« Turning Buddhism upside down | Main | How to spot a real Zen teacher »

May 15, 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I "stand face to face to him" each and every moment.

Sorry, azanshi, but I have to tell you that no zen master who is awakened offers any "proof of the buddha-dharma". It would be illogical anyway because if the disciple has awakened himself, he will need no proof, and if not, he would not understand.

My zen is not innovative at all, it is old-fashioned and based on much of the same zen masters that are quoted here from time to time. The word "Neozen" is therefore ironical. I do indeed not make the mistake of taking the Palicanon literally or preferring it over the awakening experience. Remember that the old zen masters killed the Buddha. Only the ones who stayed attached to an order depended on dogma and scriptures.

One day you will understand that believing in your transmigration is materialistic in itself. It is an attachment to s.th. that is not there, s.th. of an empty nature as we can learn in zen. None of it is part of the awakening experience. It is of course possible to develop such a thought afterwards and cling to it. Probably your awakening should be deepened then.

"First, people fight that domineering listlessness with means which, in general, set our feeling for life at their lowest point. Where possible, there is generally no more willing, no more desire; they stay away from everything which creates an emotional response, which makes “blood” (no salt in the diet, the hygiene of the fakir); they don’t love; they don’t hate — equanimity — they don’t take revenge, they don’t get wealthy, they don’t work; they beg; where possible, no women, or as few women as possible; with respect to spiritual matters, Pascal’s principle “Il faut s’abêtir” [it’s necessary to make oneself stupid].

The result, expressed in moral-psychological terms, is “selflessness,” “sanctification”; expressed in physiological terms: hypnotizing—the attempt to attain for human beings something approaching what winter hibernation is for some kinds of animals and what summer sleep is for many plants in hot climates, the minimum consumption and processing of material stuff which can still sustain life but which does not actually enter consciousness.
For this purpose an astonishing amount of human energy has been expended. Has it all gone for nothing? . . .

We should not entertain the slightest doubts that such sportsmen of “holiness,” whom almost all populations have in abundance at all times, in fact found a real release from what they were fighting against with such a rigorous training—with the help of their systemic methods for hypnosis, in countless cases they really were released from that deep physiological depression. That’s the reason their methodology belongs with the most universal ethnological facts. For the same reason, we have no authority for considering such an intentional starving of one’s desires and of one’s physical well being as, in itself, symptoms of insanity (the way a clumsy kind of roast- beef-eating “free spirit” and Squire Christopher like to do).


It’s much more the case that it opens or can open the way to all sorts of spiritual disruptions, to “inner light,” for example, as with Hesychasts on Mount Athos, to hallucinating sounds and shapes, to sensual outpourings and ecstasies of sensuality (the history of St. Theresa).


It’s self-evident that the interpretation which has been given for conditions of this sort by those afflicted with them has always been as effusively false as possible.


Still, people should not fail to catch the tone of totally convincing gratitude ringing out in the very will to such a form of interpretation.

They always value the highest state, redemption itself, that finally attained collective hypnosis and quietness, as the inherent mystery, which cannot be adequately expressed even by the highest symbols, as a stop at and return home to the basis of things, as an emancipation from all delusions, as “knowledge,” as “truth,” as “being,” as the removal of all goals, all wishes, all acts, and thus as a place beyond good and evil. “Good and evil,” says the Buddhist, “are both fetters: the perfect one became master over both”; “what’s done and what’s not done,” says the man who believes in the Vedanta, “give him no pain; as a wise man he shakes good and evil off himself; his kingdom suffers no more from any deed; good and evil—he has transcended both”— an entirely Indian conception, whether Brahman or Buddhist. (Neither in the Indian nor in the Christian way of thinking is this “redemption” considered attainable through virtue, through moral improvement—no matter how high a value they place on virtue as a form of hypnotism. People should note this point—it corresponds, incidentally, to the plain facts. That on this point they kept to the truth might perhaps be considered the best piece of realism in the three largest religions, which, apart from this, are religions so fundamentally concerned with moralizing.

“The man who knows has no duties” . . . “Redemption does not come about through an increase in virtue, for it consists of unity with Brahma, who is incapable of any increase in perfection; even less does it come through setting aside one’s faults, for the Brahma, unity with whom creates redemption, is eternally pure”).

So we want to honour “redemption” in the great religions; however, it will be a little difficult for us to remain serious about the way these people, who’ve grown too weary of life even to dream, value deep sleep—that is, deep sleep as already an access to the Brahma, as an achieved unio mystica [mysterious union] with God. On this subject, the oldest and most venerable “Scripture” states: “When he is soundly and completely asleep and is in a state of perfect calm, so that he is not seeing any more dream images, at that moment, O dear one, united with Being, he has gone into himself—now that he has been embraced by a form of his knowing self, he has no consciousness any more of what is outer or inner. Over this bridge comes neither night nor day, nor old age, nor death, nor suffering, nor good works, nor evil works.”

Similarly, believers in this most profound of the three great religions say, “In deep sleep the soul lifts itself up out of this body, goes into the highest light, and moves out in its own form: there it is the highest spirit itself which wanders around, while it jokes and plays and enjoys itself, whether with women or with carriages or with friends; there it no longer thinks back to its bodily appendages, to which the prana (the breath of life) is harnessed like a draught animal to a cart.”

Nevertheless, as in the case of “redemption,” we also need to keep in mind here that no matter how great the splendour of oriental exaggeration, what this states is basically the same evaluation which was made by that clear, cool, Greek-cool, but suffering Epicurus: the hypnotic feeling of nothingness, the silence of the deepest sleep, in short, the loss of suffering—something which suffering and fundamentally disgruntled people are already entitled to consider their highest good, their value of values, and which they must appraise as positive and experience as the positive in itself. (With the same logic of feeling, in all pessimistic religions nothingness is called God)."

(F.W. Nietzsche)

dooyen wrote: "Referring to old texts and makebeliefs from thousands of years ago does not make that better".


The reason the Zennist recites old texts and recognized authority on Buddhism which you so brazenly dismiss, is; a/ it is good custom to do so when you explain the Buddha-dharma from a scholarly POV, and, b/ You do not stand face to face with him, as to partake in his own "Mind-Seal authority", which is produced bodhicitta of Pure Mind or Mind Only. (The last one being the foremost sign any awakened Zen master offers as ultimate proof of the buddha-dharma to a student of good merit and readiness to take part in said dharma).

Now, having read some of the poor attempts to innovative zen-thought in your own blog, I unmistakably end up being caught in your confused existentialist nonsense and other forms of materialistic/nihilistic drivel. These vapid attempts to explain your own spiritual inadequate conclusions what you think Zen or Buddhism is, shows me that, not only are you spiritually blind, but also "tone-deaf" to the dharma.

I can only say this; Compared to your blog and the one by the Zennist, I choose theZennist any day of the week. Why? Because to me that is like choosing between a masterpiece made by a genius like Mozart and a poor composition by musically inept wannabe, like Salieri. (grins)

My master told me;

"Everlasting death is this samsara of the five skandhas. It is but a great numbness of Spirit, born out of the obfuscation of its true light. It is but the very antithesis of your true self, seeking validation of its existence where there should be none to be found."

We are spirit but spirit is not us. Therefore spirit does not transmigrate. The transmigration is an illusion of our mind and ends with death.

Referring to old texts and makebeliefs from thousands of years ago does not make that better.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo