The Zennist

The blockhead years

As much as this blog has tried to emphasize the overarching importance of Mind in Buddhism, most Western Buddhists are, I hate to say this, blockheads when it comes to even accepting the possibility that Buddhism’s Mind is the very medium or stuff of this universe including even our pesky little thoughts and emotions that whirl around in our skandha, Mara the killer, brain. 

Well, I was once a blockhead, too.  A damn good one!

When I first began my study of Zen I can remember coming across passages talking about Mind.  Being a devout blockhead, at the time, I was clueless about Buddha Mind.  Even my teacher was clueless.  He never once, as I can recall, gave a comprehensive—but short and sweet—sermon on Mind.  It wasn’t until a lecture by the great Nichiren Bishop, Nippo Shaku, that I received the clue I needed about Mind (imagine that, a Nichiren Bishop knew more about Zen than the Zennies!).  

Nippo’s lecture at San Jose State College that night sent me on the right trail (hey, Nippo, I know you are up there with Maitreya—I still remember your crazy art work that night which told me how to find pure Mind).  To make a long story short, excluding many extraordinary experiences I had that were on a par with Asanga’s, I came to profound comprehension of Mind.  I have to say, it is truly amazing.  All the Suttas and Sutra, in one way or another, point to absolute Mind which comes by way of various names.

Looking back over my blockhead years as a struggling Buddhist, and why it took me so long to get it (Mind, I mean).  Partially, it was because Mind has been virtually ignored in the modern Buddhist discourse; nor is it understood to be a concrete reality like space.  I suppose there are even Buddhists who equate Buddha Mind with awareness.  (Sorry dudes, but any Buddhist who preaches that awareness is Buddha Mind is a lunatic and deserves no respect—a swift kick in the arse is what they need.)  

Being a Buddhist blockhead is no fun.  To tell you the truth, you’re missing 99% of what the Buddha really taught if you haven’t connected with the hyper-reality of Mind.  You’ve got to wake up—I mean really wake up.  All of Zen Buddhism and Buddhism rests upon Mind (please don’t argue about this—it’s a fact).  To miss or ignore Mind’s great importance sitting, instead, in zazen as if this is enlightenment, is to follow the way (bhumi) of a worldling (S., prithagjana) which is hardly noble. 

While I am working on the next exciting blog (wink, wink) please read the following, carefully.  It’s from the sayings of Chung Feng Kuang Lu. (Brackets are mine.)

"What is Ch'an [Zen]? Ch'an is the name of mind.  What is mind?  Mind is the substance of Ch'an.  Bodhidharma came from the West and expounded only the direct pointing at man's mind.  At first, the term Ch'an was not used, but the outcome of this direct pointing was the subsequent awakening (of followers of the sect).  In their questions and answers, that (which had no name) was referred to as Ch'an (for convenience’s sake).  However, Ch'an cannot be understood by learning or by a lucky chance.  When the self-mind is realized, either speech or silence, and motions or stillness, is unexpectedly Ch’an.  At the moment of this unexpected Ch'an, automatically the mind manifests itself.  Thus we know that Ch'an does not stray from mind and that mind does not stray from Ch'an.  Ch'an and mind are, therefore, two names of the same substance” (Lu K’uan Yü Lu (Charles Luk), Ch'an and Zen Teaching (Series One), p. 9). 

 

Our Disneyland world

Buddhist meditation tries to cut through man's fictional models of reality which are like scaffolding constructed around true reality.  These fictional models also misrepresent true reality but have value like any tool or device might. 

On this same track, I would argue that our concepts such as God, our classifications, our  laws and logic, including metaphysics and, for that matter, the basis of modern life are simply scaffolding which while useful never adequately represents the true nature of things.  Buddhists would add to this list, language which has practical value but which cannot bring us to the reality of which it serves as mere scaffolding. 

As humans we are clueless as to what true reality is and will never comprehend it by means of our fictional models.  In on respect, we have constructed a huge Disneyland-like world or a giant Las Vegas in which we find delight and meaning in our everyday life but which is still a fictional construct which only feeds our delusions about life.

Our fictional world, at some point in our lives, has to be renounced just as Siddhartha renounced the courtly life of his father by going to live in the forest eventually becoming awakened to Dharma, i.e., truth reality.

 

Repackaging samsara

I really don’t think secularized Buddhism of the West (which I like to call “pop Buddhism”) has been at all consistent with its aim of stripping away Buddhism’s cultural trappings while at the same time preserving its essence. While this sounds like a noble mission its demon opposite appears to have won the day.  Buddhism, in the West, proudly displays the thin veneer of a number of Asian cultural trappings, including Western ones, but will have none of Buddhism’s profound essence.  

