whether or not a person was stream entered becoming a holy person (arya-pudgala).  This is where, so to speak, the yellow brick road begins.  It does not begin with clergy Buddhism, in other words.  Nor should one believe that clergy understand Buddhism who are not inverted (viparyâsa).  In fact, most are inverted treating what is impermanent as permanent, what is suffering as nirvana, what is not the self as the self, and what is impure (ashubha) as pure.

By the same token, we should not incautiously trust our own assessments and judgments.  We could be terribly wrong and inverted—and often are.  This might land us into the state of prithagjana Buddhism in which the prithagjana or ordinary person follows the outer form of Buddhism being content with a dung-like happiness (M. i. 454), seemingly unaware just how profound Buddhism really is.

 

What makes a person a Buddhist?

What makes a person a Buddhist is how they regard the perceived world they live in, including their body:  the apperceiving mechanism.  If a person believes that the world they live in cannot be other than true reality where things and conditions never change—well, for starters, they are not Buddhists.  They’re just immature idiots!  They have a long way to go before they even get close to become Buddhists.

In some Buddhist traditions what distinguishes a Buddhist from a person who is not a Buddhist are what is called The Four Dharma Seals.

The first seal states that all composed things (sarva-samskrita) are impermanent (anitya).  The second seal states that everything that deteriorates is suffering (sarvsâsrava-dhhkha), for example, the Five Aggregates consisting of form, sensation, perception, habitual tendencies, and sensory consciousness.  In fact, these aggregates, i.e., the psychophysical organism, are synonymous with suffering or duhkha.  The third seal states that nirvana is peace or shânti.  The fourth seal states that  all things are empty (shunya) and not of the self or âtmaka.

All this is easy to grasp if we think of composed things as being like the waves of the ocean, or more accurately, the waves of water.  The waves are always changing.  They are impermanent, in other words.  Only the substance of the waves, namely, the water, is permanent and unchanging.  Next, insofar as all things are changing they are deteriorating.  They are not like they were when first we attached to them.  Because of this degeneration or deterioration we come to suffer.  Only nirvana offers us peace from samskrita or composed existence.  It is like the water, in other words.  Nirvana is, according to the Buddha:

“Not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded.  Monks, if that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be apparent no escape from this here that is born, become, made, compounded” (Udana).

Being in nirvana we see that this wave-like phenomenal world is empty and not our self which rests in nirvana being also the Buddha-nature.  In fact, our self has never been actually connected with phenomena or the Five Aggregates anymore than sand, itself, is connected with a heap of sand or dirt is bound to a pile of dirt. 

 

The other name of the Buddha

The Buddhist word Tathagata is an epithet for Buddha.  Generally speaking, it can either mean “gone thus” which is tathatâ-gata or “come thus” which is tatha-âgata.  Perhaps clearer, Tathagata means one who has gone to nirvana and one who has come from nirvana to help with the liberation of beings in samsara.

For a deeper understanding of Tathagata we have to know what tathatâ means.  In Mahayana Buddhism it refers to the absolute which is unchanging unlike phenomena which are always changing.  Tathatâ or that-ness is the real nature of things which is beyond the capability of our senses and thoughts (samjñâ) to detect and grasp.  In the Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra, it is said that tathatâ is unmade and increate which, of course, implies that tathatâ is beyond the reach of the senses and thought.  Yet, while being transcendent tathatâ is real—very real in fact.  In the Pancavimsatisahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra it says:

"All Tathagatas do not change or move, there is no coming and no going.  The Tathagata is suchness (tathatâ) which does not arise or disappear.  There is no coming and no going because there is no arising, as no-birth is the Tathagata.  Son of good families, reality does not know the time of coming and the time of going, so reality is the Tathagata.  Empty space does not come and does not go, so emptiness is the Tathagata.  The ultimate truth (parmâratha) does not come and does not go, so the ultimate truth is the Tathagata.  The unconditioned (asamskrita) does not come and does not go, so the unconditioned is the Tathagata.  Cessation (nirodha-samiapatti) does not come and does not go, so cessation is the Tathagata.  Sons of good families, the Tathagata is not apart from all these dharmas, which are the tathatâ of the Tathagata."

