The Zennist

The world of the unessential

Looking at a heap of sand or, if you like, a sandcastle, both are devoid of the substance sand.  The abstract “heap-ness” or the abstract “sandcastle-ness” depend upon sand thus they are nothing in themselves.  The heap and the sandcastle are dependent originations, in other words.  

Everything that is dependent is unessential or the same, lacks true essence.  Dependent existence is only through essence which is independent of the contingent nature of such existence.

Turning to our psychophysical body, the five skandhas or aggregates, consisting of material shape, feeling, perception, habitual tendencies and consciousness lack essence thus being also empty.  They depend on the essential just like a heap-ness needs sand. 

Likewise in the world of human thought-forms or concepts they, too, lack essence.  No thought-form is the Buddha Mind or pure Mind.  No thought-form is nirvana and so on.  We can say this of what we imagine, for example, an imagined Buddha is not the Buddha and so on.  As Buddhist seekers our goal is to see the very substance or our thought-forms which is pure Mind.  Seeing this, suddenly we understand what the old Buddha was talking about; we see eye to eye with the Zen masters, too.

Where is the transcendent?

Is the transcendent important for modern Buddhism?  Let me stop here before I answer this question.  First of all, what do I mean by the transcendent?   Based on several dictionary definitions, the transcendent refers to that which is beyond ordinary experience and scientific explanation.  In Buddhism, the transcendent would be independent and separate from the psychophysical body (i.e., the five skandhas).  Specifically, this would be the self or liberated spirit (cetovimutta).  This is demonstrated in many discourses in which we learn that the self of the disciple is not connected with the psychophysical body.

Getting back to the original question, my answer is no.  The transcendent is almost always ignored by the most popular and modern forms of Buddhism especially secular Buddhism which views the transcendent as having indirect reference to deity or a religious absolute.

The modern position is certainly not in keeping with what the Buddha taught.  One can only defend such a position by ignoring most of what the Buddha taught with regard to the transcendent, for example, that nirvana is eternally beyond the pale of causes and conditions (Pande, Origins of Buddhism, 451).  Or nirvana is understood to be also eternal, changeless, immortal, transphenomenal, beyond thought, etc. (Pande, Origins of Buddhism, 473–74).

In addition, the personal realization of nirvana by the inmost self (paccattam) seems to be all but ignored along with the self being purified (visuddhamattânam) and the self being liberated (vimuttamattânam), liberation also being the meaning of nirvana which, incidentally, has no connection with the psychophysical body.

What the modern Buddhist is left with, sans the transcendent, is really nothing in the way of true Buddhism; certainly nothing in the way to the beyond or parâyana.  Such Buddhism is sham Buddhism taught by teachers who need to actually read what the Buddha taught; not making assumptions.  The big loser in all of this is the beginner who is learning the wrong stuff that, sooner or later, will have to be dropped if he or she wishes to realize the right stuff.

Failure to see and to teach the transcendent underscores Western culture’s current love affair with materialism.  Materialism also serves to ground Western culture in evil in which there is a decisive loss of the individual’s sense of spirit which opens to the transcendent.

True practice

I have been asked several times as a Buddhist, what my practice is.  As a general rule I dodge the question.  I think it is stupid.  And here is why.  True practice is about the integration of the Buddha’s teachings into our life as we are living it from one samsaric moment to the next.

It is easy to read a little bit of the Buddha’s teaching (a few of his discourses).  It is also easy to sit in meditation after a few yoga exercises.  But this doesn’t mean that we are integrating the Buddha’s teachings into our lives.  The Five Aggregates (pañca-skandha) of Mara the Evil One still dominate.  They are the first noble truth of suffering.  We are still self-programmed not to see the pure Mind even though it is right in front of us.  We are still deluded, full of hate (fear of the other), and have a difficult time controlling our passions.  In short, we remain prithagjana (unspiritual persons).

Integrating the Buddha’s teaching into our lives is a difficult task.  It is easy to lapse.  There are so many distractions around us; so many things to get us off track from our jobs to our children’s needs.

