The Zennist

What a Buddhist beginner needs

The beginner is not a specialist in Buddhism.  A Buddhist beginner’s needs are much different.  The beginner requires an integrated bird’s eye view of Buddhism.  But then how do we present such a picture?  Do we present the picture historically with a list of important developments listed chronologically?  But how far can this really go in helping the beginner?  This is a question that is difficult to answer.

There are so many books about Buddhism available these days so that the beginner is more than often overwhelmed and confused.  Some of the books published are scholarly and highly technical.  Other books are cobbled together by dilettantes or opportunists, some of whom merely provide a personal interpretation of Buddhism, one not based on anything the Buddha actually taught.

When I was a beginner, the one book that I was attracted to was John Blofeld’s, The Zen Teachings of Huang Po which, by the way, is still available.  Looking back to that time, my beginner’s heart seemed to know what to look for.  The integrated bird’s eye view of Buddhism that I was looking for was a spiritual one.  I wanted to intuit what other Zen masters and the Buddha had discovered.  I wanted to see for myself what they saw.  As a beginner, the books that I was particularly drawn to helped me to gain a spiritual intuition.  

I did not find Buddhist books worth my time that were written from a psychological, self-help perspective.  These authors are using Buddhist meditation therapeutically so that the angst ridden denizens of the rat race who follow them, might become better and happier rats!  These authors ignore much of what the Buddha taught.  They are not interested in the core teaching of the Buddha which is spiritual in nature.  

I have to agree with Heinrich Dumoulin who said, “The mystical element is an essential part of Buddhism.” In fact, it is so essential there can be no authentic Buddhism without it.  Minus the mystical element Buddhism has nothing worthy to teach.  It boils down to there is no self or transcendent, all is impermanent and suffering, and death is emancipation.  But this is precisely nihilism from which the West is presently suffering.  

The only Buddhist books worth reading are those which give us a integrated bird’s eye view of Buddhism are those which contain the mystical element; in my case The Zen Teachings of Huang Po.  In such books the beginner learns in a few pages that they have to have a deep and profound intuition of pure Mind or resign themselves to prithagjana (worldling) status which is Buddhism for those who cannot distinguish spiritual light from material darkness.

 

Post-religious Buddhism

Stephen Batchelor’s book, Buddhism Without Beliefs, more than any other modern pop book about Buddhism, gives the reader, especially the beginner, a fairly accurate view of the future of Westernized Buddhism.  Ironically, Buddhism Without Beliefs reveals and says more about the West’s post-religious ideology than Buddhism.  I will go so far as to say that Buddhism Without Beliefs contains nothing pertaining to the essence of Buddhism which should be obvious for anyone who has spent a year or more studying the Nikayas including Mahayana works.  

It is not out of the way to say that the post-religious outlook that Buddhism Without Beliefs shows the reader is somewhat of a novelty.  Anti-religiousness, which makes the post-religious outlook possible, has not succeeded in the modern age—certainly not in the 20th century.  There is no compelling evidence that religion is on the decline much less Buddhism with its belief in karma and rebirth.  And this goes for spirituality and mysticism, as well, both of which go in the direction of the transmundane.

Buddhism Without Beliefs is calculated to appeal to those who just don’t get religion or spirituality who, for that matter, can’t understand a word Plotinus or Meister Eckhart said; much less the Buddha.  On this same note, Buddhism Without Beliefs is not calculated to appeal to Buddhists who are familiar with the words of the Buddha.  Batchelor even goes so far as to ignore the subject of nirvana as if this is an unimportant subject in Buddhism!

If people have been deceived by religion in the past, they have also been deceived by a lot of non-religious matters.  Post-religiousness is just another deception especially Batchelor's take on Buddhism. 

 

More thoughts on rebirth (punarbhava)

Understanding rebirth or in Sanskrit punarbhava is difficult for the average Westerner or Western Buddhist because their intellect is situated in phenomena, more precisely, there is nothing except phenomena, and with it difference.  The idea of an absolute spiritual substance (e.g., tathata, ekacitta) is quite alien to this view.  With such a profusion of phenomena it is hard to swallow the idea of that all this seemingly endless variety has it roots in one substance—a spiritual one—that can be discovered by us through introspection.

Rebirth is much easier to think about if we imagine that we are pure water.  Being pure water also means that we are snowflakes, ice crystals, water ripples, fog, etc.  These are forms or configurations of water.  Water is always being reborn as a water-form or a water phenomenalization.  Carrying this one step further, as pure water if we don’t know precisely what pure water is we might wrongly believe that we are a particular snowflake or maybe even a snowman!  In this case we would desire to become snowflakes or snowmen, again and again, not knowing anything else.  

