The Zennist

Polysemic Dharma

Among other meanings, the word “Dharma” (P., dhamma) can refer to ultimate reality.  In the Catusparisat Sûtra, the Dharma we find is immortal, imperishable, and without sorrow (duhkha).

“Then the wandering ascetic Kolita, having seen the Dharma, having perceived the Dharma, having understood the Dharma, having penetrated the Dharma intellectually, free from doubt, free from uncertainty, not dependent on another, not to be led by another  and having obtained confidence in the teaching of the Teacher, in the Dharmas, rose from his seat and, putting his upper robe over one shoulder, making añjali in the direction of the wandering ascetic Upatisya, pronounced this solemn utterance:

‘This Dharma of those who are holy ones is the immortal, imperishable place, without sorrow, which is neither seen nor heard of before for may myriads of ten millions of world periods’.” (Catusparisat Sûtra).

Generally speaking, depending upon the context in which it is used, Dharma can have different meanings.  It is like our word ‘state’, which depending on the context can have different meanings.  When the Buddha, for example, speaks of “all things” (S., sarva-dharma; P., sabbe-dhamma), dharma is referring to temporal things—not the absolute.  In the commentarial literature “all things” is regarded as the Five Aggregates which are always considered to belong to Mara the Evil One besides being finite.  Elsewhere, the Buddha states that he is untouched by all things.

Generally speaking, Dharma has six basic meanings depending on the context.  They are: 1) Teachings of the Buddha; 2) Moral behavior; 3) The truth; 4) A quality or nature; 5) Absolute or ultimate reality; 6) A state or a ‘thing’. 

 

From the vision of true reality

To see and to know things as they really are which is yathabhutam, first of all, does not mean to see them from their own side or from the side of the Five Aggregates in which we are bound.  To see and to know things as they really are means to see them from the vision of true reality which is free of avidya or ignorance.  This passage from the Samyutta-Nikaya illustrates what I mean.

“When one see this thus as it really is (yathâbhûtam) with correct wisdom (prajñâ), the mind (citta) becomes dispassionate and is liberated from the taints (âsrava) by nonclinging” (S. iii. 45).

Seeing directly into reality (yathabhutam) we attain perfect apprehension (âjñâ) and Bodhi.  If yathabhutam were only a matter of seeing a moss covered rock as a moss covered rock or seeing my life of samsara as just samsara, this would be a false yathabhutam.  It would be modern Zen!

Things are not true reality.  For the sake of discussion, we might consider things as true reality which is composed, the side that we, in our spiritual blindness, cling to—but shouldn’t!  We have to go beyond all compositions.  Composed reality is a false picture of things as they really are (yathabhutam).  There is more to moss covered rocks than their stark temporal appearance.  They are an amazing illusory composition which hides tathatâ/suchness:  tathatâ being empty of everything we can imagine.

 

The mandala

For the newly awakened, Bodhicitta is like a seed.  In respect to the mandala (circle), the mandala is it said gives birth to the Buddhas when the Bodhicitta, like a seed, is planted in the earth of the mind.  In this respect, the mandala represents the growth of Bodhicitta to Buddhahood.

One almost gets the sense that the mandala is more like a spiritual womb in which the Bodhicitta seed lies being progressively matured and developed until it eventually overcomes Mara (the Five Aggregates).

Using a slightly more down to earth analysis, with the first arising (utpada) of the mind (citta) that is bodhi, hereafter Bodhicitta, it must overcome the temporal world, which includes the psychophysical, wherein lies suffering.  Absolute spirit cannot cower allowing itself become a simple thrall of ignorance bewitched by all that it sees.  It's light and power must be increased. It must raise itself to totality.  In this respect, the circle or mandala also symbolizes "everywhere" and "completeness" (much like vidya can also mean completeness).

Needless to say, Bodhicitta is all but ignored in modern circles of Zen so that the mandala remains an oddity.  It is only taken up in the Shingon and Tibetan traditions.

 

Buddhism the easy way

It is much easier to know what the Buddha did not teach than what he taught.  For example, any materialistic interpretation of Buddhism can be rejected.  It simply lacks credibility since it can’t deal with nirvana which is transcendent and deathless according to the Buddhist canon.  Only beginners get hooked on a materialistic interpretation of Buddhism because they have not read what the Buddha actually taught.  

