The Zennist

Is science over rated?

With his invention of science, man as made himself seem more godlike than he should be.  The power of science has also given man tremendous destructive power.  At the same time, as it should be obvious, science has not taken away what Freud calls the instinct of destruction (Destruktionstrieb); nor has science been a friend when it comes to what Freud calls the instinct of life (Lebenstrieb).  The great Holocaust testifies to this.  It cannot be swept under the carpet of Western civilization.  If anything the Holocaust is proof positive that science is almost always used for evil because its user is uncivilized. 

While we are led to praise the great accomplishments of science, which should not be confused with technology, in the example of the washing machine, it often seems more like a huge lie.  While ostensibly science has helped to make what seems lie a utopia if we watch television, beneath the shining surface, a dystopia lurks, replete with all kinds of evils and monsters.  Along with this dystopia, mankind seems to be on a mission to destroy himself if not nature first.  Summing this all up beautifully for us, George E. Brown Jr. writes: 

"Global leadership in science and technology has not translated into leadership in infant health, life expectancy, rates of literacy, equality of opportunity, productivity of workers, or efficiency of resource consumption. Neither has it overcome failing education systems, decaying cities, environmental degradation, unaffordable health care, and the largest national debt in history" (Gerald Holton, Einstein, History, and Other Passions: The Rebellion against Science at the End of the Twentieth Century, p. 6).

Keep in mind that this is only the tip of the iceberg.  One thing I have found, science is becoming an enemy to man’s spirit and life itself.  Thus far, it has done nothing to end what Buddhists call the three poisons, namely, delusion, hatred, and concupiscence.  On a daily basis, humanity drinks these poisons seeming to enjoy the intoxication; never waking up to see the real damage they have done to themselves.

Beginning with the World's Columbia Exposition at Chicago in 1893, in which the fruits of science and technology were seen for the first time by the public, it wasn’t long after this that two great and terrifying wars followed.  This prompted some great thinkers of the West to take a hard look at science.  Judging from the current literature available which is taking science to task, it is having a chastening effect upon conventional science, enough that we should never again put our faith in science.  Instead, we should be very skeptical of science.  We also must begin t turn to intuition and transcendence, the pillars of the inward journey, that lead us to the other shore of absolute spirit.

For those who have crossed, who have set foot on this new land, it is easy for them to see that all beings, in their blindness, nevertheless, are striving to return to their true self which is eternal and undying.  But because they have been blinded by science, their efforts continually lead them astray.  In this blind journey of the blind leading the blind, science can offer no illumination—only more darkness.

For the credulous Buddhists of the West who are trying to pimp Buddhism off to the West as being friendly to science it is rather an embarrassing show if not injurious to Buddhism.  Not only are these Buddhists ignorant of the history of science, including its deceptions and failed promises, but they are also insufficiently grounded in their own religion enough to know that it could not care less about Western science.  Buddhists who choose to be suck ups to science should be shunned.  No one can reach the other shore by following a Buddhist who disrespects intuition and transcendence.

Seeing pure Mind

Trying to make heads or tails out of the picture to the left at first glance is difficult.  Being told that it is a special breed of dog is helpful.  But even more helpful is to learn that it is a Dalmatian, or a firehouse dog.

Cognizing pure Mind is  somewhat like this, but far more difficult.  While we are familiar with a Dalmatian, we have never beheld pure Mind before, or the same, the Buddha or awakened Mind.  This does mean pure Mind is not present.  It is.  Our thought-forms are made of it as is everything else.  They are distortions of it like a whirlpool is a distortion of water.

The guidance of those who have truly mastered Zen is important.  They unselfishly try to inform us what the quest is about; then, if we are lucky and blessed, kick our ass to force us to make the long inward journey.  At the same time, they drop hints along the way that help us to look in the right direction, just like it is helpful to know, in the picture above, that all the seemingly incoherent spots add up to a firehouse dog.