I realize that this analogy isn’t perfect but I think it at least helps to illustrate that the absolute substance is always bound up with its phenomena unable to distinguish (prajñâ) between itself and its many, diverse manifestations.  

It is only a Buddha or an advanced Bodhisattva who is able to realize, fully, the absolute substance or tathata, further being able to distinguish it from its riot of forms.  Going back to the water analogy, enlightenment would be pure water suddenly realizing that the snowflake or the snowman is merely water; in fact there is nothing but water, the various water forms being an illusion of difference.  Pure water by seeing itself would cease being reborn in the sense of no longer believing I am this snowflake or, I am this snowman.  To fully know and to realize profoundly that one is the absolute, and has always been thus, is at the heart of freeing oneself from rebirth.

For us humans, rebirth at the micro scale is apparent in our everyday thoughts to which we are shackled under the belief, I am these thoughts and experiences.  It is almost impossible to escape from them.  We have been with them since our birth.  They are the basis of our human world, albeit a fictional world, but one nevertheless real for us.  And given that we are attached to these thoughts and experiences they form the basis of more births, in fact, endless rebirths until we can see our pure nature.  

 

True reality is not this illusory world

Ordinary, illusory reality (our everyday world) must appear.  Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a non-appearing illusion!  This further means that such a reality is like a mirage or more like a rope in the night misperceived to be a venomous snake.  But neither the mirage nor the venomous snake—or any illusion for that matter—has an absolute nature or substance (svabhava).  Only Mind is the proper basis or substance for the arising of this illusory world and its things.  Until we perfectly intuit or realize pure Mind (the substance of all) we shall ever remain submerged in illusion believing it to be true reality.

But then most people seem to want to live their lives submerged in illusion rather than see it as it is, being supremely wise to the fact that no part of appearance can be taken to be real.  

Even amongst Buddhists many Buddhists take the illusory world to be the real world under the idea that samsara is nirvana.  They wallow in the illusory oblivious to the fact that it deals in suffering and death; not making the slightest effort see through it.

How many times in the Pali Nikayas, and the Mahayana canon, does the Buddha have to tell his followers that the psychophysical body is unreal; that it is not the self, before they stop desiring it and its world?  Apparently, a lot.  Even when the Buddha was alive few could understand his teaching.  Even fewer could behold the eternal substance from which illusory existence was made.

Still, given the stubbornness and dullness (moha) of many Buddhists who, throughout the history of Buddhism, have tried to sell illusion as the very body of the Buddha, Buddhism has, in spite of their wrongheaded efforts, remained firm and unbending, refusing to condescend to the demands of a secular will-to-power.  There is just too much in both canons to support the fact that all is an illusion except the substance (pure Mind) from which it is made.

 

How to die and become a god

Anathapindika was a rich banker who generously supported the Buddha.  When he became grievously ill, rather than bother the Buddha, he sent a messenger to Sariputta (Shariputra) asking him to help him essenitially to die.  This is what the Anathapindikovada Sutta (M. iii. 258) is all about, Sariputta leading Anathapindika through the dying process.  Of interest for both the beginner and even the seasoned veteran of Buddhism, from this Sutta we get a clearer picture of where Buddhism is coming from.

From the Sutta it is quite apparent that Anathapindika is in a great deal of pain which was increasing.  Nor was he getting well; nor was he comfortable according to the Sutta.  So what does Sariputta ask this dying man to do?  He asks him not to cling to the senses and their objects becoming dependent upon them.  This includes even mind objects as well.

Householder, you should train thus: ‘I will not cling to forms...I will not cling to sounds...I will not cling to odours...I will not cling to flavours...I will not cling to tangibles...I will not cling to mind-objects, and my consciousness will not be dependent on mind-objects.’ Thus should you train.

This non-clinging strategy continues throughout the rest of the Sutta.  Summing up this Sutta, Anathapindika is basically asked not to cling to the psychophysical body including its sensory world because, fundamentally, he transcends psychophysicality being the greater which is undying.  Incidentally, according to this Sutta, Anathapindika was given a teaching not for lay people which was intended for those who had at least 'gone forth' (S., pravrajyâ).

From the Sutta we learn that after Anathapindika dies he becomes a god in the Tusita heaven who then illuminates the entire Jeta Grove where the Buddha was staying and spoke to him which is recorded in verse. 

The god Anathapindika certainly does not fit neatly within the mold of Western Buddhism; nor in the mold of the Western idea of death which pooh-poohs the whole idea of postmortem survival.  Today’s stock of Buddhists who were formerly Christians seem to want nothing to do with gods or their heavens although the Buddhist canon says the Buddha was a teacher of gods and humans (sattha devamanussanam). 

 

Is death final?