Turning to our subjective side, we have an internal dialogue going on not to mention countless daydreams and fantasy thoughts to contend with.  We are beset with worries of every kind and degree.  We face sadness, heartbreak, disappointments and fears.  Yet it is here, in this inner jungle, that we are to seek for pure Mind.  Make no mistake about it, it is here and we must find it.  This is what real integration is about which is true practice.  And even if we find pure Mind there is still much more work to do.

When definitions go wrong

If we begin with a fucked-up mistaken understanding or definition of a specific term or notion we, more than often, end up in an intellectual cul-de-sac with no exit.  We can only turn around and wonder what went wrong. In the worst case, we will try to argue our way out of the cul-de-sac, but to no avail.  Buddhists do this in spades when it comes to the notion of self and non-self which is part of the reason why modern Buddhism is not really Buddhism having lost its transcendent message.

A recent example of this I found in the business world.  I hope it serves to highlight the problem.  In this particular example, the problem is between Apple Inc. and Wall Street analysts over what “innovation” actually means.  The latter seem to be fomenting the opinion that Apple Inc. is no longer innovative.  But if you look at the differences between the terms "invent" and "innovate" in light of their respective definitions, it becomes apparent that Wall Street analysts are terribly confused.  

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, invent means, 

To find out in the way of original contrivance; to create, produce, or construct by original thought or ingenuity; to devise first, originate (a new method of action, kind of instrument, etc.). The chief current sense.

On the other hand, innovate means,

To bring in or introduce novelties; to make changes in something established; to introduce innovations.

As the reader can see, invention and innovation are two different ideas.  If we begin with the invention of the Wright brothers motor powered airplane, it is not quite the same as the long history of aircraft innovation which followed the Wright brothers, that has produced the SR-71 "Blackbird" or the B-2 Spirit (also known as the Stealth Bomber).

Looking at the field of electronics there is a marked difference between invention and innovation when we look at the television, for example.  Beginning in 1927 with Philo T. Farnsworth's invention of the Image Dissector camera to the present day High-definition television (HDTV), the chief difference between the two is with innovation.  This also applies to Ed Roberts who can be credited with inventing the personal computer.  Subsequent to Ed Roberts' Altair 8800 personal computer there has been a lot of innovation in the personal computer which has been compressed into the smartphone.

From this we can say that Apple Inc. does, in fact, do a lot of innovating which should not be confused with inventing.  The Wall Street analysts, however, are clearly confused in this matter who mistakenly assume that innovation is invention in the criticism of Apple Inc.

When it comes to Buddhism, the same confusion is present only in different terms.  In the case of Buddhism, it is the confusion between attâ/âtman (self) and anattâ/anâtman (non-self or lit. not the self).  Buddhist clergy and some scholars, not to mention the average run-of-the-mill Buddhist, appear to believe that anâtman or non-self is some kind of mysterious state of non-being or the same, it is the perfect state of egolessness that the Buddha taught is the ideal state as compared with Hinduism’s âtman.  This view is almost laughable.  It reflects a profound misreading of the Buddha’s discourses and what he really taught.

In the many discourses of the Buddha what is not the self or anattâ/anâtman is the five khandha/skandha (aggregates) consisting of material shape, feeling, perception, habitual tendencies and consciousness.  These five aggregates are not only not the self or anâtman there are also impermanent and suffering.  In addition, they belong to the Buddhist devil, Mara!  When a modern day Buddhist says the Buddha taught anâtman they are making an untrue assertion.  The Buddha only taught that our psychophysical body is not the self or anâtman.  The authentic anâtman doctrine teaches that the five khandha/skandha are not the self or anattâ/anâtman. We are to abandon desire for what is anâtman (S. iv. 49)—not for what is the âtman.

Turning to the self or attâ/âtman, it is the first-person that instrinsically transcends the five khandha/skandha.  To behold it, which is nirvana, means to have completely abandoned desire for what causes suffering, namely, the aggregates which are anâtman.