Oh sure we can argue about this ‘till the cows come home but if there is an essence to secular Buddhism it is showing itself as secularizing the raw moment or now of individual things and experiences, all which serve to bind us to the ever changing natural world and our temporal bodies.  Thus, we have no alternative but to accept ordinary reality giving our acceptance of it an almost divine status.  But cutting through this empty rhetoric, at bottom we only manage to find in secularism’s essence, a repackaging of samsara along with desire which keeps suffering going.  Secular Buddhism is, in fact, only ennobling samsara—not transcending it.  

On another, somewhat related note, Westerners who embrace the secularizing of Buddhism have never been comfortable with Buddhism’s deathless and imperishable nirvana; nor have they been happy campers with the fact that the Buddha did not deny the self, which if he did, would clearly amount to annihilationism which naturally he rejected.  To be more precise, the Buddha only rejected two forms of self:  a self based on the Five Aggregates, called “view of self” and “no self” which in Pali is, nattha atta, which is the no self of the annihilationists or the same, the materialists.

 

Where's the essence?

Popularizing secular Buddhism in the West has been effective for a number of reasons but one reason stands out the most.  Secularizing Buddhism is done for the purpose of stripping away its cultural facade while at the same time preserving Buddhism’s essence.  

Now while this sounds okay to the uncritical mind, I think what has ended up happening with secular Buddhism in the West is that the cultural trappings have been largely preserved, for example, the wearing of Japanese style robes, while what has been stripped away, over time, has been the very essence of Buddhism!

If the aforesaid is, in fact, true then Buddhism, over time, eventually becomes a product of cultural trappings, that is, a hodgepodge mainly of Asian cultural forms (dress, ceremony, etc.), which contain little if any of Buddhism’s original essence.  As for Buddhism’s essence, I would go so far as to speculate that, over time, this essence will have been replaced with some form of materialism or phenomenalism.   

I should also add that if there is any question as to what is the original essence of Buddhism, one need not look any further than Siddhartha’s awakening by which he became Buddha.  

“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). 

Following Siddhartha’s awakening, that is, becoming Buddha, his ministry was chiefly about teaching his most worthy followers (arya) how to awaken fully to what he, the Buddha, had previously awakened to.  Frankly, I don’t find secular Buddhism to be all that interested in what, exactly, Siddhartha’s Dharma was whereby he became awakened; a Dharma “which can only be understood by the wise.”  I have serious doubts that it had anything to do with bringing mindfulness and awareness into our everyday secular life which seems to be the practice of secular Buddhists. 

 

Holyoake and secular Buddhism

I tend to look upon the West’s secularizing of Buddhism as a somewhat clandestine attempt to colonize Buddhism by putting in its place, over time, the ideology of secularism.  Here below the coiner of secularism, G.J. Holyoake (1817–1906), describes his term (this was during a debate between Holyoake and Bradlaugh in 1870).

"Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it.  It does not question the pretensions of Christianity, it advances others.  Secularism does not say there is not light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in Secular truth whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, act independently and act for ever.  Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience in this life" (Secularism, Scepticism, and Atheism by George Jacob Holyoake and Charles Bradlaugh, p. 74).

Some key points that secular Buddhism shares with Holyoke's vision is, first, that secular Buddhism pretty much sees itself as independent of important traditional Buddhist tenets such as karma and rebith. Secondly, secular Buddhism is based on knowledge that can be obtained in in this life which is capable of being tested by experience.  Next, secular Buddhism’s own light and guidance, like that of secularism, comes from mundane truths (we could even say science).  

Whatever secular Buddhists wish to make of the importance of secularism, the scope of traditional Buddhism goes far beyond whatever benefits secularism claims to offer.  Buddhism offers not only light and guidance (even psychological light and guidance), but also deep knowledge (jñâna/gnosis) of the transcendent that can be attained in this lifetime.  Importantly, the transcendent found in Buddhism with the aid of meditation (dhyana) is completely spiritual and inwardly verifiable.  All this is something secularism abstains from. 

 

Letting go of the 'blankie'

Most of us remember Linus from the comic strip "Peanuts" which, by the way, lasted until 2000.  Some of us remember Linus sucking his thumb and carrying around his security blanket.  Psychologists call Linus' blanket a "transitional object" because it helps him to make a transition from complete dependence on his care providers to relative independence.  Such transitional objects might include a pillow or a stuffed toy.  Such objects also help to soothe a child under times of stress.  It is all quite normal for children to use transitional objects.  In fact it is quite healthy.  It shows the child is willing to go beyond his immediate surroundings and explore.

As a child matures the transitional object becomes inwardized.  When the child becomes an adult after their frontal lobes fully mature around 18 years of age, the child's transitional object becomes something for thought.  It is recognized, for example, as a system of beliefs, basic assumptions, presuppositions, and prejudices, to name just a few.  All this is necessary, for it helps the individual to meet the challenges of day to day life.