When we see pure Mind for the first time, we realize that there is no spatial split between pure Mind, itself, and the torsional forms its takes in the form of our temporal world, including our thought-forms.  There is nothing, in other words, outside of it.  While for the modern mind, this sounds reductionistic, if not impossible, for those who have seen Mind, first hand, it is the fundamental fact of reality which cannot be escaped.

The serious beginner

The smart beginner, if they are really serious about Buddhism, has to find a path that will lead to the realization of pure Mind. The Sanskrit term “mârga” is usually translated by the English word path or way.  We find this important term in the Noble Eightfold Path in Sanskrit as ârya-ashtânga-mârga.  Mârga comes from √MÂRG.  This root means seek, look for; search through, etc.

When cows look for water or green vegetation, they search and, at the same time, are making a path.  This search, if successful, produces a proper path for other cows to follow which will take them to fresh water.  The Buddha’s own path is sort of like this which led him to pure Mind whereby he became Buddha and led others on his path.  

At first, we have to have the right view or right idea of pure Mind in order to eventually actualize it which is right samadhi.  The additional components of this path which lie between right view and right samadhi help us to get to right samadhi so that we have a direct intuition of pure Mind.  

The additional components of the path are resolve (samkalpa), meaning (vac), actions (karmânta), livelihood (jîva), striving (vyâyâma), mindfulness (smriti).  These components are not to be taken as rules to follow.  They are important components of the beginner’s psychological disposition which will help the beginner to go from the proper view of pure Mind to its eventual actualization.  

What is obstructing the beginner’s ability to enter samadhi of pure Mind is, naturally, wrong view or the wrong idea of what Buddhism is really about.  On the other hand, one who has right view or the right idea, would not regard, for example, the Five Aggregates as pure Mind, or the same, the self. They would also correctly see nirvana (P., nibbânadassanam).  As we might acknowledge from this, right view or the right idea of what Buddhism is about is extremely important.  It is a very profound notion.

Briefly, the Buddha’s path helps us to answer a koan.  We can’t get to the samadhi of the koan without first having the right idea about koans that they are a Zen master’s expression of pure Mind.  The beginner has to connect, for example, Joshu’s great Mu (no) with pure Mind or with other odd responses or gestures in other koans.  How are they related, in other words?  The wrong view of koans would be that they have nothing to do with pure Mind or our original nature.

One final thought about the Buddha’s path, in a three or six month retreat all the elements of the eightfold path work much better provided we start with the correct view.  At some point the beginner has to become a serious hermit (rishi).

A smart beginner

A beginner new to Buddhism usually wants to find a Dharma or Zen center close by.  For some unclear reason they believe they will learn a lot about Buddhism if they go there when in fact they will learn almost nothing.  They might as well quit after they learn the formal posture of zazen.  They could easily do zazen in their apartment, read the Heart Sutra—and for added benefit, read Paul Reps’ book, Zen Flesh, Zen Bones especially the 101 little Zen stories in the first part of the book.  All in all, this is not much different than a Christian going to church on Sunday who might believe they will learn a great deal about Christianity.  Unless they are a seminary student, it is highly probable that they won’t learn very much about Christianity.

Buddhist temples are not in the habit of teaching Buddhism as strange as this sounds.  The beginner is treated more like a spectator whose main job is to support the temple with their donations.  A typical American Zen temple might teach meditation, but this is under the category of rituals or observances.  Sitting still for under and hour is not real meditation or dhyâna.

Beginners need to jettison any romantic ideas they might have about Buddhism, especially Zen.  The odds are, the person who is regarded by them to be a Zen master knows much less than a university scholar of Zen Buddhism and spiritually, is certainly no Huang-po.  They idea that anyone who wears Buddhist robes; who also claims he or she is transmitted from so-in-so which makes them a genuine master of Zen is deluded.  A real master of Zen has seen the absolute or the same, pure Mind.  A fraud is someone who claims to be a Zen master who doesn’t teach the essence of Mind which the Sixth Patriarch taught.