 

 

Supramundane meditation

Even the most sublime meditation (dhyâna) is considered worldly or lokiya if nirvana is not its object.  Only when nirvana has become the object of meditation is meditation considered to be supramundane or lokuttara.  Put another way, supramundane meditation must have for its object the increate nature (asamkhatadhamma) which is the deeper meaning of nirvana.  This increate nature is empty of desire, hatred, and delusion.

I hasten to mention, also, through meditation, with the realization of nirvana, comes the end of old age and death, disease and suffering, insofar as attained nirvana transcends the psychophysical body which is always impermanent, suffering and subject to death.

In light of the fact that nirvana is supramundane, one has to wonder why in the West it appears that only worldly meditation is taught.  As we might expect, such meditation never manages to get beyond the three poisons of desire, hatred, and delusion.  It also can’t get beyond what is born, become, made, and created. 

Part of the reason lies with what Western Buddhist believe meditation is.  For most, it is superficial.  Meditation is about sitting on a cushion with legs crossed and the hands placed in a particular position.  But this is not meditation anymore than say hatha yoga is the yoga Patanjali taught in his Sutras.  Meditation is an inward looking for the self by the self, the self being unable to recognize itself in the corporal body, its thoughts and the world.  This task is far more difficult than just sitting in a seated posture as if such a act were something magical and liberating.

The self awaking to itself, sufficient to know that it is essentially free of the carnal body, not to mention being also free of the most subtle thought-forms and feelings, is nirvana.  Looking at this another way, I am in this body but not of it.  Because of the condition of ignorance, I cannot distinguish between what I really am and what I am not.  I mistake what I am not, which is really unessential, for what I am.  It is only through meditation that I am able to find my true self this finding being nirvana. 

Not being in the magic circle

I have discovered that if you are not in the magic circle of prosaic Buddhism where Buddhism is almost, as a rule, wrongly interpreted, your audience can be quite small (scholars are included).  I mean who wants to read stuff about the strong parallels between Jainism and early Buddhism that Hajime Nakamura writes about?  Perish the thought that there is not that much fundamental difference between these two religions when it comes to nirvana, for example.  Or, on another note, who wants to learn that the Buddha's ideas about karma and rebirth were strictly his own?

"What I am talking about, monks, I have heard from no other recluse or brahman; and moreover what I am talking about is known only by me myself, seen by myself, discerned by myself" (M. iii. 18).

I could go on and on with passages from the Pali canon that undermine the common, everyday view of Buddhism.  As the readers of this blog are aware, I have devoted a lot of ink to taking down the assumption that the Buddha denied the self or âtman.  He taught, instead, that we are not to regard the psychophysical body as our self.

A lot of prosaic Buddhism’s problems stem from arrogance or atimâna which is tied up with Western culture’s still traceable colonialist attitude.  Atimâna, more specifically, is the psychological condition of thinking others beneath itself and of a superior, thinks it is equal.  This attitude is reflected in the Western development of Buddhism: the pop or prosaic interpretation of Buddhism, which is found in most of the published literature on Buddhism.

Because of the force of atimâna, Buddhism gets twisted around and reshaped into something, perhaps, resembling Eckhart Tolle’s spiritual teaching that, supposedly, is better able to transform human consciousness by transcending the ego-based state of consciousness.  But the Western notion of “ego” is not found in Buddhism.  It is not in the Vedas or the Upanishads, either.  The ‘I’ or ‘self’ is not the bad guy.  The first-person (âtmam) is the one who takes refuge; who undertakes the path; whose goal is to transcend the psychophysical body (the five skandhas of material shape, feeling, perception, habitual tendencies, and consciousness); who personally realizes by doing so, nirvana. 

Not living in the magic circle of prosaic Buddhism certainly has its negatives but it has some positives.  For example, I am better able to see where Buddhism is screwed up and where it is not.  I can see that a psychological and moral grasp of Buddhism is a waste of time.  I can see that having a mind free of presuppositions and prejudices is a must if one is to engage with authentic Buddhism found in the Buddha’s discourses. 