Those new to Buddhism who might decide to join a local Zen center come to it with their own kind of Linus blanket, only it is completely inwardized as it should be.  By it the beginner can submit to a limited transformative relationship with Buddhism.  But it also needs to be brought to our attention that the transformative relationship involves a crossing over from a limited all-too-human view of reality to the transcendent in which all transitional objects have to be dumped.  And this also includes, eventually, the Zen center, itself, which in most cases is a transitional object.  When the beginner joined a Zen center it was somewhat like a toddler upgrading his 'blankie' for a big Pooh Bear.

Of course it dawns on us that exchanging one set of transitional objects for another is not really going to work if we expect to reach the transcendent as mentioned earlier.  Real spiritual maturity begins when we go into the mountains, as Buddhist practitioners still do in China, to become hermits or become urban hermits.  There are no transitional object allowed because such a life is for going beyond the Five Aggregates that make up our individuality.  Hopefully, our mind can then reach the unconditioned (visankhara), i.e., nirvana.

 

A schism of the worst kind

Buddhism is certainly applicable to our modern life, but Buddhism's applicability, it needs to be underscored, has nothing whatsoever to do with Gautama's Buddhism.  Applicability only pertains to certain features of Buddhism that seem to fit—or are made to fit—with modernity making up ‘modern Buddhism’.  What's more, these features are capable of being greatly modified until they are made to fit seamlessly with the demands of modernity.

What I want to get across is that applicability shouldn't be confused with Buddhism of the canon or, especially, with Buddhism as teaching a transcendent path to nirvana.  For someone who wishes to learn Gautama's Buddhism one must adapt to it, completely—it cannot adapt to them.  Adapting oneself to Buddhism must be sufficient to enable the adept to enter the stream to nirvana or in the case of Mahayana Buddhism, initiate Bodhicitta in which one sees the world, for the first time, the way a Buddha does.

Keeping the aforementioned in mind, modern Buddhism is one of applicability.  It's aim is not to understand and thereby adapt to Gautama's Buddhism—it's aim is:  make Buddhism relevant to the aims of modern life.  Those who follow this form of Buddhism are deluding themselves if they believe that anything they might have learned from meditation to doctrine is Gautama's Buddhism.  This should be obvious when so-called secular Buddhists, who are working night and day to make Buddhism relevant to modern culture, rely mainly on one Sutta which is the Kalama Sutta of the Pali canon! (The only one they can actually understand.)  In a few words, this Sutta tells them it is okay to dump anything that they might find in the canon which doesn't jibe with modern secular beliefs.

I should mention that Gautama's Buddhism is not that difficult to adapt to.  It only requires of us that we sit at the feet of the Buddha’s discourses for a long time until it begins to dawn on us that what animates this corporeal body of ours together with its mental system is the Buddha's Dharma which is transcendent, deathless, an island, a refuge, tathatâ, and many other names.  Those, of course, who haven’t turned to this animative light are the puthujjana, those who are worldlings, or the same, worldlings who live in darkness (andha-puthujjana).

Regrettably, a battle line is being drawn between the forces of applicability and those who sit at the feet of Gautama who are his true heirs.  This might well be a schism of the worst kind.

 

Westernizing Buddhism

The Western mind is certainly locked up in the box of sensory bound consciousness; and, moreover, it has no doubts that this is where true knowledge and reality is to be found (thus far the West has only managed to produce 'scaffolding' disguised as truth like the lines of latitude and longitude).  This may explain why when Buddhism set foot on Western shores there was a impetus to revise it—reinterpret it, in other words, making it into a ‘new religion’ based on scientism and the belief that spirit or the immaterial is quite simply nothing—a delusion.

 All this, of course, assumes that Buddhism contains few if any of the traditional Indian yogic components like meditation or dhyâna (which obviously it does).  It also assumes that yoga is not at all ‘scientific’ and, therefore, is of no further use for the modern world.  If Western interpreters of Buddhism come across yogic ideas such as degrees of reality, from gross to purely spiritual, a hierarchy of intuitions, the presence of the numinous (e.g., the clear-light Mind), and self-awakening as the ultimate means of verification, it should be dumped.  This goes also for karma and the notion of rebirth.  Dump ‘em.

 Yogic science, naturally, works against the Western box of sensory bound consciousness.  Chiefly, it assumes a beyond—an outside to the Western box.  Incidentally, this should tell us how far a Westernized Buddhism is willing to go with the science of yoga in which the absolute substance of reality is met with by the adept in deep meditation.  Let me say that Westernized Buddhism will only go as far as psychology in which Buddhism is shown to be a religion of self-help psychology.  In this direction, Westernized Buddhism will be as spiritless as Westernized Christianity in which belief in spirit has been suspended (this began with the Nicene Creed in the 4th century).

