The Zennist

The cognitive dissonance of Zen

The human mind cannot hold two opposing and contradictory beliefs at the same time, for example, I believe in God and I don’t believe in God.  When this happens it is called “cognitive dissonance.”  At all costs the human mind has to rid itself of the dissonance.  This could include the suppression of information and unconscious denial.  A more elaborate unpacking of what cognitive dissonance means is here presented.

A theory first postulated by Leon Festinger ( 1957), which holds that when an individual finds himself in a situation where he is expected to believe two mutually exclusive things, the subsequent tension and discomfort generate activity designed to reduce the disharmony. Festinger presents two basic hypotheses: (1) the existence of dissonance (inconsistency) is psychologically uncomfortable, which motivates a person to try to reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance (consistency); and (2) when dissonance is present, in addition to trying to reduce it, a person will actively avoid situations and information which would likely increase the dissonance.

Festinger further explains cognitive dissonance by defining the meaning of the two words "cognitive" and "dissonance." Cognition (the noun form of cognitive) is "any knowledge, opinion, or belief about the environment, about oneself, or about one's behavior." Dissonance is "the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions" ( Festinger, 1957, p. 3). Cognitive dissonance, then, can best be understood as an antecedent condition which leads to activity oriented toward reducing dissonance.

Festinger's concept of cognitive dissonance suggests that the human organism will always try to establish internal harmony, consistency, or congruity among his opinions, attitudes, knowledge, and values (i.e., a drive toward consonance among cognitions). He conceptualizes cognition to be decomposable into elements or clusters of elements. When confronted with some contradiction to a strongly held belief, people tend to try (either consciously or unconsciously) to find some element of the contradictory input with which they can identify” (Jay M. Shafritz, ed., International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration: A-C, vol. 1, p. 414).

Maintaining consonance at all costs to avoid dissonance can be a risky undertaking in more ways than one.  Maintaing cultural consonance is at the heart of paradigm wars, government’s not-so-convincing-explanations, conspiracy theories—and yes, even UFO disclosure.  A lie, in other words, is better than the truth if truth means rocking our secure boat.  

In Buddhism, the process of maintaining consonance in the face of cognitive dissonance with regard to Zen’s mythology such as the patriarchal lineage, seated meditation, etc., cannot be underestimated or ignored.  Teaching Zen mythology to Zen newbies for the sake of consonance is a major function of pop Zen. 

The effort of The Zennist blog has been to hammer away at the artificially created consonance—the Zen myth—by showing that institutionalized Zen, including pop Zen, does not have much real Buddhism as a basis.  The so-called Zen lineage, for example, has more to do with Confucianism than Buddhism (The Zennist, “The Confucian Zen lineage”).  The institution of Zen we have in place has largely been a concession to Chinese, Korean and Japanese culture.  Its present form has very little if anything to do with real Buddhism. 

On the other hand the literature of Zen, like philosophical Taoism, is of great value.  Zen’s grasp of pure Mind is exemplary and very helpful for the adept who wants to see what the Buddha saw.  It is not off the track with regard to the Nikayas or the Mahayana canon.  But where cognitive dissonance is met with involves the institution of Zen, itself, which has nothing really to do with awakening to pure Mind; with first achieving Bodhicitta so the Bodhisattva path can commence.  The institutional Zennies are going to protect their turf no matter what the cost, attacking those who are exposing the myth of Zen for what it really is.  

What this portends for modern Zen is a Zen without Buddhism; a Zen of rituals, not a single one having been taught by the Buddha.  Is it any wonder that in Japan Zen is regarded as the “funeral religion”?

 

Dependent origination is about illusion

In the commentary to the Majjhima-Nikaya (The Middle Length Discourses) it says, "One who sees dependent origination sees dependently arisen things (paticca samuppanne dhamme).”  Such includes the Five Aggregates or the same, the psychophysical individual.  This individual lacks any real existence.

Another way of putting the matter of dependent origination is that things or dhamme are not fundamentally, of themselves, real (svabhava). Things are actually empty/inane.  We can take this to mean also that the world we view is a grand fictional construction.  Things are like a dream, a reflection on the water, etc.  This is what Nagarjuna had in mind with the following:

“O saviour! [Since things] are inactive, dependent, empty, dependent arisen like an illusion, you have made it clear that all phenomena are without own-being (svabhava)” (Lokâtîtastava).