On this same score, it is fairly easy  to show that the Buddha did not deny the self which in Pali is natthattâ (this can been seen in the Ananda Sutta at S. iv. 400).  To deny the self is nihilism. Nihilism is antithetical to Buddhism.  There is no dispute.  It is also fairly easy to show that the Buddha did not teach the self to be any of the Five Aggregates or a phenomenon. 

It is also easy to show that the Buddha did not spend much time showering his wisdom on the non-stream entered who are called puthujjana.  The Buddha was certainly not into self-help psychology either; not the way Buddhists are today.  Nor was he running a clinic for the mentally afflicted or handing out blankets to the homeless.  The Buddha was no Mother Teresa.

It is easy to show that the Buddha did not believe in a creator god (demiurge) like the god of Abraham and Moses.  For the Buddha all created things are impermanent, suffering, and not our self.

When we look at modern Zen, much of it has nothing to do with the Buddha’s teachings.  The Buddha did not demand of his disciples that they do zazen or just sit (J., shikantaza)!  Nor did he teach that we are already fully awakened Buddhas and all that we see is also Buddha-nature.  Also, using the older canon and the Mahayana, Avatamsaka Sutra, it is easy to show that the Buddha never taught a lineage beginning with Mahakashyapa.

Often people imagine that the Buddha taught such and such.  But more than likely the evidence is not there.  When the evidence is not there, many times revisionism rears its ugly head.  I am never surprised to see how much of it goes on in modern Buddhism.

 

The first Freemason

Freemasonry has a complex history—too much to discuss on this blog.  Turning to  Freemasonry in America, it played a major role in the formation of the U.S.  George Washington was a Freemason as were other Americans like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.  

So what does Freemasonry have to do with Buddhism you ask?  You’ll be surprised.  Albert Pike,  Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite's Southern Jurisdiction, whose remains are in the House of the Temple in Washington D.C., had this to say about Buddhism.

"The first Masonic Legislator whose memory is preserved to us by history, was Buddha, who, about a thousand years before the Christian era, reformed the religion of Manous. He called to the Priesthood all men, without distinction of caste, who felt themselves inspired by God to instruct men. Those who so associated themselves formed a Society of Prophets under the name of Samaneans. They recognized the existence of a single uncreated God, in whose bosom everything grows, is developed and transformed. The worship of this God reposed upon the obedience of all the beings He created. His feasts were those of the Solstices. The doctrines of Buddha pervaded India, China, and Japan. The Priests of Brahma, professing a dark and bloody creed, brutalized by Superstition, united together against Buddhism, and with the aid of Despotism, exterminated its followers. But their blood fertilized the new doctrine, which produced a new Society under the name of Gymnosophists; and a large number, fleeing to Ireland, planted their doctrines there, and there erected the round towers, some of which still stand, solid and unshaken as at first, visible monuments of the remotest ages” (Morals and Dogma, p. 278).

The above is a little antiquarian in style not notwithstanding other problems, I bow to Albert Pike for at least having the presence of mind to make the Buddha “the first Masonic Legislator.”  By making the Buddha the first Mason—if you read The Zennist bog—Freemasons have entered into the mysteries of mysteries; the religion that sets beings free from their bondage to temporal bodies (pañca-skandha) and the demiurge (i.e., Mara the Evil One).

 

First comes Bodhicitta

A Bodhisattva is a Bodhisattva on the grounds of ‘producing the mind that is bodhi’ (bodhicittotpada).  The endeavor or resolution (pranidhâna) to win supreme enlightenment does not come before the production of the mind that is bodhi (hereafter, Bodhicitta).  Incidentally, the Sanskrit word, pranidhâna can mean the following:  application employment, exertion, endeavor, respectful behavior, towards, submission to the will of; profound meditation; vehement desire; vow.  

The mind that is bodhi, i.e., Bodhicitta, is more like a seed in the beginning—but still a profound seed.  In fact, we are implicitly Buddhas with Bodhicitta according to the Avatamsaka Sutra.  And when we take into consideration that this precious seed has to be cultivated and protected to grow properly, pranidhâna comes into play.  We cannot not reach supreme Buddhahood without applying (pranidhâna) ourselves to expanding Bodhicitta.  This is the task of a genuine Bodhisattva. This is also what prajña-paramita is about, the perfection of discernment:  the ability to distinguish Buddha Mind from illusory, empty phenomena.