It is important to point out that all sentient beings are the embryo or garbha of the Tathagata (sarvasattvas tathagata-garbha).  They are, in other words, potential Tathagatas or Buddhas.  But while they have this potentiality, they are not yet born like the Bodhisattva.  In other words, they lack Bodhicitta (lit., a mind that is bodhi) which begins the life of an authentic Bodhisattva who is on the path to Buddhahood.

 

The tailless foxes of Zen

In Aesop’s Fables there is a fable about a fox who lost his tail in a trap.  Rather than face the embarrassment and shame of having no tail, the fox tried to convince his fellow foxes to give up their tails which wisely they wouldn’t do.  As far as Soto Zen is concerned, I would call it “tailless fox Zen” in which modern day Soto Zen masters are trying to convince the public, just do zazen, that’s all there is to Buddhism.  

Dogen Zenji, the founder of Japanese Soto Zen, is like the fox who lost his tail who has convinced others to cut off their tails.  Being unable to grasp the real meaning of the Buddha’s enlightenment he invented a teaching which essentially says that doing zazen is enlightenment, although the Buddha never said this, nor was zazen ever transmitted (in Zen it is Mind that is transmitted, not zazen). 

Here are three examples where Dogen Zenji’s claims about zazen are patently false insofar as there is no convincing canonical evidence from the Buddha’s discourses to back up the importance Dogen ascribes to zazen.  (Quotations are from, Opening the Hand of Thought by Kosho Uchiyama Roshi et al.) 

"Zazen itself is satori.  Zazen is dropping off body and mind and is the Shôbôgenzô-nehanmyôshin [the spiritual wisdom and the true dharma].  Doing zazen is to practice, put into effect, and actualize this satori—here-and-now.  Only when we do zazen with this attitude can our practice of zazen be called shikantaza—just doing" (Shôbôgenzô: Zanmai ô Zamai).

"The correctly transmitted dharma from buddha to buddha and from patriarch to patriarch has always been just to sit...  This is very clear.  Zazen itself is already the ultimate posture of satori.  In other words, satori is just doing zazen" (Eihei Kôroku, vol. 4).

"When Bodhidharma came to China, he didn't engage himself in all sorts of so-called religious practices.  Nor did he give lectures on sutras.  He simply did zazen at Shôrinji for nine years just facing the wall.  Doing zazen, is just that, is the way of the Buddha, the shôbôgenzô-nehanmyôshin" (Eihei Kôroku, vol. 4).  

Dogen, in his works, hasn’t backed up his claims about zazen with supporting passages from the canon.  Where, in what Sutra, did the Buddha say that sitting dhyâna (zazen) is sambodhi or enlightenment?  Dogen, also, doesn’t seem to understand that Bodhidharma never sat in zazen facing a wall.  The term used for Bodhidharma’s meditation is pi-kuan (biguan) which means, lit., “wall-insight,” kuan being the Chinese translation of vipashyana which in Sanskrit means insight.  As it should be noted, vipashyana isn’t dhyâna or ch’an/zen.  In fine, Bodhidharma just had insight into the immovable.

For Zen teachers to ask students to sit in zazen, making this the main part of their Buddhist studies, amounts to the fox in Aesop’s Fables being successful in getting his fellow foxes to cut off their tails.  An equivalent example, would be for a Nyingmapa Lama to declare that just doing full prostrations is enlightenment—the more you do, the more enlightened you are.

While the tailless foxes of contemporary Zen, who are embarrassed by the fact that they don't really understand Buddhism, are working overtime to convince Buddhist practitioners and beginners that just sitting, or zazen, is sufficient—it solves all problems—the importance of actually realizing the Mind of the Buddha is all but ignored.  Perish the thought that many followers of the Zen school in China during the Sung denied that their school was a ‘meditation’ school.  Zen, they argued, was a synonym for Buddha Mind.

 

Unbinding ourselves from the body

To mindfully surround oneself, which begins mindfulness of the body meditation (kayagatasati) which also includes mindfulness of breathing (anapanasati), is a process of encompassing or encircling (pariggaha) the entire corporeal body so that the mindfulness (sati) of the adept is in a position prior to and before the entire body and the breath.  One, generally speaking, should not follow the body or the breath in meditation which is a veiled form of natural desire acting to further bind one to the body.