And,

“Just as an echo here [in the world] arises dependently upon a sound thus also the [entire] origination of existence is like an illusion (mâyâ) and a mirage” (Acintyastava).

All originations, we always need to keep in mind, are never other than illusory; they are really the substance or dharma manifesting itself without leaving its svabhava or true nature.  For example, clay does not leave its nature when a potter fashions it into a clay pot.  The clay pot is a dependent origination of the clay/svabhava—the clay pot is also completely illusory.  

Bringing this subject down to meditation, our life in this body of ours and the world it is situated in are dependent arisings of true substance or nature (svabhava) that never arises.  Now, let us say, the Buddha asks us to see this substance; to attain samadhi.  Try as we might we come up with more dependent arisings.  This is not good.  The mysterious substance eludes us.  We are like the little boy in the first picture of the Ten Oxherding Pictures, “Searching for the Ox.”  Yes, we do know and understand what dependent originations are.  But what we don’t know is exactly from what these originations are composed.  This is because this nature or self-nature (svabhava) is signless and without any distinguishing marks.  Still, it is most real—absolutely real.  But we are still asleep.

 

What is the payoff of doing rituals?

Those who enter the gate of Zen are not entering the world of meditation but are entering the world of rituals (J., gyôji), the most important ritual being that of zazen.  However, bowing to one’s sitting mat, sitting on a zafu with one’s back ramrod straight for a certain length of time with hands positioned in a certain way, etc., don’t begin to come close to real meditation.  

The benefits of doing the zazen ritual are greatly exaggerated.  A good daily walk, taking yoga classes, or riding a bicycle probably offer more health benefits than just sitting in some stuffy room.  Again, taking a class in pottery is not a shabby way to learn concentration either, in addition to patience.  The martial arts are preferable to the zazen ritual of sitting, too.  

To be honest, ritualized sitting, that is, zazen, is a fool’s errand although doing zazen can be demanding and grueling leading the practitioner to believe their efforts will have a huge payoff in the future.  But then what is the actual payoff it terms of awakening (bodhi)?  After so many years, do all the Suttas and Sutras become easy to understand?  Hardly.  

Ritualized Buddhism, including ritualized sitting, was developed in China and Japan’s feudal societies.  Essentially a feudal society is based on the relation of the lord to his vassals which insures a top-down command system.  Submissiveness was the norm for the vassal.  Like the lord, the Zen teacher had absolute authority over the student/vassal—and still does, especially in Japan.  But such a system does little to bring one to and actual awakening.  It only suits the needs of a feudal society.  

For the one who practices zazen, important and as vital as it may seem, given the time spent doing it, nothing shuts the gate faster to real Zen than rituals, including formal zazen.  Add to this the student’s devotion to the Zen master as if he were the Buddha himself!  But what warrants such devotion?  Just a certificate of transmission and a set of robes?

We need to keep in might the Buddha was self awakened.  He was not deceived by his teachers having realized that their enlightenments did not go far enough.  Nor was the Buddha, as a student, deceived by other great teachers of his day especially by Brahmans who performed rituals for a living.

The only teacher we need are the words of the Buddha.  They only meditation is to look within at our thoughts, penetrating through their veiling power until we reach pure Mind which is their substance or tathata.  This is awakening.  This is also the beginning of real Zen and the path of Mahayana Buddhism.

 

Moving beyond human experience

I have always been more or less of the opinion that  modern Buddhists are more interested in trying to find effective ways of coping with the samsaric world, including trying to bring Buddhism closer to modern science (whatever “science” today means), than trying to understand the real message of the Buddha that can be found only in the canon.  

Their strategy seems to be, take parts of Buddhism that resonate with modern values while leaving the rest out of the picture, if not sometimes raising doubts with regard to rebirth, for example.

Where this all ends up, or maybe I should say, what this accomplishes is to glorify our present day world as if this is the best of all possible worlds when, in fact, this is not true.  The lives people are leading right now are screwed up in a number ways (how about health, for example?).  

Let’s face it, modern society is decadent and has been so for some time.  In addition, those who run the machinery, i.e., those who hold the reigns of power are, for the most part, corrupt.  The average person seems to forget that the 20th century was the century of genocide and annihilation (if you add the Cold War to this).

Modern religious values are equally decadent.  The modern soul believes that it is privileged to offer its verdict on all religions, moreover, that the goal of religion is to find God, or the absolute (which ever you prefer), in human experience.  We Buddhists already see this in the expression “everyday Zen” or “ordinary Zen” both of which are really saying: Our human, everyday experience is the Buddhic life.