Another point worth making on this same track, one does not need to go to a Zen center and go through a ceremony such as receiving the Bodhisattva precepts (generally called “jukai” which refers to the Bodhisattva precepts).  This is simply a ritual.  By just receiving the Bodhisattva precepts the recipient has not actually attained the profound state of Bodhicitta.  In the Samdhinirmocana Sutra Bodhicitta is described as,

“beyond this world, cannot be formulated by concept or speech, is extremely radiant, the image of the Ultimate, immaculate, unshakable, and very bright like the steady glow of a lamp on a calm night.”

I would add to this that Bodhiicitta is beyond determination.  This means that it does not fall within the Five Aggregates (pañcaskandha), the twelve âyatanas (elements of sense-perception), including the eighteen dhatus (physical elements).  It is utterly increate and dynamic.

 

Blind materialists

A Buddhist materialist clings to a weird kind of logic:  If he doesn’t see X, X doesn’t exist.  More specifically, his logic runs this way:  Since I don’t see the self, Buddha-nature, Suchness (tathata), and so on, these things must be unreal.  

Our materialist is only aware of what the body’s senses receive.  If there is a self for such a materialist, it is his body or sensory consciousness that is the self; moreover, it ceases when the body dies.  If there is Buddha-nature for this materialist, it is all the things the materialist’s senses perceive including the here and now.  

From the Pali Nikayas (D. ii. 328, 330) we learn that the materialist is like a man born blind (jaccandho puriso).  He is only aware of this own limited world.  He can't see colors, the sun or the moon.  He is quite adamant that these things don't exist because he hasn’t seen them!  He thinks to himself, “If I am not aware of this thing, therefore, it does not exist.”

Like the man born blind, it hasn’t dawned on the materialist that the transcendent cannot be seen with the eye of flesh (P., mamsacakkhu). Our Buddhist materialist hasn’t as yet cultivated spiritual eyes such as the Dharma eye or the Buddha eye. 

 

Different kinds of emptiness

What the Buddhist term empty/emptiness (shunya/shunyata) means depends a lot on the context in which it is used.  For example, in the Lankavatara Sutra there are seven different emptinesses.

“Replied Mahamati the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva, I will indeed, Blessed One.  The Blessed One said: Emptiness, emptiness, indeed! Mahamati, it is a term whose self-nature is false imagination. Because of one's attachment to false imagination, Mahamati, we have to talk of emptiness, no-birth, non-duality, and absence of self-nature. In short, then, Mahamati, there are seven kinds of emptiness: (1) The emptiness of individual marks (lakshana), (2) the emptiness of self-nature (bhavasvabhava), (3) the emptiness of no-work (apracarita), (4) the emptiness of work (pracarita), (5) the emptiness of all things in the sense that they are unpredicable (nirabhilapya), (6) the emptiness in its highest sense of ultimate reality realisable only by noble wisdom, and (7) the emptiness of mutuality (itaretara) which is the seventh” (trans. D.T. Suzuki).

In the Pali canon, suñña (shunya) can mean lack, vacant, desolate, barren, lonely, absent, etc.  The Buddha tells Ananda that the temporal world (loka) is empty (suññam) of what belongs to the self which denotes a lack.  The message is, we should not look for our self in the temporal world—it ain’t there. 

Also in the Pali canon we find supreme or pure ultimate emptiness, viz., parisuddha paramanuttara suññata described in the discourse, Cula-Suññatâ Sutta, of the Majjhima-Nikaya.  This is a state which can only be described as mind that becomes utterly purified, or the same, pure Mind.  Mind is able to distinguish its own pristine nature from its most subtle of phenomenalization, namely, animitta-ceto-samadhi ( the samadhi of the mind that is signless).  According to this Sutta, animitta-ceto-samadhi is still “effected and thought out”  which means it is impermanent and liable to stopping.

