The Zennist

Transcending consciousness, the transmigrant

The consciousness of my self, which I take to be this mind-body or psychophysical body (nâmarapa, pañca-skandha), is something that begins with conception. 

Consciousness, the transmigrant, which is imbued with the habitual tendencies (samskâra) of its former existence, and is not enlightened (avidya), descends into the embryo (garbha) which then starts the development of the psychophysical body.  The embryo, it needs to be added, encloses the whole of the existence  that consciousness will face, from leaving its mother’s birth canal to its inevitable death.  

Incidentally, we learn from the canon (D. ii. 63) that if consciousness were not to descend (P. okkamissatha) into the mother’s womb/embryo, the development of the embryo would not be successful.

In the course of many years, as a result of this descent, I come to believe, more and more, that this psychophysical body is mine; that I am this body; that it is my self or âtman. This is almost a vicious circle which then becomes almost impossible to break unless consciousness can become un-fixed from states or footholds (thiti), even including subtle ones like ‘Neither-conception-nor-non-conception’ which is not  yet liberation or nirvana.  

All in all, the variable nature of consciousness must be transcended (nirodha) otherwise the attainment of nirvana is not possible and, thus, transmigration of consciousness will continue.  An aside about nirodha, in a footnote (164), Pande (Origins of Buddhism, p. 476), briefly gives his justification for translating nirodha with “transcendence.” The idea behind it is that nirodha should not be mistaken for a kind of annihilation.  We are not trying to annihilate consciousness—just supersede it.  We get a clue of such transcendence with the following from the Udana:

“Monks, there  is a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded.  Monks, if that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be apparent no escape from this here that is born, become, made, compounded.  But since, nonks there is an unborn . . . therefore the escape from this here is born, become . . . is apparent.”

 

 

 

Mindfulness (sati)

The Pali Sutta on the Applications of Mindfulness (Satipatthana, M. i. 55) is certainly a very important Sutta which has been condensed under four general headings of body, feelings, mind, and mental objects.  However, this Sutta’s most difficult problem lies in what mindfulness or sati, itself, exactly means.  This is when dictionaries start to fail.  

The question of sati (in Sanskrit smriti) itself, is very important for the reason that it is what gets us through this particular Sutta.  We read that with mindfulness one "fares along independently of and not grasping anything in the world" (M. i. 62).  Fully understanding the meaning of sati, in other words, tends towards the hyper-subtle—it is out of this world.

First of all, we can say of sati that it is impersonal with regard to the four presentations of body, feeling, mind, and mental objects which come in front or before it (to be mindful of anything assumes a kind of spiritual detachment—not spatial).  However, while ordinary mindfulness is aware of the general—already here—presentation of body, feelings, mind and mental objects, the Buddha's sati appears to be directed more subtly, to be before presentation.  In the example of respiration, mindfulness is before respiration, both the in and out breath.  It doesn’t follow respiration, in other words—it is always before or prior to it.  

Such mindfulness works to disentangle and distingusih the self from common secondary presentations, all of which, come under the heading of the Five Aggregates (khandhas/skandhas). 

 

Advice for those on the higher path

Our ordinary thoughts are configurations of pure Mind, the absolute substance.  It is extremely difficult to see this substance.  What we see, instead, is pure Mind become.  In this condition, Mind is  hiding in its own constructs unaware of itself.  Compounding the problem, this pristine substance has fallen in love with its self-generated illusions.  By doing so, it has unwittingly thrown itself into samsara from which escape is almost impossible.  

Given that the entire triple world is Mind become, nevertheless, in one moment, if we are lucky and our practice has been in keeping with trying to see pure Mind, we might catch a glimpse of it.  This embryonic glimpse, if we are wise enough to grasp a few of its cardinal implications (and their are many), reveals that the entire triple world is only Mind (cittamatra).  We actually behold and experience it this way for the first time (it doesn’t last long because of the habit-inertia (vasana) of our addiction to the illusory world).  In addition, but less apparent, we discover that samsara is Mind bewitched by its very own constructions and concepts (dharma) which also include delusion (moha), desire, and hatred (the three poisons). 