Why the modern soul chooses to locate religious experience in human experience is puzzling to say the least.  It is even more puzzling when a Buddhist like Thich Nhat Hanh says: "Religious experience is inevitably human experience.  It has to do with the human consciousness, both individual and collective” (Living Buddha, Living Christ).  This is almost like saying the words of ordinary beings are the same as those of the Buddha!  But this is wrong from the standpoint of the Nikayas and the Mahayana canon.  First of all, it should be obvious that the Buddha’s awakening is very important because it transcends all human experience.  Instead of being bound down to his human experiences a Buddha awakens to his true nature which is transcendent.  

While the Buddha was smart the modern human being is not so smart.  Using Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s words, “We are spiritual beings having a human experience” which, let me add, is bringing us nothing but suffering—and still we cling to the human experience, refusing to transcend it.  So does this mean the human race is masochistic?  Think about it.

 

Entering the Buddha's world

The problem with Dogen’s Japanese Buddha-nature pantheism, in which all finite things are accepted and recognized as the Buddha-nature, is that the Buddha-nature is not finite like ordinary things.  It is not found in mountains and rivers, for example.  Looking at a mountain or sitting by the Mississippi will not reveal the Dharmadhatu anymore than carefully examining a shoe will reveal who the cobbler was who replaced the sole.

At the heart of this problem is the notion of illusion or fiction which is characteristic of the worldly sphere, or the Lokadhatu.  Through ignorance we are grounded in the Lokadhatu.  As such, when we read the words of the Buddha we imagine there is some kind of essence in each individualized thing.  We are content to stop here believing ourselves to be in possession of the absolute since beings and things are supposedly the Buddha-nature or absolute.

To be grounded like the Buddha in the Dharmadhatu paints an entirely different picture than the one previously discussed.  The Lokadhatu has been absorbed into Dharmadhatu.  If we choose to call this a higher synthesis, then in the Dharmadhatu the rigid outline that separates one thing from another, including finiteness which characterizes all things, have both dissolved into a body (sarira) of great compassion (mahakaruna) which is ever radiating forth.  D.T. Suzuki says it better than I can find words at the moment.

Owing to its self-expanding and self-creating power, a great loving heart transforms this earthly world into one of splendour and mutual fusion, and this is where the Buddha is always abiding (Essays in Zen Buddhism [third series], p. 83).

This creative, bliss-bestowing power (that is, Mind) overwhelms the Lokadhatu.  What before seemed to be invincible (I am reminded of Mara the Evil One battling with Siddhartha) now becomes diaphanous such that one sees through the phenomenal veil of illusion which then becomes Mind’s unending return to itself which is vidya (knowing and completion).  This return is pure bliss or sukha.  But this is not so for those immersed in the Lokadhatu which includes corporeal bodies that are a mass of  obstructing desires (like dark clouds obstructing the sun).  As a result, the mountains and rivers are not transformed—the light doesn’t show through.

 

An introduction to an evil dude and his aggregates

It is nice to see journalists like Barbara O'Brien at About.com provide useful information about Buddhism to beginners, the curious, and to practitioners.  Just recently, Barbara provided some good material about Five Aggregates entitled, “The Five Skandhas, An Introduction to the Aggregates,” http://buddhism.about.com/od/whatistheself/a/skandhasexplan.htm, which is better than the typical short shrift this subject generally receives at Dharma centers.  

Despite the good work, Barbara has left out some very important information about the aggregates.  These aggregates are not neutral.  They belong to Mara the Evil One who is the Buddhist devil.  Need proof?  This is from the Samyutta-Nikaya (iii.189).

"When there is form, Radha, there might be Mara, or the killer, or the one who is killed.  Therefore, Radha, see form as Mara, see it as the killer, see it as the one who is killed.  See it as a disease, as a tumor, as a dart, as misery, as really misery.  Those who see it thus see rightly.  When there if feeling ... When there is perception ... When there are volitional formations ... When there is consciousness, Radha, there might be Mara, or the killer, or the one who is killed."

So what does this all mean?  Well it means a lot.  For one thing our precious, aggregated psychophysical body we covet so much is Mara who is the killer.  This includes even our consciousness.  More importantly, when we plop ourselves down on a zafu and do zazen, we are zazening with Mara the Evil One.  Although we are fundamentally not this body, it sure seems like we are.  Whatever we truly are, it doesn’t seem to be able to unbind itself from the Five Aggregates and the powerful influence of Mara.