In Buddhism death is not final as it is believed to be in Western culture.  Moreover, it is an evil heresy (pâpakam ditthigatam) for a Buddhist to believe such.  There is postmortem survival in other words.

That which animates the psychophysical body, that is, gives it life is not a biological, anatomical thing—nor can it die.  Neither can it be discovered by analysis of the five psychophysical constituents (skandha).  

Our limited sensory consciousness (the fifth psychophysical constituent) is by ignorance bound to the psychophysical organism, more precisely, it is bound to the senses including their respective fields and objects.  Consciousness, in other words, has no ability to behold the deathless element (amritadhatu) which is its very substance.  

Taking a slightly different turn, Western Buddhists believe that because the Buddha denied the self or atman, that postmortem survival is illogical.  If there is no self there is no survival.  This view, however, does not chime with either the Nikayas or the Mahayana canon.  Both canons give no warrant for either the belief that the Buddha denied the self or the Buddha did not accept postmortem survival.  Westerners have generally misread what the Buddha taught who are too eager to make of him a materialist. 

Postmortem survival comes under the rubric of mind.  Mind is what enters into samsara (S. i. 37) such that it is never freed of repeated births and deaths.  Mind or consciousness, from ignorance, locks onto the psychophysical constituent of form (which includes all the senses), owing to desire which, as a consequence, entangles it in the world of samsara, again and again.  On the other hand, it is mind or consciousness that can also become liberated (cittam vimuttam) from samsara.

If we use the analogy of water in which we think of ourselves as being pure water and samsara as being agitated water, we constantly move from one agitated state to the next because, first of all, we are water but secondly, because we believe that pure water is in some way or measure agitated; never non-agitated (this condition is one of profound ignorance or avidya).  From this we are justified in saying that postmortem survival is always certain.  The only thing, however, uncertain is whether or not we attain deathless nirvana or fall back into samsara. 

 

Nuancing the Kalama Sutta

The Kalama Sutta of the Pali canon seems to have become the foremost Sutra of  secular Buddhists, no doubt thanks to the tireless efforts of the Buddhist agnostic, atheist, secular materialist, Stephen Batchelor.  For those who are interested in more nuanced details about the Kalama Sutta, in particular what it says and what it does not say, which secular Buddhists, I am inclined to believe, tend to ignore, I have included some valuable material from K.N. Jayatilleke’s book, Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge (pp. 390–391).

(663) This is just what the Buddha seems to demand from his hearers regarding his own statements. He does not want his own statements accepted on his authority nor rejected but seems to demand that they be tested and accepted if they are found to be true and presumably rejected if they are found to be false. This attitude is well-expressed in a late verse, which appears in the Tattvasamgraha (3588) and the Tibetan version of the Jñânasamuccayasara. It reads as follows: 'Just as wise men (test a claim to be gold) by burning, cutting and rubbing (on a touchstone), my statements, O monks, should be accepted after examination and not out of respect for me'. This verse is not found in the Nikayas but it reflects the attitude of the Buddha as often represented in the Nikayas. The Buddha is anxious to see that his statements are not accepted out of respect for his authority as the teacher—the very thing that he condemns in the Kalama Sutta. On one occasion he asks, 'would you, O monks, knowing and seeing thus say, "our teacher is respected, we say so out of respect for our teacher" '. The monks submit that it is not so.

(664) Thus if we interpret the Kalama Sutta as saying that one should not accept the statements of anyone on authority nor even seriously consider the views of others in order to test their veracity but rely entirely on one's own experiences in the quest and discovery of truth, then this would be contradictory to the concept of saddha [faith] in the Pali Nikayas. But if, on the other hand, we interpret the Kalama Sutta as saying that while we should not accept the statements of anyone as true on the grounds of authority, we should test the consequences of statements in the light of our own knowledge and experience in order to verify whether they are true or false, it would be an attitude which is compatible with saddha [faith] as understood in at least one stratum of Pali Canonical thought. As we have shown above (v. supra, 662, 663) we have reason to believe that this latter interpretation is the correct one. (Brakets and italics are mine.  In addition, I left out the Sanskrit and Pali scripture so the reader only sees the English translation instead of the original.)

Speaking from my own personal ‘mystical experiences’ I have faith in the Buddha’s teaching.  So far I have verified his teachings to be absolutly reliable.  This may not be the case, however, for someone like Stephen Batchlor or the intractable skeptic.  Okay, I can understand that—Buddhists like Batchelor are puthujjanas (worldlings) when in comes to gnosis (jñâna).  Maybe a thousand or more rebirths might help these hammerheads.

 

Materialism only sees half the picture

As far as the history of ideas is concerned ‘materialism’ is the new kid on the block.  The term materialism was first coined in 1713 by George Berkeley (Bishop Berkeley).  Among  other things, Berkeley said that “Pantheism, Materialism, Fatalism are nothing but Atheism a little disguised.”  I would tend to agree. 