 

Buddhism's via negativa

For the Buddha to affirm or deny the self or atman (P., attâ) implies that self has either determinate existence or the self is a useful but fictional construct which doesn’t really exist.  On the other hand, if the Buddha says that our psychophysical body (Five Aggregates), made up of form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness, is not the self, this implies that self, for us, is real but transcends any and all psychophysical determinations, positive or negative.  To transcend, in this sense, means that our real self goes beyond the range and reach of our human psychophysical nets while still being for us, immediate and intrinsic, although it remains gnostically unknown.

Adding to the last point, as long as the self is gnostically unknown the unconscious drive is to behold the self.  Unfortunately, this assumes the self to be something determinate which then leads to the shore of error:  the error of believing either in a determinate self or its opposite, no self (nattha attâ).  Here enters a great confusion on the stage of Buddhism which leads to a great scandal in which Buddhism steadily moves towards nihilism although its proponents argue otherwise.

Changing gears, the conspicuous absence of the Buddha unambiguously asserting that the self or atman is conditioned (P., sankhara) and, therefore, finite and transitory, is quite astonishing.  We find the Buddha, instead—almost ad nauseam—teaching that the psychophysical Five Aggregates are conditioned—not our self.  In fact, we are to distinguish (prajñâ) our self from the conditioned aggregates which, therefore, implies that the self is unconditioned like nirvana! 

The Buddha’s decision to neither affirm nor deny the self but, instead, to teach the self by removing what is conditioned is the mystical via negativa.  By negation, the adept is more than likely to break their ties with the corporeal body, i.e., the Five Aggregates, which, at first, they strongly imagine to be the self or the ‘I-form’.  Here, let me add, is a good example of the via negativa in the Pali Nikayas.  Keep in mind the Buddha is asking his monks to reject the Five Aggregates as what is not their true self.

"Monks, if people were to carry away, burn or do what they liked to the grass, sticks, leaves, and branches in this Jeta's grove, would it occur to you people are carrying us away, burning us or doing what they liked to us? 

"Venerable sir, it would not occur to us thus."

"What is the reason?"

"Venerable sir, that is neither our self nor what belongs to our self."

"Monks, in the same manner, form is not yours; give it up [ditto with the rest of the aggregates]“ (S. iii. 34).

I am sure modern Buddhists will argue with my take on a Buddhist mystical via negativa.  And why not?  Some modern Buddhists have taken the path of nihilism; what is more they believe they have the right to interpret Buddhism as they wish, without warranted evidence.  Unfortunately, there are even assholes in Buddhism.

 

Your true self is not the body dummy

That the Buddha taught his followers to uproot (ûhucca) a wrong view of self or in Pali, attânuditthi, should not be construed to mean a denial of the self (nattha attâ) which is outright nihilism.  A view of self only pertains to the view that one’s own body (sakkaya-ditthi) is the self, i.e., the corporeal man.  This view must be uprooted.  The Sutta-Nipata Atthakatha (1126) says:  “Uprooting (uhaccati) the view of self (attanuditthi) means removing the view that one’s being is the body (sakkayaditthi),” which is connected with this passage from the Sutta-Nipata:

“Regard the world as void (suññato lokam), Mogharaja, ever mindful, uproot the wrong view of self (atttânudditthim), thus you will be one who has crossed over death, the Lord of Death does not see one who thus regards the world” (1119).

Obviously, there is one who crosses over death reaching the undying land—but it isn’t the Five Aggregates which are fungible with sakkaya which is glommed onto and mis-taken for the true self.  If the adept even unconsciously covets any trace of the aggregate or khandha/skandha body, the crossing over will prove unsuccessful.  He will have to undergo another birth and death.

Reaching nirvana, that is, the accomplished crossing over is, in fact, our realization of the unviewable (aditthi) self in contrast with the viewable self of the Five Aggregates making up the sakkaya.  Later on, in Mahayana Buddhism this unviewable self will become nirvana, the Tathagatagarbha, and Buddha-nature in the  Mahayana-mahaparinirvana Sutra.

The Void refers to all births and deaths. The Non-Void refers to Great Nirvana. And the non-Self is nothing but birth and death. The Self refers to Great Nirvana.

And

The atman is the Tathagatagarbha.  All beings possess a Buddha Nature: this is what the atman is.  This atman, from the start, is always covered by innumerable passions (klesha): this is why beings are unable to see it.

For those who find it difficult to comprehend or accept at face value the truth that the Buddha’s view of self only pertains to the human problem of mistaking the Five Aggregates with the intrinsic, higher self, Buddhism will forever remain a mystery for them.