The Zennist

Conquering your interdimensional predator

How can the five constituents of the psychophysical body (pañca-skandha), which belong to Mara the Evil One, be awakened?  The answer is they can’t.  They are barren and empty.  These constituents are like foam, a bubble, a mirage, a coreless plantain-tree, and a magician’s creation.  According to the Buddha in the Lankavatara Sutra, the psychophysical constituents “do not really exist; but taking them for realities and getting attached to them, a man may affirm that they are just so and not otherwise.”  

Unless one can successfully separate and distinguish the true self from these five unreal constituents, meditation can easily turn into a fool’s errand. In this regard, an insidious deception awaits the careless meditator.  Their very body, including their brain is a trap (and this is only the first constituent, form or rupa!).

It is worth pointing out that the Buddha, when he was still a Bodhisattva, had to conquer Mara or the same, the five psychophysical constituents making up the psychophysical being. Only then did he become fully awakened, that is, a Buddha.  Incidentally, Mara was also regarded as the king of death, and as a tempter.  He was always opposed to nirvana.   

From what has thus far been presented, reaching Buddhahood is not an easy undertaking.  The difficulty and subtlety is hard to conceive.  It might helpful to imagine that when you were just a child an interdimensional predator inserted his mind into yours.  Over the years you’ve become increasingly attached to this predator’s mind; believing it is who you really are.  

If there is a means of escape from this terrible situation it first demands of us that we become mindful of the psychophysical constituents like our physical body, including our feelings, perceptions, volitional formations and sensory consciousness.  We can’t afford to become attached to such phenomena.  It comes at a high price.

 

Having direct insight into pure Mind

The biggest part of having a direct insight into pure Mind, itself, before it is perturbed, has to do with how much we are really interested in awakening to this Mind.  Being curious is not enough.  Nor can we talk ourselves into believing that we really want to attain an insight into pure Mind when in our heart of hearts we lack authentic dedication.  Some, I hasten to add, will even try to fake dedication.  

For the serious, they must be open minded, open, that is, to all possibilities.  They must follow the scent of pure Mind wherever it may lead them which could be very disturbing, but also amazing.  At all times, they must be open to beholding a truth so profound that everything they previously imagined it to be wasn't even close.  

Of course, it goes almost without saying that we must seek this pure Mind within ourselves.  For this is where Mind is found.  Within us.  At the same time we must endure failure after failure until we come to our wits' end.  For only when we thoroughly exhaust all possible roads to awakening will it then be possible for us to awaken. 

Also pertinent, we need to beware of over reliance on teachers.  It weakens us.  We are not actually weak or stupid.  Our problem is that we are constantly refusing to look deep enough.  We are too shallow.  We haven’t yet found the right way to connect with that which transcends our all-too-human mind which does nothing but deceive us in every possible way.  If awakening to pure Mind is like drinking pure water after a long thirst, how is learning to live with our thirst (our all-too-human mind) going to help us?  We must seek the whereabouts of pure Mind.  It’s here.

 

Beware of oversimplification

Japanese Soto Zen and its offspring in the U.S. and Europe seems to have no genuine interest for Buddhism outside of Dogen's works. From what I can see, they are not interested in the Pali cannon, the Agamas, and Mahayana works.  Nor are they that interested in Zen works outside of Soto.  

To be sure, the world of Soto Zen is more interested in unpacking Dogen's unique spin on Buddhism which has to be seen, to a certain extent, through the eyes of Japanese Tendai and its problem for Dogen.  After all, Dogen was reared in a Tendai world which believed that all sentient beings are enlightened a priori.  

However, understanding that there is a critical difference between Dogen’s Zen and Japanese Tendai helps us to see where Dogen is coming from.  Japanese Tendai saw no need for practice since all sentient beings are enlightened a priori.  For Dogen, although he understood that all beings have the Buddha-nature or are Buddha, they only became Buddhas by practice, that is, zazen.  Thus, did practice and enlightenment become inseparable for Dogen.

To be sure, Tendai monks could almost do anything.  They were already Buddhas!  But those who professed Dogen’s Zen it wasn’t so easy.  They had to do zazen which involved a lot of sitting.  By doing zazen, i.e., sitting dhyâna, Dogen’s followers supposedly manifested Buddha’s enlightenment.  And unlike other Zen schools where practice is only a means to enlightenment—not its guarantee—for Dogen practice and enlightenment were one and the same. 

For any Soto partisan who has bothered to read the Pali canon and Mahayana literature, not to mention, non-Dogen Zen literature, there is a striking difference between Dogen’s spin of what the Buddha taught, and what the Buddha actually taught as revealed by the canon.  For one thing, the Buddha’s Zen or dhyâna (in Pali jhâna) isn’t fundamentally connected with sitting (坐), or in Sanskrit, nishad (निषद्) (we find nishad in the word Upanishad ).  