On the other hand, for one who has realized their true self or Buddha-nature, they’ve conquered Mara just like the Buddha did when he was a Bodhisattva under the Bodhi-tree.  But they also have transcended the Five Aggregates.  They can distinguish (prajñâ) the true nature of reality from its aggregated configurations which are illusory and empty.  By the way, if you wish to do this, it isn’t going to happen in a few years or twenty years.

 

Small potatoes Dogen

For scholars, the most troubling aspect of Dogen’s Zen is how much of it was gleaned from his stay in China with his teach Ju-ching and how much came from his own head after his return to Japan.  My own personal opinion is that Dogen’s cooked up his own Zen and for that matter,  his own Buddhism.  

Recorded sayings of Dogen’s teacher in China, Ju-ching, make no mention of “just sitting” (shikan taza) or “casting off body-mind” (shinjin datsuraku).  Both, it is important to stress, are central to Dogen’s teaching.  From what I can tell, the ideas of “just sitting” and “casting off body-mind” are the brainchild of an older, more sectarian and zealous Dogen.  He turns Ju-ching into a sword by which to strike down his opponents when more likely, as thus far the evidence shows, Ju-ching was an ordinary Zen priest.  

Neither do we find “just sitting” or “casting off body-mind” in the accepted canon of Buddhism.  The Buddha made no specific point that by sitting one realizes their Buddha-ness.  Meditation (samadhi) for the Buddha is spiritual with no dependence on a particular physical posture.

Dogen’s importance in Japanese Zen has been greatly exaggerated by his followers.  He is really small potatoes.  In some ways he is almost and embarrassment.

“Given the centrality of Zen in medieval Japanese culture and the reputation of Dogen as one of Japan's greatest Zen masters, it would be easy to conclude that his influence has been widespread. This does not seem to be the case. Prior to modern times, there is little evidence that Dogen's teachings had much impact beyond the confines of his own school. This school maintained few prominent monasteries in the major urban centers, and its institutions were excluded from the higher ranks of the official gozan monastic system so influential in the dissemination of Zen culture” ( ed. William R. Lafleur, Dogen Studies, p. 23).

American Zennist are making a huge mistake by resurrecting Dogen’s ideas which really need to be put into the trash bin of Buddhist history.  Dogen’s pantheism, which places phenomena on a par with Buddha-nature (i.e., the character of Buddha), constitutes a major spiritual blunder on his part.

 

The breakthrough

The idea that all beings have the Buddha-nature and really do not have to do too much except sit and wait for it to develop is an idea that was never taught by the Buddha.  There is no evidence for such a belief in the Nikayas or even in the Mahayana canon.  I think this erroneous view stems from worldly beings who are reading something into Buddhism just not there.  Potentiality is being confused with actuality. 

While it is true that prithagjanas or worldly beings have the capacity to become Arhats or Buddhas it is not a fact that they are or will become such.  Let’s face it, it takes a lot of spiritual heavy lifting to become a Buddha.  Nor is it an easy task to become a Bodhisattva or enter the stream becoming a sotopanna.  

There is certainly no leap from prithagjana-hood to Buddha-hood.  It requires a developmental path or marga.  Nor is there an easy means in the example of Dogen’s “just sit” which, by the way, his teacher never taught.

All those who decide to study Buddhism are prithagjanas, which is to say, all have the potential to become Buddhas.  But the probability of becoming a Buddha or even a Bodhisattva, like Siddhartha, is rather dismal.  To reiterate, prithagjanas have not entered the stream nor is a prithagjana a Bodhisattva.  Whether or not they enter the stream which goes to nirvana or have bodhicittotpada depends, entirely, on a profound breakthrough.  No breakthrough—no enlightenment or Buddhahood.

This breakthrough is more like an immaculate conception in which, turning away from phenomena, including the body we inhabit, we conceive pure Mind which is the embryo of Buddha (buddhagarbha).  This embryo then becomes the tender fetus (krparbuda) growing towards Buddhahood (cf. Florin Giripescu Sutton, Existence and Enlightenment in the Lankavatara Sutra, p. 62).  Without such a breakthrough or ‘conception’ the potential never becomes actual.  The promise of awakening is never fulfilled because we did nothing whatsoever to develop it.  Sitting, I hasten to add, is no immaculate conception.  The Buddha embryo is essentially dead—unfertilized.