Our brave new 21st century and the need to reform Buddhism

While the bulk of Westerners believe the West, of recent memory, has brought significant benefits to mankind such as electric motors, electric lights, fly screen, washing machines, safety razors, automobiles, the telephone, and the computer, it has also provided mankind with powerful weapons that can literally destroy the biosphere.  It has brought us genocide, too, like the Holocaust.  It has given us prisons like no others in the past.  Ironically, for all of its self-proclaimed greatness, the West has not been able to end poverty and hunger in the world, among its many other failures.

One really has to wonder how the West can begin with a utopian outlook and then manage, in a very short period of time, to fuck it up so much that society becomes dystopian or appears to be heading towards dystopia.  The Nazis and the Communists are primary examples, including the grifters of predatory capitalism.

I get the sense that the people who like to fuck things up always tend to be in the seats of power.  When it comes to the Western treatment of Buddhism it has a few good apples in the seats of power—but it has a lot more rotten apples who are trying to change Buddhism.  As we might expect, these people end up, inadvertently, distorting Buddhism in the name of reforming it.  These arrogant reformers also have the power to destroy Buddhism.

In trying to adapt Buddhism to the needs of the 21st century, the reformers have conspicuously left out nirvana, karma, and rebirth in their marketing plans.  Whatever the Buddha taught about nirvana, karma and rebirth, for the most part, has lost its privileged position.  We are to understand from Western Buddhists like Stephen Batchelor that the Buddha’s pristine teaching was originally free from religious notions which predated him such as nirvana, karma and rebirth.  In the same vein, we are to understand that the beginnings of Buddhism were not religious—only later did Buddhism become institutionalized as a religion (Batchelor, Buddhism Without Beliefs,16–17). 

If Westerners have any spiritual sense left who flock to Buddhism they will realize that the aforementioned reformation of Buddhism is a fucked-up interpretation of Buddhism.  It is also an excellent example of how the West goes awry; turning what is potentially good (the Buddhism of the Buddha’s discourses) into an aberration, i.e., secular Buddhism.  The apologists who defend this crap can’t manage to find a suitable justification for it except to believe that modernity requires new religions that are not religious and new ways of helping people with their suffering by teaching them how to put up with it.  All in all, 21st century Buddhism is set to become a lesser Buddhism.

Should we tolerate secular Buddhism?

As moderns we must learn to tolerate many things that we strongly disagree with.  By the same token, we have every right to take issue with things with which we strongly disagree by means of argument, etc.  (According to Michael Gilbert, in his book, Coalescent Argumentation, argument is any exchange of information centered on an avowed disagreement.)  

Argument is what Buddhists do who disagree with each other finding little or no common ground at first, for example, traditional Buddhism vs secular Buddhism which is what this blog is about.  They argue in various kinds of ways, such as through publications or on the Internet in the form of blogs. 

So where does toleration come into play—or should it?  First of all, what do we mean by toleration?  Is toleration just a matter of noninterference as when there is strong disapproval and conflict, say between traditional Buddhists and secular Buddhists?   It seems unlikely that noninterference is quite the same as toleration insofar as noninterference demands little if any commonality.  It comes under the motto of you do your thing; I’ll do my thing.  On the other hand, toleration has to have some degree of harmony or commonality present between sides—it can’t mean it’s okay to just ignore each other.  

In the history of Chinese Buddhism, for example, there was toleration between Daoism, Confucianism and Buddhism although there was also notable philosophical and cultural differences that had to be worked out over centuries.  On this note, the differences between traditional Buddhism and secular Buddhism lack, even on the surface, commonality whereas the differences between Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana still have commonality, for example, nirvana and rebirth; all of which adds up to toleration.  From this, one might even say that toleration can acknowledge differences and endure them in the example of Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism.