One important bit of knowledge we learn about dhyâna/jhâna in the Samaññaphala Sutta of the Digha-Nikaya is the practice of dhyâna is done with mind that is purified of worldly desires (the first dhyâna/jhâna), when finally the mendicant’s body is completely pervaded by pure and lucid spirit (the fourth dhyâna/jhâna); who is even able to produce a will-made-body (manomayam kayam)!

Nothing in Dogen’s zazen comes close to dhyâna is the sense of “being pervaded by pure and lucid spirit.”  As far as Soto is concerned zazen is just sitting (shikantaza).  It is not surprising that Zen master Hakuin called zazen "dead sitting" (J., shiza) and those who practiced this, heretics.  Dogen’s zazen can only be described as an oversimplification of dhyâna.  

 

Seeing into one's nature

The general meaning of “kensho” expresses the notion of seeing the Buddha-nature within oneself.  Incidentally, the term is  found in the fourth slogan of Zen, “Achieving Buddhahood by seeing one's nature.”  It can be thought of as a profound spiritual state which has no objective signs but is, nevertheless, absolutely real.  It is strictly first-person for the simple reason that truth is found only at the first-person level.  This level, at its highest point, is also free of appearance, and therefore, free of illusion.

For those who have never had kensho, all that I’ve said thus far can be easily conceptualized and even labeled so that its importance becomes deflated.  The individual who does the conceptualizing of kensho seems to rest in his own surety.  It is like a judge.  But in real kensho all this is overthrown because kensho surpasses individuality, including this body of ours, and the world perceived through it.  

We are so shocked by the fact that during kensho our most profound and cherished thoughts are powerfully energized by it.  All that we see through our senses is also energized.  The hills we gaze at, the oak tree by the stream, all mysteriously are energized.  It is better described as clear light Mind or radiant Mind.  This is when one, for the first time, fully understands what the Buddha meant by Mind.

In kensho, whether I sit in meditation or walk down to the stream to admire the little waterfall, the world is energized as I am; as my thoughts are.  Every place I walk is the right place; every thought I think preaches the Dharma.

But nobody will ever achieve kensho by searching for it insofar as their search is led by presuppositions.  One must live in such a way that kensho can, so to speak, come to them.  Pure Mind—this radiant medium—is here.  It has never left.  But we are like dumb fish who don’t know what water is, blindly searching for it.

During the time when the Buddha was on earth, a few could sense this so-called Mind-energy.  When they did, that was kensho.  After that they became monks and learned to make themselves more available to this clear light.  They got rid of the desire for appearances which was like moving clouds away to let the sun shine through in its full glory.

 

A small case for closet Buddhism

I was thinking about closet Buddhists the other day (my brother claims to be one as does his wife).  From what I can gather closet Buddhists can either fall into the category of beginners and dabblers; or they might even be serious students who have no affiliation with any group or sect.  

I am just guessing, but I suspect there are more closet Buddhists than people who have no problem saying they are Buddhists, at least in the West.

Somewhat related, when the Dalai Lama comes to Emory University (here in Atlanta), I get to see a lot of closet Buddhists who probably would never admit in public they are  Buddhists.  Needless to say, the Dalai Lama has quite a fan base.  It’s always a packed house when I attend his lectures.  It’s my one chance to experience the collective scent of closet Buddhists.  Of course, the Dalai Lama never talks about the really deep stuff (he doesn’t want to upstage the professors I suppose).  He comes across as sort of a spiritual comedian whose job is to make everyone feel okay about their precarious, samsaric lives.

Personally, I think being a closet Buddhist signals a huge transformation in our modern culture.  To become an officially unrecognized closet Buddhist means that one is leaving the absurd religious values of the past.  They are serious about looking deeply within.  After all, that is where all the suffering seems to be coming from.  

I have found closet Buddhists among my Jewish and Muslim friends both of whom have an amazing ability to dive deep within themselves (why Jews and Muslims are going toe to toe cannot be easily answered—but if they become closet Buddhists there will be peace between the faiths I am sure.  Oh, I am such an optimist!). 

I guess what I am trying to say is that I hope closet Buddhism becomes a super huge movement—unrecognized of course! 

 

The Buddha's idea of a good teacher

In the Gopaka Moggallâna Sutta (M. iii. 7) just after the death of the Buddha, a minister (brahman Vassakara) of King Ajâtusattu Vedehiputta asks Ananda if the Buddha designated a successor.  Ananda replies in the negative.  