 

Should I engage in a Zen boxing match?

It has been almost a year since I was kicked off of Zen Forum International for posting that the shisho document supposedly given to Dogen by Ju-ching and now designated a national treasure by the Japanese government is most certainly a medieval forgery.  You can check out The Zennist blog, “Warning and suspension” which I posted shortly after getting booted.  Guess what, I have been invited back.  My indefinite suspension has been removed!

Well, I went back to Zen Forum International and checked in to see what was cooking.  Same as before with Zen abbot Nonin, the “global moderator” ruling the roost, the new Namdrol (remember Namdrol of E-Sangha?).  By the way, his view of Zen is that contemporary Zen masters very seldom get drunk, don’t have sex, and deserve our admiration after all, they are infallible Buddhas.  If you don’t believe this,  just check out their certification!

For those who visit this blog; who have been around the block on this one, they see the current lot of Zen masters as fallible human beings—not Buddhas.  They know that Zen masters can get knee-walking drunk and become total assholes.  They can even have sex with their students.  Most who visit this blog have also learned, over the years, that it is just as difficult to become self-awakened (like the Buddha and others) as it is to find a living Buddha.  On a personal note, I think the smart choice is try to awaken on your own. 

Zen Forum International would be an okay forum if it hadn’t taken the outrageous moderator model  from E-Sangha which was more about censorship than moderation. There is no need for this.  In fact, it violates academic freedom.  Take The Zennist, for example, I allow just about every comment.  Even Ken Wheeler has found a place—holy Brahma!  If anybody from Zen Forum International wishes to defend their precious Dogen who, by the way, even the Japanese can’t understand, hey, you’re welcome to comment. 

What I have found in Buddhism, as far as forums and blogs go, if you know the subject pretty well it is unnecessary to do much moderating.  A good forum should encourage debates which are generally won by citing from the canon or from  good academic sources. For beginners this is great.  They get to see both sides of the coin instead of just one side.

My hesitation about going back is not that I can’t whip Nonin’s ass—that is easy.  He doesn’t know much about real Buddhism.  The reason for my hesitation concerns the fact that I will be there for a week or two before I get the boot again.  So why bother?  The importance of this blog overshadows a Zen boxing match.  I need to keep driving home the point that we must awaken to the pure Mind that animates our dung bag—stop following this bag of shit and its shitty ideas! 

 

Dude, it ain't the highest teaching!

When a Western Tibetan Lama who claims to be a loppon, or spiritual master, makes statements that dependent origination is the highest teaching of the Buddha, one has to seriously wonder if modern Buddhism isn’t being gradually taken over by the Buddha’s bad boy, Mara the Evil One.  

While it is true dependent origination (pratyita-samutpada) is the Buddha’s way of telling us that our existence is contingent which means it is empty or inane, it is not the highest teaching.  It is only the highest teaching for prithagjanas, that is, the profane.  The highest teaching for the arya or noble ones, concerns the realization or gnosis of the true nature (svabhâva) of dependent origination from which all things arise which I hasten to inject, is anything but contingent.  

This same Lama goes on with more wrong views informing his followers that rig-pa or “gnosis” is just realizing there is nothing transcendent.  There is just earth, water, fire, air, space, and consciousness (avijñapti?).  This is like saying there is only the skandhas or aggregates of form and consciousness which is the same as name and form (namarupa).  But this is not the complete teaching of the Buddha.  It is deficient or a hina teaching as in hina-yana which is meant for the profane (prithagjana).

If this hina teaching were the highest we would be left with: ‘all is inane’ (shunya).  The teaching of nirvana would have never been revealed.  Is this really what the Buddha taught, that is, all is inane?  I don’t think so.

I think a lot of this sort of wrong view, or Mara Dharma as I like to call it, stems from a wrong grasp of dependent origination.  Seemingly, the most difficult teaching of all, it is not impossible to begin to grasp with a little brain sweat.  What seems obvious, at least in the literature, is that dependent origination stands for non-ultimate existence, namely, origination and disappearance whereas, in sharp contrast, nirvana stands for non-origination and non-disappearance, that is, ultimate reality.  

We can safely conclude that nirvana is the highest teaching.  But certainly, the Buddha taught nirvana not in a conventional or profane sense that the profane or prithagjana might comprehend.  He taught nirvana as liberation from the gyre of dependent origination in which all things are empty.