 Often in Mahayana Buddhism we find emptiness (shunyata) equated with suchness or tathata.  Suchness, we are to understand, is the instrinsic substance or nature (svabhava) of Mind which is the Mind that is Bodhi (bodhicitta).  In this sense emptiness is ontological or reveals the ontological rather than being the negation of all knowledge claims.

In Zen there is a difference between nihilistic emptiness and pure Mind which is empty of bewitching defilements.  From Zen master Tsung-mi we learn:

“Nihilistic emptiness [means] vacuity, openness, absence, or extinction.  It does not refer to the Genuine Mind (zhen shi xin).  [This kind of emptiness] is without wisdom, without function, and cannot be found within dharmas.”

Again he says,

“The Nirvana Sutra, which says that “when there is nothing in a jar, the jar is said to be empty—it does not mean that there is no jar.”  In the same way, “when there are no discriminating thoughts such as desire or anger in the mind, the mind is said to be empty—it does not mean that there is no mind.  ‘No mind’ (wu-hsin) only means that the defilements (fan-nao; klesha) have been eliminated from the mind.”

We can consider absolute Mind to be completely empty of any and all determinations—which, in itself, is a sheer, marvelous vacuity which is, nevertheless, real and dynamic.  Truth be told, the Buddha taught the emptiness or barrenness of phenomena; that they have no true nature.  He also taught the absolute or tathata to be empty of phenomena and determinations.

 

Refusing to climb the mountain

Part of being a diehard materialist is to believe there is nothing beyond the scope of our sensory awareness.  The psychophysical body is all there is.  When it craps out—that’s it.  Being a diehard materialist also means to be overly skeptical of spiritual states, especially of reincarnation and transcendent states of consciousness which go beyond the body’s senses.  

Borrowing a simile from the Dantabhumi Sutta (M. iii. 130–31) it is like two friends going up the slope of a mountain.  Instead of both going to the top of the mountain one friend decides to stay at the foot of the mountain.  When the other friend reaches the top the friend at the foots asks him what he sees.  The friend at the top replies, “I see delightful parks, delightful woods, delightful stretches of level ground, delightful ponds.”  But then the  friend at the foot of the mountain says this is impossible, it cannot be.  So the friend at the top goes down to the foot of the mountains and drags his friend by the arm to the top so that he can see for himself.  The friend, now at the top, admits his error because he was “hemmed in by this great mountain slope and thus could not see what was to be seen.”

Needless to say, a modern day materialist is not going to go up the mountain.  He would close his eyes if he were forced to.  I am certain, too, that a Buddhist who believes the Buddha denied the self (attâ/atman) is not going change no matter the evidence to the contrary.  When Galileo invited some learned men to look through his telescope there were some who refused.  They said that whatever they saw through this new instrument would be no doubt diabolical—a work of the devil.

Why did the friend who decided to stay at the foot of the mountain not believe the report of his friend who was at the top?  There is one thing for sure, the friend at the foot of the mountain deceived himself.  The materialist also deceives himself by hanging onto the childish belief in naïve realism, that our sensory perception of the external world is a direct copy of it.

 

Too much dust in their eyes

In the Ayacana Sutta (S. i. 136) we learn that the Buddha “saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much dust.”  I gather this is the dust of worldly attachment which makes the Buddha's teaching impossible to realize until there is much less dust obscuring the spiritual eye.  

On the other hand, pop Buddhists—I am guessing—would argue that the Buddha was more like Superman.  He was able to rid the masses of their heavy dust and thereby save the world!  Well, this wasn't the case. 

In a large crowd the Buddha would be lucky to find even one individual who had little dust in their eyes.  One such example was the leper Suppabuddha (wide awake) (Udana V, iii).  In a crowd listening to the Buddha preach the Dharma (P., dhamma), Suppabudda the leper gained dhamma-sight (dhammacakkhu) who was then dustless and stainless (virajam vîtamalam) effectively entering the path of stream entry (sotâpatti).

This brings up the problem modern Buddhists face:  How much dust has occluded their spiritual or Dharma eye so the Buddha’s true teaching and light can’t be received?  My own guess is that many modern day practitioners have way too much dust in their eyes who believe, for example, that by doing zazen they are becoming Buddhas.

The first task for modern day Buddhists is to remove the dust, at least as much as Suppabuddha otherwise they will never really understand the Buddha's teaching.