However, despite this seeming setback, the Sutta goes on to inform us that there are  qualities the Buddha has taught which make a person worthy to be relied upon.  Here is a smaller and more understandable list of the ten criteria which I have taken from Wendi Adamek’s book, The Mystique of Transmission. 

“These ten qualities are (1) he is perfect in conduct according to the prâtimoksa, (2) he is learned in good teachings, has mastered them verbally, investigated them intellectually and penetrated them through his own insight, (3) he is content with the simple life of the bhiksu, (4) he obtains the four dhyânas (absorptions, higher levels of consciousness) at will, (5) he has mastered the various supernormal powers, (6) he has the “divine ear,” (7) he has insight into the minds of others, (8) he recollects his past lives, (9) he has the “divine eye,” and (10) he has realized the truth for himself and “abides in the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the taints.”

What I find interesting about this list, no latter-day Zen master comes close to these qualities—just read the claptrap they write calling itself Zen.  If somebody asked me to name a past Japanese Zen master who came closest to meeting all the qualities it would have to be Zen master Bassui.  He, unlike, the teachers of today, grasped the notion of pure Mind which is the key to unlocking the mystery of these ten qualities. 

 

Self-knowledge or self-delusion?

The purpose of the Kalama Sutta (A. i. 188) is not meant to sanction discursive knowledge or knowlede unique to a person’s prejudices and fancies.  The standard it rests upon is self-knowledge (attanava janeyya/atma-jñâna) which is  a kind of independent knowledge, a knowledge that does not rely on the transitory—certainly not the ever changing world of one’s opinions including popular opinions.   

Still, we have to be careful about our own understanding of self-knowledge.  We may lack it.  It could well be a form of self-delusion which is unable to take us to what is true.  According to the Canki Sutta “even although something be thoroughly believed in, it may be empty, void, false; on the other hand, something not thoroughly believed in may be fact, truth, not otherwise” (M. ii. 170).  

Switching gears, Western Buddhists seem to be using the Kalama Sutra as a license by which to push Buddhism in the direction of materialism—assuming it is true—attempting to rid Buddhism of such notions as rebirth in which death is not final.  But however much they rely on materialism it hasn’t  managed to disprove rebirth or postmortem survival; nor can it be maintained that there is no user of the brain or a soul. 

In the final analysis, we are led back to samsara—our existential predicament.  In such a predicament, it is not easy to dismiss the Buddha’s wisdom who taught that even in death there is no escape from samsara.  Life goes on, in other words, and so does suffering and desire which binds us to the wheel of samsara.  According to the Buddha: "This is that craving which ensnares, ... by which this world is smothered, ... so that it does not transcend samsara” (A. ii. 212).    

In light of many other discourses given by the Buddha the context of the Kalama Sutta is certainly not meant to give sanctuary to the modern belief in materialism; certainly not the radical materialism of B. F. Skinner who absurdly maintained that mental events don’t actually exist!  Nor was the Kalama Sutta meant to make room for a materialism that admits the existence of mental states and events but asserts that such are identical with neural events of the brain hence physical events.

Buddhists under the sway of materialism naturally exaggerate its explanatory power solely because they have never experienced a spiritual event such as Bodhicitta or satori.  Until they have some kind of credible spiritual event they pose a real danger to the survival of true Buddhism.

 

The pseudoskeptics among us

Sometimes, I can’t help but believe that the majority of people often mistake their limited field of knowledge for absolute knowledge, especially when it comes to understanding Buddhism.   Such an attitude, believe it or not, makes it seemingly easy to understand everything, even a recondite subject like Buddhism:  Just ignore what you don’t understand, for example, rebirth!  Keep telling yourself that on the important issues like a soul or rebirth you know there is no such thing.  

I hate to say this, but people with this kind of attitude often turn out to be pseudoskeptics who are quick to claim such and such has been proven wrong or can't be so who, unlike the classical skeptic, are incapable of suspending judgment while engaged in the activity of investigation.  Let me say right now, that Buddhism is not without a substantial number of pseudoskeptics who call themselves secular Buddhists. 

When it comes to science, the pseudoskeptic’s hubris takes over the wheel.  In their minds, only they have respect for science.  Only they fully grasp the scientific method.  But truth be told their position with regard to the scientific method when it comes to psychical research is untenable.  The scientific method works even in the growing field of psychical research.  How pseudoskeptics deal with this research is, not surprisingly, underhanded.  The pseudoskeptic declares that the so-called scientific method cannot be extended to psychical research—not without it becoming “pseudo-science”!