Until we awaken to absolute or pure Mind which, incidentally, is an event like no other, our understanding of Buddhism, consisting of concepts, is the only path we have—and this path has no guarantees.  

In addition, chanting the name of Amitâbha Buddha; chanting the title of the Lotus Stura in Japanese or just sitting (zazen, shikantaza) have the form of error (bhrânti).  At the apex of ordinary mind’s direct intuition of its pure nature whereby it beholds pure Mind, no practice can enter.  Such practices are like fire.  One fire could be of agarwood, the other of sandalwood, or still another a fire from juniper.  But all these fires burn if touched no matter their fragrance.  Likewise, when we attempt to draw closer to practices like zazen they eventually burn us.  All boiled down, they are a confusion of mind.

For the ordinary mind to awaken to pure Mind, it requires a path that makes this realization possible; not a path that leads it astray.  Before such a higher path can be taken, we must jettison all of our views about the true nature of reality.  This includes all  views about Buddhism.  It even includes jettisoning the belief that science offers us the only means to true knowledge.  No one can enter the higher path laden with their own concepts of what true reality is.  We have to keep in mind that a Buddha is the destroyer of the triple world including our concepts.

They don't understand emptiness

This modern group of sham Buddhists who make up the Empty-ists don’t really understand emptiness (shunyata).  They are reading it as there is no independent existence, or the same, they are reading it as universal emptiness of independent existence.  This particular view adds up to nihilism no matter how one might slice and dice it with words.  

But emptiness, as far as the Buddha is concerned, means the emptiness of something, which is to say, in whatever place something is absent, one observes that particular place to be empty of it.  Zen master Tsung-mi explains it this way:  “When there is nothing in a jar, the jar is said to be empty—it does not mean that there is no jar.”  We can say that all the Five Aggregates are empty of reality.  If we look into them no reality or svabhâva can be found.  They are illusory or barren.  This is their emptiness.  We can also empty out this kind of emptiness (i.e., the lack of reality).  This is the emptiness of the absolute which is empty of the unreal.

Rather than play with Nagarjuna's poisonous snake of emptiness, the true adept of the Buddha first strives to attain pure Mind that is one without a second.  This allows him to see that everything is only a configuration of Mind.  With such a Mind it is easy to see that phenomena, of themselves, are empty of true reality and that pure Mind is empty of unreality.

Buddhism for the spiritually blind

According to the commentarial literature (Vibhanga Atthakatha, 49 f) only a Buddha knows what the self is not (anattâ/anâtman) such as material shape, feeling, perception, habitual tendencies, and consciousness which constitute the Five Aggregates.  

While everyone knows the signs of impermanence and suffering, ordinary beings lack the ability to distinguish what the self is and is not.

Such beings do not even know that what is not their self is impermanent and suffering—and mortal.  Nor do such beings realize that suffering, the first noble truth (arya-satya), is material shape, feeling, perception, habitual tendencies and consciousness.  In addition, they don’t realize that spiritual separation from the just named aggregates is release from impermanence and suffering.

In their self-inflicted blindness, ordinary beings (P., puthujjana) are not adverse to constructing a counterfeit Buddhism led by the most spiritually blind of this deluded flock.  Because of this, they have doomed themselves to endless samsara.  These are some of the tenets of a counterfeit Buddhism which if any Buddhist believes them, they are far from true Buddhism.  

• Nirvana is not transcendent.
• Samsara ends with the death of the psychophysical body.
• Consciousness does not transmigrate.
• Consciousness does not enter the womb.
• With the death of the psychophysical body there is no more self.
• There is only a conventional self that is reified.
• The cause of suffering is our ego.
• Buddhism is just a therapy that helps us deal with our lives.
• Buddhism is about learning to live in the here and now.
• The Buddha never really believed in karma and rebirth.

He's in the jailhouse now

From time to time I enjoy joining a Buddhist form like Zen Forum International and Newbuddhist, just to see how long it takes me to get kicked off or suspended from the forum for posting either academic material or passages from the Pali canon which cut against the grain of sham Buddhism whose project it is to substitute a kinder and more gentle form of materialism in the guise of Buddhism.

