The Zennist

Speaking for The Zennist

The Zennist, Buddhism’s premier obnoxious, low-quality blog (chuckling) is not afraid to say that it gets Buddhism and Zen pretty much right most of the time.  The rest of the blogs in the Buddhist blogasphere, unfortunately, get Buddhism and Zen pretty much wrong, consistently.  There are perhaps two reasons for this.

The people that blog these Buddhist (high-quality?) blogs have not had authentic satoris or awakenings that are supposed to shine a light on the Buddha’s discourses so that one comes away saying to themselves, “Wow!  So that is what the old buzzard means.”  

Every major awakening I have had, not only made all the discourses of the Buddha much more simple to understand but, in addition, I gained the ability to see further implications.  For example, there should be a discourse in which the Buddha teaches that anattâ (not self) is Mara the Evil One.  It would end with abandon Mara’s material shape which is anattâ, abandon Mara’s feeling which is anattâ, abandon Mara’s perception which is anattâ, abandon Mara’s habitual tendencies which are anattâ, abandon Mara’s consciousness which is anattâ.  Anyone who has seriously has read the Pali Nikayas knows that I am right.  Mara and anattâ are essentially the same.  This is why the Buddha taught the abandonment of anattâ, that is, abandon what is not the self.

Turning to Zen, it originally was called the Lanka School which was about pure Mind which is disclosed by the Lankavatara Sutra that was transmitted to Bodhidharma’s disciple, Huike, or so the story goes.  To be sure, early Zen wasn’t a Buddhist sit on your arse school which some latter-day Zennists think it is.  As history teaches us, there were a great number of Zennists in the Sung who strongly denied that theirs was the ‘meditation’  school.  The argued that it was all about Buddha Mind, and what was transmitted was this awakened Mind.

I can see no gain for Zen in the West if it continues to base itself primarily on sitting and some ridiculous lineage that transmits words and letters in the form of a transmission certificate.  Neither sitting nor certificates are what Bodhidharma transmitted; nor did his disciples transmit such.  Zen is, preeminently,  about awakening to pure Mind (unborn Mind, Buddha Mind, etc.) which is immaculate and totally empty of defilements, something like water that is no longer a whirlpool which reveals the illusory nature of the whirlpool—all along there was only water.

This is not gold

How did the Buddha know that the five khandhas or aggregates were not the self or in Pali, anattâ?  This is a question modern Buddhist don’t often pose, if at all—and they should.  This question is almost like asking, “How does one know this bag of rocks on the table is fool’s gold?”  Of course, the answer is easy if, beforehand, we know exactly what real gold is. When the Buddha says that our psychophysical body (the five khandhas) is not our real self, it is only because he as realized and actualized the real self.

Whatever some Buddhists may think, the Buddha does give us an answer as to why the five khandhas are not the self (anattâ) .  The most obvious answer is the aggregates are said by the Buddha to be suffering and impermanent which implies that the Buddha knows the difference between a psychological self, born of the aggregates which suffer, which is called sakkaya, and self, that is altogether transcendent and knows, above all else, of each aggregate, they are na meso attâ (not my self).

If someone were to ask the Buddha, “Is disease the self, or is being without protection and refuge the self, or is being what is murderous and evil the self?” the Buddha would have replied in the negative.  But all these conditions and many more, in fact, belong to the Five Aggregates!

Quite emphatically, the Buddha said that material shapes cannot be our self, for obvious reasons, such as material shape is impermanent, although we might believe otherwise.  He said the same thing about the rest of the aggregates.  For example, feeling is not our self because it is impermanent, and so on to the aggregate of consciousness which also cannot be a proper self. 

 

Facing the gateless-gate

How we become successful at passing through Zen’s gateless-gate depends almost entirely on how successful we are in letting go of any means, thus far, we’ve  used while we still make the fullest effort to pass through old Mumon’s gateless barrier. 

In a critical moment, only when we have dropped all means at our disposal, including even our instrument of knowledge, can we enter through the gateless-gate.  What we behold changes our life forever.  And after we enter, looking back, we can see the reason for dropping everything.

At this point, I need to add that there is something frightening about passing through Zen’s gateless-gate.  As I mentioned earlier, all means we have used in the past, such as the instrument of knowledge, must be dropped.  Paradoxically, this kept us at a safe distance from the absolute we believed we were seeking (i.e., by passing through the gateless barrier).  