The nuanced understanding of all Buddhist meditation first begins with accepting the principle that our self is not this corporeal body together with its breath.  The one who is mindful or sati/smriti of the body and the breath is, at a very subtle level, gradually unbinding themselves from their former attachment to the carnal body.  This might explain why the Buddha in the Kayagatasati Sutta (M. iii. 91) said:

"And again, monks, it is as if a monk might see, thrown aside in a cemetery a body that has been dead for one day or for two days or for three days, swollen, discoloured, decomposing; so he focuses on this body, itself, thinking: ‘This body too is of a similar nature, a similar constitution, it has not got past that (state of things)’" (trans. I.B. Horner).

The point the Buddha is making is don’t cling to the carnal body because it ends up dead—it really doesn't belong to you.  We should also take note that in the same Sutta (M. iii. 94) we learn that Mara, who is the Buddhist devil, “gains access to whatever monk there is in whom mindfulness of body has not been developed.”

It is only when mindfulness has been developed can the adept realize super-knowledge, achieving the ability to witness (sakkhibhabatâ) any plane of existence.  Just simply being aware of the body and our breathing, as is the common meditation practice taught in most Buddhist circles these days, cannot take us to the exalted state of a witness who is above everything.  To be such a witness, mindfulness (sati) during meditation must be set up so that it is anterior or antecedent to the body and the breath. 

 

The world is completely illusory

A wooden elephant, a gold lion, or a pot made out of clay are not binary in the sense there is an elephant apart from the wood, a lion apart from the gold, and a pot apart from the clay.  As regards the substance such as wood, etc., there isn’t an elephant, a lion or a pot.  There is only substance.  Understanding this helps us to understand the fundamental teachings of Mind.  This means that when we awaken to Mind we behold, for the first time, the ultimate substance from which all things are composed; which means things don’t actually exist.  This substance Mind is the only reality—in fact, so real that the phenomena which arise from it are completely illusory and will never be otherwise.

This, I need to add, is not meant to lead up to some kind of new philosophy; nor should we consider Mind under the lens of metaphysics leaving it as that.  We are not supposed to conceive or think about it.  We are supposed to realize Mind.  This is the most arduous task a human being can undertake but one that can be accomplished.  All else is being like the prisoners sitting in Plato’s cave gazing at shadows, speculating about them.

While many texts in the canon are saying essentially what I am saying this is all but missed or purposely ignored by modern Buddhists who don’t have much time for penetrating through the phenomenal veil of mind-composed phenomena to behold Mind, itself.  No, they’re still attached to the world of shapes like the elephant, the lion and the pot, including the new home, the BMW, a vacation in the Hawaii, etc., all of this being the very antithesis of pure Mind.  Somehow they believe Buddhism is supposed to help them live a good life in the world of shadows.  Not so.  To believe such is a misreading of the Buddhist canon—a terrible misreading.

 

Pop Buddhism sangha

In pop Buddhism there is no demarcation between the true jewel Sangha of the Triple Jewel and the ordinary Sangha.  This is wrong.  The true jewel Sangha is the Sangha of holy persons (arya-pudgala), which includes  Bodhicitta realized Bodhisattvas.  The Sangha of ordinary beings (prithagjana), on the other hand, is made up of people, including even monks and nuns, who have never experienced any measure of the transcendent or the absolute because the spiritual substance of their being (tathagatagarbha) is plastered over with klesas (afflictions).  

For the sake of simplification, there is a Sangha for realized beings who have intuitively beheld the absolute in some measure, and the Sangha of ordinary beings who are deluded but who, nevertheless, are striving to enter the Sangha of realized beings.

Another way to look at the those who belong to the Sangha of realized beings is they have knowledge (jñâna/gnosis) of the ultimate which means they have experienced Mind’s ultimate pure nature by having extinguished, momentarily, the defiling forces which make this Mind seem unattained.  Because of this sublime experience they know that Mind is never actually defiled anymore than water ceases being water when it is in the form of waves or whirlpools!

The Sangha of ordinary or average beings (prithagjana) is really a temporary refuge which is unlike a jewel refuge since it is common rather than rare.  Such Sanghas are the various Buddhist communities found in Dharma centers all of which teach a common doctrine for the acquisition of merit or punya.  Such people cannot discern who are holy persons and Bodhisattvas since what constitutes holy persons and Bodhisattvas transcends human and divine vision.

If this sounds elitist, it is.  The Buddha and the aryapudgagas could see ultimate reality—the rest of the followers, prithagjana, couldn’t.