A smart beginner doesn’t waste their time with Buddhist teachers who never mention the Mind and its importance in the study of Buddhism.  What is the payoff by attending a Dharma or Zen center that keeps everyone in the dark when it comes to Mind?  We can't forget that koans are based on the realization of Mind—they are its fundamental demonstration; zazen means to see into one’s original nature which is pure Mind.

Trust me, I know what I am talking about.  I wasted not a few years trusting in teachers who never mentioned pure Mind—who were clueless imbeciles.  I was even kicked out of a Tibetan group for asking a Lama about Mind.

The problem facing the worldlings

The problem facing the average worldling (prithagjana) who wants to understand Buddhism is twofold.  Firstly, they believe the world is real and secondly, they are unable to spiritually see the substance or essence of Mind (i.e., pure Mind). Given these two conditions, there is no hope for them until Mind is realized or at the least, believed in.  

Pop Buddhist literature appears not to care about the realization of Mind.  Stephen Batchelor, for example, finds the idea abhorrent because it is "suspiciously like the Atman (Self/God)"! His view, to a certain degree, drives what makes Buddhism so difficult for the average worldling to understand.  Pop Buddhism and its teachers leave out a huge and important chuck of Buddhism when they ignore Mind as in Buddha Mind.  It is somewhat like leaving out the engine of a car just off the assembly line. 

I can generalize about this and say that the average worldling interested in Buddhism is only interested in Buddhism, for example, if it helps them to cope with day to day stress.  That’s all they are interested in.  This falls within the four corners of materialism.  It is not spiritual in any way.  In my case, the study of Zen became completely spiritual for me when after Bishop Nippo’s lecture at San Jose State I realized that I had to search for pure Mind within myself.  This became an adventure for me like no other.

As long as the average worldling who wants to study Buddhism believes in the things of this world; or believes that science has all the answers (right now science is destroying itself, which is good), Buddha Mind for them is like praying to the Hindu god Ganesha.  But there is no real Buddhism with this attitude.  It becomes a Buddhism that undermines true Buddhism.  Over time, Buddhism eventually fades away.

Even Buddhists have Kumarés

I just got done watching the documentary, Kumaré (2011).  In a nutshell, this movie is about an Indian-American, Vikram Gandhi, who decides to become a fake Indian guru who he names, Kumaré.  Going to Arizona, he builds up a following.  Eventually, he reveals to his followers that he is a fake guru which he considers to be a most valuable teaching. In other words, depend upon yourself not some stereotypical guru.   

For me, the point at issue is the average person's uncritical and  impelling need to have a teacher such as Kumaré, the fake guru.  This, it could be argued, is the antithesis of looking within.  What I found interesting is that Kumaré didn't read from the Upanishads or other traditional Indian works such as Patañjali's Yoga Sutras which, incidentally, are quite Buddhist.  It should be noted, that delving into scriptural passages is really the beginning of looking within.  Also, it is not so much guru dependent.  Incidentally, Kumaré made his religion up as he went along which added humor to the documentary but was also very valuable in that it showed a lack of critical reflection on the part of his credulous followers.

The bulk of pop Buddhists, I suspect, are quite smug who would never consider that they are as credulous as Kumaré’s followers who are overly inclined to believe whatever their guru tells them.  Nevertheless, all the elements are in Buddhism for anyone to become a religious fake and sell a fake Buddhist doctrine to their followers which has little or nothing to do with the Buddha of the discourses (Suttas and Sutras).  I could even make a small list of Buddhist books including the guru-like authors, that I consider to teach fake Buddhism which doesn’t reflect the Buddha of the discourses.  