Recently, I was suspended for answering the question of a newbie who wanted to know, “If Buddhism denies the self then what reaches nirvana?”  I responded with, “It is the very self (paccatta) that reaches nirvana (cp. S. iii. 53—54) (actually the pericope reads: “in the very self (paccatta) he attains complete nirvana).  In everyday English the Buddha is saying that you attain nirvana.  What else might attain it except the deepest part of you?  

Probably the straw that broke the camels back on this particular forum was posting some material from the American Oriental Society which laid to rest the modern Buddhist belief that consciousness doesn’t transmigrate when in fact it does, although never self-same (anaññam).  In other words, our consciousness  fares on and continues after death but it is a serious error in Buddhism to maintain that it fares on and continues "without change of identity."  Incidentally, this is very consistent with the Mahayana canon.

Such forums are better for debates.  The mistake they all make is when moderators try to tell people this is the way Buddhism is.  The only realistic function of a moderator is to make sure debates don’t turn into name calling.  Moderators shouldn’t become thought police but they usually do. 

Beginners face an uphill battle trying to learn Buddhism on a forum or even on a blog.  Beginners are greatly encumbered because they have not read the Pali canon or very much of the Mahayana canon.  But more to the point, they lack insight into absolute Mind.  On a personal note, it wasn’t until I had a profound insight into Mind, itself, that Buddhism started to make perfect sense.

A word of caution, academic freedom or freedom of speech doesn’t extend to Buddhist forums.  They are cliques headed by an autocrat who fancies that he knows all there is to know about Buddhism. But more than often he doesn’t know beans about Buddhism when it comes to its essence.  Take my word for it, all the pop Buddhists have Buddhism wrong.  A beginner would learn more about Buddhism by studying the Yoga Sutras of Patañjali than a pop Buddhist writer like Stephen Batchelor. 

Colonizing Buddhism

Almost all of what secular Buddhist protests against in Buddhism, such as rebirth, for example, is not an academic criticism insofar a scholars have not come to any final word as to what the Buddha actually taught.  Sure, there are many good educated guesses—some better than others.  Nor do various sects, like Theravada have the final word.  Rather the protest is an emotional reaction, a reaction against immaterial spirit. 

More importantly, what the reaction reveals, or I should say, belies, is the fact that traditional Buddhism is being colonized by materialists who claim to be Buddhists.  As part of their colonizing effort, ‘science’ replaces the former Christian missionaries whose job is now to convert native Buddhists using the new gospel of scientism.  In other words, native Buddhism must be saved from its antiquated, outworn superstitions such as karma, rebirth and nirvana! 

The colonizing efforts of the materialists like Stephen Batchelor and others certainly has to be stopped in its tracks.  A line in the sand has to be drawn that separates the needs and goals of the natural and physical sciences from Buddhism as a spiritual science which has much different goals.  

Personally, I would like to see a more clearly defined battle between the secular Buddhists and the true Buddhists for the hearts and minds of Western Buddhists, one in which the claim of scientism, namely, the only means of knowledge is through the natural and physical sciences, is crushed once and for all. 

Be careful with whom you share your experiences

In his book, The Phaselock Code, author Roger Hart had an out of body experience during a fall off the slopes of Mount Everest.  He describes it this way:

"Even though there was no sense to it, no help coming, nothing to stop the fall, I yelled and screamed. I would die when I hit the ice below. As soon as I had that thought, my guts and heart pushed upward like the floor of a falling elevator. With excruciating anxiety, like that of a child torn from its mother's womb, my soul ripped free. 

The the strangest thing happened. I shot off into starless space, floated free in zero gravity, and watched my body, as if in slow motion, tumble over the ice cliffs below."

Now let’s take Hart’s first person experience and imagine that we are sitting in meditation.  All of a sudden we notice that we are free of the psychophysical body, being detached from it.  When we finally come back down into our psychophysical body, we feel the need to share our experience with someone.  Later, we find out that what we shared with a friend about our experience was rejected.

But we know that our experience was real—we were not hallucinating.  The experience was the most intense experience that we have ever had in our entire life.  So what is the problem?