There are, of course, obvious limits to both noninterference and toleration.  Censorship, lying, slander, making false claims and representations, are all examples of where noninterference and toleration end.  On this score, there is a good case to be made why secular Buddhism should not be tolerated especially when the evidence of what the Buddha taught is either completely ignored or distorted by secular Buddhists.  In some examples, they make assertions that actually run counter to what the Buddha taught.  They are also obsessed with trying to make the Buddha sound like he is advocating materialism which is the crown jewel of modernity.  To my mind, B. Alan Wallace makes an important case of why we should not be indifferent to secular Buddhists like Batchelor and why secular Buddhism should not be tolerated.  Go here. 

Getting lucky

Punya is often translated by the English word ‘merit’.  This is not a good translation. Generally speaking, Western Buddhists have the wrong impression about punya. They often see it as merit accumulation. When the average Western Buddhist donates to a Buddhist teacher or a Buddhist center, he or she may do so without understanding the implications of punya.

Punya is more akin to the English word ‘luck’.  According to the Buddha, luck or punya is based upon giving (dâna), spiritual discipline (shîla) and mind development (bhâvana).  When taken together, the three add up to strengthening our powers of deliberation or, the same, choice.  As a result of this strengthening, we find that our choices often lead to good fortune.  What has to be kept in mind is that the strength or weakness of our connection with the true nature of things is always prior to the choices we make.  If our connection is strong, then it follows that we have a certain amount of influence over the trajectory of our choices which lead to luck.  If not, our choices will eventually lead to misfortune.

Asian Buddhists generally have the right idea of punya.  To strengthen their affinity with the true nature of things, they give, as compared with Western Buddhists, hefty donations to a Buddhist temple or to a great teacher who has spiritual power.  In this way they fulfill dâna. When they follow the Five Precepts and cultivate proper discipline, they fulfill shîla.  When they mentally cultivate the Buddha’s teaching on a daily basis, trying to actualize his wise words, they fulfill proper bhâvana.  All this leads to luck. To appreciate more of the essence of luck, Native Americans say that a hunter can be very skilled with his weapon, but without luck he won’t find any game.  This is why most ancient peoples gave to the wise, cultivated virtue, and contemplated wise sayings.  It insured that they had strong connections with the ultimate nature of reality so that their choices would often turn out for the better and eventually lead to awakening.

My job

How do I convey Buddhism to non-Buddhists?  It is not as difficult as you might imagine (I have more of a problem with ordinary Buddhists).  Keep in mind that the crowd I am with is mainly in their twenties (a few are in their early thirties and forties).  They all like great cuisine, as well.  

As their beloved old dude, to explain Buddhism, I tell them things like you are more than the sum of your body parts or what animates you is greater than the sum of your anatomy.  That’s not difficult.  It is far better to say things like this than the distorted crap that there is no self or life is impermanent and suffering:  statements which have been so decontextualized by modern Buddhists so as to be almost completely misleading. (Truth be told, what is "no self" is the temporal, psychophysical body of impermanence and suffering which is not who we really are.)

Always with them, I stay pretty much in constant meditation or samadhi so the “light” rubs off on them.  It is like giving sunlight to a plant that has been trying to grow in the dark which can only help the plant.  In addition, there is love (karuna) and kindness (I do a lot of hugging).  Interestingly, there is nothing to preach unless I am asked specifically something about Buddhism. 

The real problem I face is conveying Buddhism to Buddhists many of whom treat Buddhism as if it were the official religion of nihilism.  In this respect, it is not far from Shakespeare’s play about Macbeth who believed life signified nothing.  But the only ‘nothing’ in Buddhism is life without the realization of pure Mind.  From the Buddha’s exalted position, all is simply a configuration of this Mind which is never outside of it.  There is no ‘nothing’ in other words.  The universe is the fullest expression of Mind’s absolute power including knowledge of itself which is never incomplete.

Going back to the beginning of this blog, the substance or essence of that which animates us cannot be found in the animated or in the psychophysical.  We would be on a fool’s errand to search for it in the psychophysical body.  Yet, mysteriously, we are this essence.  It is just that we cannot see it (gnosis) in our present condition.  Its marvelous purity is hidden by the impure.  My job is just to awaken sleeping Buddhas.