Buddhist scholars, on the other hand, have to try to unpack what the Buddha of the discourses is teaching.  It’s not an easy thing to do, especially if one has not managed to see what the Buddha saw when he became enlightened.  The scholar or the hermit/rishi living alone must really look within, hoping they’re looking deep enough, otherwise the Buddha’s message will not be unearthed.  At this point, one’s own blindness is leading them as they have no real lodestar.  Of course, they could opt to search for a great Buddhist teacher but most likely they would end up with a Buddhist version of Kumaré.

The rejection of the mystical in pop buddhism

I am guessing, but the way I look at ‘pop Buddhism’ there are certain ideas which it is uncomfortable with.  One, in particular, comes under the category of mysticism which is about the direct communion with ultimate reality; something which is beyond the pale of the material universe.  Here is one example.  It is from Plotinus.

“So the soul which does not see Him is without light; but when it is enlightened it has what it sought, and this the soul's true end, to touch that Light and see It by Itself, not by another light, by Itself, Which gives it sight as well. It must see that Light by which it is enlightened; for we do not see the sun by another light than his own. How then can this happen. Take away everything!”

The other example, is a poem by Nikos Kazantzakis (Remember the book Zorba the Greek?).

What is the value of subduing the earth, the water, the air,
of conquering space and time,
of understanding what laws govern the mirages
that rise from the burning deserts of the mind,their appearance and reappearance
I have one longing only:
to grasp what is hidden behind appearances,
to ferret out that mystery which brings me to birth and then
   kills me,
to discover if behind the visible and unceasing stream of the
   world  
an invisible and immutable presence is hiding.

Both examples illustrate man’s dissatisfaction with worldly existence; that it is not truly satisfying just to live in a material universe and then to die, absolutely.  Of course, it almost goes without saying this, but not all people buy into mysticism, certainly not those who are interested in what pop Buddhism has to offer which ignores the mystical, unconditioned side of Buddhism.  

Pop Buddhism appears to have taken its chips off the Buddha of the discourses and put them on an invented Buddha of neuroscience which finds no use for mind since everything mental, it believes, can be explained by the neurons of the physical brain which, incidentally, is two percent of the body’s weight.  There is no mind-body problem since there is no mind.

Why some people reject the mystical is difficult to understand.  But it is certainly a fact if one spends a little time looking into those marketing Buddhism these days.  There is almost no mention of nirvana and certainly no interest in the Mind-only teaching found in the Lankavatara Sutra which essentially says that the material world is only a configuration of Mind.  There is no mind-body problem, because there is fundamentally no material body apart from absolute Mind itself.

 

 

The longer and better route

Reading and understanding early Buddhism, which is found in the Nikayas/Agamas (the Pali Nikayas and the Chinese Agamas), takes a long time. Trying to find the golden thread that runs through these early discourses is extremely difficult. There is so much to learn about early Buddhism that it can be a turn-off to some people. Instead of taking this long, more difficult route, some opt for the short route which has little or no relationship with the early discourses of the Buddha.  The desire for a quick answer often moves us away from authentic Buddhism.

Those who have opted for the short route are told that the self or attâ is the fundamental problem that we face. This is rather odd since the fundamental problem in the discourses of early Buddhism is craving the five khandhas which together comprise our psychophysical body which we take to be our self when, in fact, the psychophysical body is not our self or anattâ.  

With regard to each one of the five khandhas or aggregates which are material shape, feeling, perception, habitual tendencies and consciousness, the Buddha's disciple understands: This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self (M. i. 136). This is not a rejection of self but a rejection of what, upon examination, cannot be our self since the psychophysical body is impermanent and suffering whereas the true self is not (the self is implicitly unconditioned).

The world that we see through our psychophysical body (the five khandhas) is a false world because the basis of perceiving such a world is, itself, illusory.  When we say, for example, there is no self, this cannot be true because the psychophysical body, which is our metric, is false! Thus we are inverted. We cling to what is suffering (the five khandhas are suffering) and reject what is not suffering, namely, the unconditioned which is the self insofar as the self is treated as always being spiritually separate from the five khandhas which are never other than conditioned (= they are suffering and impermanent).

This brings us, a fortiori, to conclude that nirvana cannot be found within the world of the five khandhas; nor can it be no-self (anattâ):  If nirvana is understood as no-self, like the 5 khandhas, then nirvana must also  be rejected since what is no-self is suffering and impermanent. Thus, there would be no purpose in taking the Noble Eightfold Path since it would only lead to what is not the self, or the same, suffering and impermanence.

A battle against the living

The stream of human knowledge is impartially heading towards a non-mechanical reality. The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. 

                                                  — Sir James Jeans, The Mysterious Universe (1930)

 

Modernity (the state of being modern) is really a battle against everything possibly spiritual; a protracted war against the non-mechanical and, thus, everything living and immaterial.  But this battle cannot succeed for the simple reason that the principles used in establishing the validity of the mechanical are non-mechanical.

Those who are deeply lost in the spell of materialism (the belief that the universe is product of the unalterable laws of mechanics) cannot go beyond the prison they inhabit which they call ‘reality’.  They are doomed to endless suffering because they cannot stop reifying the reality which is essentially a fiction, if not completely a dream devoid of substance (svabhâva) and truth (satya).  

When confronted with the Buddha’s teaching they cannot see any further than he taught a moral teaching.  ‘Behave this way’ is all they know—not how to awaken from the deadly dream into which they’ve been born, will die, and be reborn countless times again.

The stranglehold of materialism has only delayed the inevitable truth of spirit.  Even Buddhism cannot remain chained down to a limitation of its truth, namely, that all beings live eternally, and can realize this when they cease gloaming onto a limited fictitious world, reifying it into something it can never be.  

Strangely, even the greatest of mechanistic minds still cannot say what space is made of.  But the Buddha could.  He directly entered into its very substance which was completely spiritual.  He saw what the fools of his time could not see.  He awakened where they wanted only more sleep.  Today we have even more fools who crave even more sleep who are at war with the very substance of the universe. 

Illusion unleashed

After reading Ilona Ciunaite and Elena Nezhinsky’s book, Gateless Gatecrashers (2012), which in a nutshell asserts that there is no self at all, I have to conclude that the West is willing to pay the heavy price of admission to stay in the distorted world of illusion.  

Unbeknownst to many, the price of admission into the world of illusion is also about a loss of memory (avidya) of the substance or essence of reality, including the sense of self.  With such a loss, which is also the loss of our Buddha-nature, we wrongly identify with the illusory psychophysical body we’ve been chained to since conception.  In so doing, we have lost not only any direct sense of self, however small, but also any sense of transcendence.  We live, accordingly, an inverted life: denying what we should affirm; affirming what we should deny. 

For people like Ilona Ciunaite and Elena Nezhinsky, this illusory world is their only reality while the self, according to them, is an illusion.  This illusory world and the day to day life in the psychophysical body is the only reality they wish to know—not anything transcendent.  They always claim that they have searched for the self but didn’t find any such thing.  For them, there is nothing outside of this life of appearance—or so they believe.  But what they fail to see is our world is a distortion of the absolute just like an elephant made of clay is a distortion of clay.  While enlightened beings understand the self to be the very first-person immediacy of the absolute, or pure Mind to be the very substance of the absolute, ordinary beings are only capable of perceiving the distortion.  They don’t realize that it takes much more effort to cut through the bewitching power of the distortion to eventually confirm the presence of the absolute substance.   

Buddhism, unfortunately, has only been helpful to the West in perpetuating the erroneous teaching of no-self despite the fact that the no-self doctrine of early Buddhism only meant that the psychophysical body is not to be regarded as our self!  The Buddha is asking us to stop clinging to the illusory world, including our psychophysical bodies.  The moment we put down these burdens, the true presence of who we really are is beheld.  This presence is not the absence of self—far from it.