The problem is with the person who doesn’t believe that our personal experience is authentic.  This person is most likely a hardcore skeptic who subscribes to materialism. For such a person, there are no out of body experiences since consciousness or mind is an epiphenomenon of the brain.  According to materialism, our out of body experience was more than likely an hallucination.  Maybe during meditation we didn’t get enough oxygen!  Anyway, there is no way to empirically prove an out of body experience because it comes from a first person perspective. 

Years later, our experience paid off.  Almost a hundred managed to have an out of body experience with our help and teaching.  As we expected, according to our friend the skeptic, who we shared our experience with, they are collectively hallucinating.

The moral of the story: Don’t waste your time with skeptics and materialists. There is not that much time to waste.

Is it reasonable to believe in rebirth?

An inconvenient truth in Buddhism, the Buddha did not reject reincarnation/rebirth.  Despite this, Western Buddhists want evidence for rebirth.  In other words, they want an empirical case to be made.  So what would be an empirical case?  

Believe it or not we have one such case.  It is to be found in the work of the late psychiatrist Ian Stevenson of the University of Virginia who studied cases of children which strongly suggested reincarnation (one famous book of his is Children Who Remember Past Lives).  While he has never claimed to have proven reincarnation beyond a shadow of a doubt, he does show that it is reasonable to believe in it.  This is something I would guess that probably irritates rebirth deniers who count themselves to be the holy friars of scientism.

Another irritation, is the book Death and Personal Survival: The Evidence for Life After Death by Robert Almeder that, incidentally, Buddhist rebirth deniers most likely know little or nothing about.  Professor Almeder is well qualified to judge just what is credible in making an empirical case for reincarnation. He has laid out eight conditions any one of which strongly suggests reincarnation. One condition is the supposed reincarnate has to demonstrate a complicated skill such as a foreign language that could not have been acquired in this life.

By no means are the eight conditions conclusive proof.  By the same token, fulfilling some of the conditions, reincarnation is not improbable which means it is reasonable to believe in reincarnation from an empirical standpoint.

 

Self knowledge vs empirical verification

Whatever the Buddha taught came from self knowledge (attanâ va jâneyyâtha) or personal higher knowledge (sâmam yea dhammam abhiññâya).  In this regard, we are not asked to believe in a special creed.  We are invited by the Buddha to share in his experience.  The Buddha said:

“Well explained has been the Dhamma by the Blessed One, the Dhamma that bears fruit here and now, not subject to time [for results], that invites every man to come and see for himself, leading to the highest good, to be experienced by the wise in their very self (paccattam veditabbo viññûhi)” (M. i. 265). 

Western Buddhist can't help but see the above as an ancient species of modern empirical verification or the same, verificationism.  But nowhere does the Buddha say that his knowledge is based upon sensory evidence which is at the heart of modern empirical verification.  In fact, the modern principle of verification excludes personal knowledge or personal higher knowledge.

"According to the 'Verification Principle' we must exclude from language all propositions which cannot, at any rate in principle, be verified by sense experience--by what is seen, heard, touched, tasted and smelt. Restrict ourselves to propositions of sense experience and all will be well” (Ian T. Ramsey, Religious Language: An Empirical Placing of Theological Phrases, ed. Alasdair MacIntyre and Ronald Gregor Smith, 12).

When we look into the canon of Buddhism, the words of the Buddha resist being empirically verified as to their truth or falsity.  This is because the knowledge the Buddha attained went beyond the nets of the sensory.

When we read the following from the Sutta-Nipata, we have to keep in mind that the Buddha is coming from his own personal knowledge—not empirical verification.

"The old is destroyed, the new is not arising. [Those whose minds are disgusted with future existence, their seeds (of rebirth) have been destroyed (and) they have no desire for growth.]  The wise are quenched like this lamp.  This outstanding jewel too is in the Order; by this truth may there be well-being" (235).

If we wish to know this for ourselves, the Buddha invites us “to come and see” (ehipassika) and experience the knowledge he experienced in our very self.  This is not a call to a belief or a dogma; nor is it a call to empirical verification.  

It is regrettable that Western Buddhists are skeptical about rebirth (punarbhava).  We might conclude from this  that they do not understand rebirth from personal knowledge but are skeptical of it based on empirical verification.  Ironically, the instrument of their verification are the Five Aggregates from which no self knowledge can possibly come.