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). 

 

Comments

[star]

Yes, indeed, the Buddha did mention "mind" quite a bit, for example here in DN 1.2.13 where he lists a Wrong View:

'That which is called "the eye," "the ear," "the nose," "the tongue," and "the body" — that self is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change. But that which is called "mind" (citta) or "mentality" (mano) or "consciousness" (viññāṇa) — that self is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and it will remain the same just like eternity itself.' (courtesy of accesstoinsight.org)

[Paul]

Yep.

"Mind has been virtually ignored in the modern Buddhist discourse; nor is it understood to be a concrete reality like space."

I think this is the cause of the persistent materialism amongst Western Buddhism.

Here's another quote about mind, this time from Padmasambhava:

The view free from deviations
Is impartial like the sky.
Everything is mind and mind itself is empty
And free from partiality just like the sky.

[minx]

My teacher told me (in the beginning of my path;

"Because you have not actualized your Buddha-nature you have nothing of real value. You can in fact not even claim to know the slightest real thing about the Mind of Buddha. Until you actualize this great Mind within yourself, you should remain silent, study hard and row like a mad man, far away from this cursed land of ill-advising desire beings until you hit the other shore, where a myriad Buddhas and Bodhisattvas awaits you for further instructions in the uncreated light of Nirvana."

[K Grey]

Perhaps you could comment on your understanding of what you think others mean when they say "Awareness". Clearly in this post you say they are speaking of something other than Buddha Mind, and am curious what you assume this to be (or at least it reads that way).

Where you might speak of the brain (and Mara) and of Buddha Mind, I might speak of mind and Awareness. I sometimes also use the Buddhist terms, or those of other traditions. It this really a mistake, or just the nature of communication? As a Buddhist, your path offers you some clarity [limits] in terminology, but no monopoly on Truth (aka "Buddha Mind", Awareness", "Tao", "Christ", "Gnosis", etc...)

Linguistic and cultural multiplicity adds to the confusion for most (but this too is a pointer!). Regardless of the label, all is That (as you say about Ch'an/Mind). A non-Buddhist is unlikely to want to use the term "Buddha Mind", much as you relate to "Awareness". What would you have them say?

"Buddha Mind", "Awareness", "Ch'an" - these are only different for "Mara". Choosing "Brand B" over "Brand A" is not "Right View".

No religion owns This, no words can say it. For those with eyes to see, some of them can do a nice job of pointing.

I can appreciate the directness of Zen, and of Advaita (this being simple preferences among appearances only), though the latter is fast becoming a New Age train wreck the way "Western" Zen [to keep to your themes] has in recent decades. Advaita needs the same discernment you are applying to "Western" Buddhism, but only to avoid misunderstanding in the same way. To each his own. All words, best not to get hung up there.

How hard is pointing? How hard to point the "blockhead" at themselves? At the human mind? All is "Buddha Mind", so All points to All. The "blockhead" cannot see this of course, or worse THINKS they do (this perhaps you main point?), and so it goes.

Mara weaves a tight web. The jewels of Indra's net shine brightly. Entrapped or bedazzled or both, All is our nature. To see is to laugh, and cry...

I find no words without something to reflect on. Your posts offer that. Thank you.

[nathan]

maybe if you insulted people less, more might be inclined to listen a little bit to what you're saying.