More in keeping with what the Buddha taught I would say that Pantheism, Materialism, and Fatalism are a result of a despiritualizing tendency in Western society that is eager to destroy all that is holy in human beings and for that matter all living things (our current ecological crisis is a result of this despiritualizing tendency).  

The materialist is basically saying there is no Buddha-nature—nothing holy, spiritual, or transcendent whereby sentient beings can escape from the vicious cycle of illusory existence.  On the  other hand, for anyone who has experienced genuine Bodhicitta, illusory phenomena have only heuristic value (they can never be ends in themselves).  This means that all phenomena serve only to reveal the effective work of the radiant pure Mind, that once revealed, completely ends suffering for us.  To make phenomena an end in itself is  madness.

As one can clearly see, materialism is only capable of seeing half the picture:  the half that cannot and should not be an end in itself but is made such by its wrongheaded adherents.  This leads to endless samsara:  a wandering from one phenomenal existence to another, without seeming end.

On this same score, religious materialism is found in the excesses of ritualism which is the veneration of the symbolic.  This is done at the expense of religion’s spiritual content.  Incidentally, this is my beef with Dogen’s Soto Zen in which meditation has been ritualized (J., gyoji) in “just sitting” (shikantaza) as if the posture of the physical body, itself, were spiritually significant (it ain’t).

Why we have been on the course of materialism for almost the last three  hundred years, I cannot say with any degree of accuracy except to opine that materialism is profoundly evil. 

 

More on the heart of Zen

To go to the heart of Zen first requires of us that we divest ourselves of all our presuppositions about ultimate reality; most importantly, that there is no such thing.  All totaled, we cannot get to the heart of Zen by trying to conform Zen to our ideas or modern philosophies.

If we fail to do this, two results will likely obtain.  The first is that we will never understand Zen, the Zen of Bodhidharma.  The second is the Zen we imagine to be Zen finds ultimate reality to be this ordinary world—there is no transcendent.  This is fool’s Zen insofar as it makes illusory existence ultimate reality.  It is for those who have not been sufficiently pushed beyond their presuppositions so as to lose all faith in them.  Such an attitude prevents the complete stoppage of determining (samjñâ) such that we are never truly open and receptive.  Rather than admit our lack of openness and receptivity, we construct a counterfeit Zen that runs counter to Bodhidharma’s Zen.

Since 1965 when I first began my study of Zen, Zen has never ceased going downhill becoming more Westernized in which its mystical path and its mystical fruit are all but ignored.  Zen, in this regard, has become gradually psychologized which, incidentally, I have mentioned several times in previous blogs.  All this suggests to me that Zen is being reworked so that it can be marketed as a drugless way to deal with our angst-ridden modern world.  But this is no solution anymore than sitting in an armchair for an hour a day. 

Perhaps the worst kind of attachments are our attachments to our presuppositions about ultimate reality.  If truth be known, they prevent us from direct communion with it.

 

Is materialism the religion of the walking dead?

Those who are consumed with materialism in which the spiritual side of man is reduced to physicality such that spirit is no longer believed or discussed, are the icchantikas who are discussed in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra in not a kind way.  As a matter of fact, the icchantika is likened to a dead person!

While it is true that the icchantika is not without the eternal spiritual substance, as are all living creatures (sattva), this substance being the Buddha-nature, the icchantika is certainly doomed to present suffering insofar since he has willfully severed himself from the possibility of realizing his Buddha-nature because of his strong attachment to materialism.  In addition, the icchantika makes no attempt to gain Bodhicitta (S., bodhicittotpada) in which the subtle power of pure Mind is awakened for the first time.

While the icchantika can certainly read the teachings of the Buddha, he just doesn’t get it.  He is just not interested.  The ideas of emancipation from suffering and gaining enlightenment are alien to the icchantika.  The only way for an icchantika to change is to believe in the spiritual teachings of the Buddha which teach us how to awaken to our primordial nature which is eternally unchanging and undying.  By comparison, the materialist’s world, which is also the world of  the icchantika, is forever changing.  It is always other than itself (hence, it lacks selfhood).  Moreover, it is an illusion lacking substance and meaning.  Not even death offers an escape because death is only change into other, not finality.

A minority, I am sure, would agree with me that materialism is the great evil of our age.  Instead, the majority prefer to sweep the evils of this age under the rug as if the horrific wars of the 20th century were due entirely to other causes not associated with the rise of materialism.  Yet, at the same time, virtually all people are aware of the process of dehumanization which I take to be the result of materialism.  Sadly, they have not dug deep enough into materialism in which the spiritual side of man is first disbelieved followed by the annihilation of everything holy in human nature.