But why should facing the gateless-gate, which stands as a barrier, be frightening?  It is because we will have to meet Buddha Mind, face to face, which we have never done before.  Thus far, unbeknownst to us, our whole life has been dedicated to running away from truth; running, instead, towards a world of lies.  Now we must let go of everything we’ve acquired.  Nothing will grant us access.  Only a pure Mind is capable of meeting Buddha Mind.

Going beyond the walls of the aggregates

The problem with the Theravada standpoint of no self (anattâ) is that it assumes the five khandhas or aggregates are exhaustive. If you can't find an âtman here, there is none to be found—and the Buddha found no âtman in these aggregates, or so the story goes (which happens to be nonsense). 

But the Buddha never intended the aggregates to be the alpha and omega, that if one cannot find their self here—well, there is no âtman (S., anâtman).  It’s an illusion. 

Still, despite this, the Buddha taught the destruction and abandonment of the aggregates because they are suffering and people, in their deeply entrenched stupidity, cling to them assuming they are  their self when in fact they’re not. 

Awakening or sambodhi is not possible by assuming that the aggregates are exhaustive of all there is and there is nothing beyond their walls. The Buddha never taught such a doctrine given how negative the aggregates really are.  

“The monk examines the five aggregates by their nature of impermanence, suffering, becoming ill, being like a boil, being like an arrow, hardship, becoming sick, being the other, being that which is decayed, bringing the bad, being evil, being dangerous, being an obstacle, being afraid, being that which is rotten, being not lasting, being without a resistance, being without a protection, being without refuge, being empty, being bare, being void, being anattâ, being harm, having change as norm, being without an essence, the root of hardship, being like an executioner, being a decay, having âsava, being conditioned, being a victim of mara, having birth as norm, having aging as norm, having sickness as norm, having death as norm, having grief as norm, having lamentation as norm, having despair as norm, having sorrow as norm” (Patisambhidamagga).

Given that the Buddha taught the destruction and abandonment of the five khandhas or aggregates (S. v. 61) there is, obviously, an outside to this which is counter to the aggregates.  The one who abandons the aggregates; who says they are not my self (na meso attâ) is in a safe place, to be sure.

Oddball mysticism

It is certainly an oddball form of mysticism or mystical unity to imagine that truth or satya consists in recognizing that all things are temporal and finite. While this might be a mundane truth—mundane truths are certainly not union with the transmundane which is absolute.

On the same score, if Buddhists believe that it is somehow mystical to recognize impermanence (anitya), suffering (duhkha) and lack of self (anâtman) is all there is to this life, then they’ve failed at Buddhism.  By no stretch of the imagination is such authentic mysticism.  Why?  Because it fails to acknowledge the transcendent which is not anitya, duhkha, anâtman.  Let’s be clear about this, anitya, duhkha, anâtman only comprise mundane truth.  They are not ultimate truths which only the mystical experience and tradition can reach.

Indeed, no amount of believing that all there is to life is impermanence, suffering, and lack of self is going to accomplish the transcendent nirvana.  The Buddha only teaches this inferior crap because this is what the profane (prithagjanas) are really clinging to, which they are supposed to reject insofar as nirvana or the absolute is not impermanent, suffering, and devoid of self.  The price of the desire that craves  finite things that are always anitya, duhkha, anâtman, is endless rebirth.

Those who elect to take the mystical path of Buddhism, who are the arya-pudgala (spiritual persons) in contrast with prithagjana (the profane), are the only ones capable of winning complete nirvana and Buddhahood.  They are well aware of the peril of glomming onto what is temporal and finite.

 

Practice doesn't always make perfect

The emphasis on a particular practice, which pertains to an exercise that is supposed to help us to understand Buddhism, isn't always effective. In fact, it usually never is.  People who do zazen or ngondro (a Tibetan Vajrayana exercise) still have trouble with understanding the most basic principles of Buddhism. 

Dharma centers in the West tend to concentrate more on a particular practice or exercise such a zazen, and much less on the diligent study of the Buddha's discourses.  It took me many years to be able to follow the Buddha's discourses.  And I could only manage it after I had so-called "enlightening experiences" (J., satori).  The study of the Buddha’s discourses or the words of Zen masters and enlightening experiences went hand in hand.  Such an experience cleared my mind of its presuppositions thus enabling me to walk farther on Buddhism’s supermundane path.