 On the same thread, if the question comes before us: “Is there postmortem survival?” the pseudoskeptic believes there is no rational means by which to investigate the question, not without the end result falling into the category of pseudo-science.  All the NDEs (Near Death Experiences), for example, are bunk—the hallucinations of an oxygen starved brain.  The same goes with SDEs (Shared Death Experiences).  The investigators are deluded fools, according to the pseudoskeptics.

When Buddhists who are pseudoskeptics take up Buddhism trying to make it modern, what they are actively disseminating isn't real Buddhism.  When we closely look behind their efforts, what we find are staunch materialists who are defending the status quo of materialism which still undergirds most of the sciences.  This materialism has no place for a self, soul, spirit or a beyond all of which the Buddha taught. 

 

How to really understand self and no-self

For those new to Buddhism how "self" and "no-self" are used can be quite confusing and frustrating.  In general, self has two distinct uses in Buddhism.  Self can refer to the existential self or it can refer to the transcendent self, that is, Buddha-nature (this is apparent in Mahayana Buddhism).  Briefly looking at the existential self we can think of it as the moral agent behind our temporal actions.  Here we see it in this example: "Purity and impurity depend on the very self (paccattam), no one could purify another" (Dhammapada 165).  

When we look at the notion of no-self (P., anattâ; S., anâtman) we must not straightaway assume that the Buddha is denying a self or âtman.  To do so would be a fatal error—a grave misunderstanding.  It would smack of the heresy of annihilationism, a philosophical theory that the Buddha condemned.  This brings us to ask a very crucial question: "What did the Buddha really mean by no-self?"

The Pali word an-attâ is a compound.  An is a negative prefix.  Attâ is a noun.  When the Buddha uses the term "no-self" (anattâ) to teach us about the Five Aggregates (P. khandhas; S., skandhas), namely, form, feeling, perception, constructing activities (samskâras), and consciousness, he never fails to teach us that each aggregate, for example, the aggregate of form, is not the self.  Put more simply, anattâ means that the aggregates lack self or âtman.  If we are expecting to realize our true self or Buddha-nature, the last place we should look is in the aggregates which constitute our psychophysical complex or temporal body.  Our human body is not-the-self or anattâ.  In fact, according to the Buddha, our aggregate body belongs to Mara, the Buddhist devil!

If, over time, we persist in trying to identify our self with the form-aggregate or the consciousness-aggregate, we will continue to be reborn and suffer because according to the Buddha, each aggregate is suffering.  It is only by transcending the Five Aggregates that authentic liberation is achieved.    

Now imagine somebody asking the Buddha if form is the self.  What is the Buddha going to say?  Well, according to the canon he would tell the questioner that form is not the self or anattâ.  Next, imagine this same person asking the Buddha if there is no self or in Pali, nattha attâ.  What is the Buddha going to say to the questioner?  Most likely, the Buddha will tell this person that he does not teach annihilationism.

When the Buddha observes a person who is confused as to what the true self is, anything he says about self is taken to be an aggregate.  So strong among ordinary people (puthujjana) is the tendency to identify the self with an aggregate, say consciousness, that the Buddha has to be extremely cautious, lest he lead this person astray.  For those who believe that the Buddha denied the self in so many words, if the Buddha were present today, he would call these people annihilationists since they teach no self (nattha attâ).

 

The house of secular Buddhism

I don't think I am too far off the mark when I say that neuroscience's long term goal is to explain the human mind or consciousness in terms of materialism.  In other words, mind arises from a special assembly of physical constituents—which rules out spirit.  This fits nicely with the belief of some Buddhists that the Buddha denied a spiritual mind or the self (âtman).  Because of this, neuroscience and modern Buddhism seem to be sharing the same park bench, having a few important things in common.  

What should be of concern for serious Buddhists is how much are modern Buddhists willing to kowtow to neuroscience, passing through the neutral zone (Star Trek) into the forbidden zone of materialism?  Regrettably, some Buddhists appear to have already passed through the neutral zone like Stephen Batchelor who presently hides his materialism behind the accepted nomen of ‘secular Buddhism’.

A concise view of secular Buddhism understands that secular means opposition to religious beliefs.  For example, secular Buddhism rejects the belief in rebirth.  Nor would we expect a secular Buddhist to be interested in the afterlife or NDEs (Near Death Experiences).  By and large, secular Buddhism is okay with materialism.

But I dare say, the secular house of cards is going to fall.  With regard to reincarnation (which I hope to get into later), since 1961 there has been a great deal of research into the subject of reincarnation done at the Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS) at the University of Virginia.  Some of the results are quite astonishing.  Incidentally, all the work that has come out of DOPS has seriously challenged the notion that consciousness is only a product of the brain which is the keystone of materialism.