If one word is overused in Western Buddhism it is the word, practice.  It is meant to suggest that a special exercise that I am doing is deepening my understanding of Buddhism and making me a better person.  But from what I have seen, firsthand, a particular Buddhist practice or exercise, such as zazen, can easily become a form of resistance.  It acts to deaden the capacity for profound introspection.  Eventually, the practice becomes a substitute for introspection itself.

Authority in Zen

What is authority in Zen?  I think most people would hope that the authority is spiritual rather than authority granted by the state or a government sanctioned religious institution.  As far as the discourses of the Buddha are concerned there is no authority that has been transmitted in the form of a ‘lineage’ other than the realization of pure Mind, itself, which is our true nature.

In several blogs, The Zennist has concluded, the whole Zen lineage is undermined by the Avatamsaka Sutra.  The Zen lineage which begins with the Buddha supposedly transmitting to Mahakashyapa never happened.  Shariputra, Mahakashyapa and others, according to the Avatamsaka Sutra, 

“did not see the transfiguration of the Buddha in the Jeta grove, the adornments of the Buddha, the majesty of the Buddha, the freedom of the Buddha, the magic of the Buddha, the mastery of the Buddha, the miracle performed by the Buddha, the light of the Buddha, the power of the Buddha, or the Buddha's purification of the land...” (Thomas Cleary, The Flower Ornament Scripture,1146).

Because of this lack, "they were not capable of perpetuating the lineage of buddhas" (ibid.)! (Emphasis is mine.)

Authority in Zen by way of lineage is a fiction—a well constructed fiction that Chinese culture invented—that, regrettably, pulled the wool over the eyes of many generations of Zennists.

This is not to suggest that Zen lacks authority.  It doesn’t.  But its authority is completely spiritual.  It depends upon the first-person realization of pure Mind.  Zen literature is rife with allusions to pure Mind.  As I have mentioned before, Zen’s koan literature is based entirely upon the realization of pure Mind.  Many of the old Zen sermons, and even Hui-neng's Platform Sutra, points to pure Mind.  How could this not be a proper authority? 

It doesn't appear in the flux of appearances

Consciousness, the 5th of the five ‘bad boy Mara’ aggregates produces a magical spell on those so stupid as to imagine that sensory consciousness can recognize the true self or, for that matter, the absolute or Buddha-nature.  Trying to become conscious of one’s self is impossible.  Even Kant realized that a long time ago who said:

“Consciousness of oneself according to the determinations of our state in inner perception is merely empirical, and always changing. No fixed and abiding self can present itself in this flux of inner appearances. Such consciousness is usually named inner sense, or empirical apperception.” (CPR, A106-7). (Emphasis mine.)

Certainly, the Five Aggregates are synonymous with appearances for they are, as the Buddha teaches, impermanent and suffering.  How then is it possible in such a flux or flow of appearances to present the self which transcends all appearances?

Facing this problem, the most stupid reaction to being unable to recognize what is outside of appearances, namely, our true self, is to boldly declare there is no self.  Essentially, what has been boldly declared is, I can’t climb out of the box of appearances—upon them I am dependent.  They are my measure.

The self that I apperceive is not my real self, but a self of ever changing appearances.  I have gone from a toddler to an old man.  Not any of these physical forms was ever my self or Buddha-nature.  They have always been the false self or anâtman.  They are the Five Aggregates.  And what does the Buddha say about these aggregates or skandhas?

“There is no safety in the skandhas, but torment and great fear.  There is no freedom in them: they are worthless"(Mahavastu).

For the Buddha, the self doesn't have to be established.  It is most primordial even though we don't recognize it in our ignorance.  The problem as the Buddha sees it is our attachment to what is not the self in the belief that it is our self.  The most thorough abandonment of what is not the self or anâtman, reveals the self. 

"He beholds the self purified (visuddhamattânam) of all these evil unskilled states, he beholds the self liberated (vimuttamattânam)” (M. i. 283).

 

Dependent origination 101

Viewed through ignorance (avidya) dependent origination is relative.  On the other hand, viewed through liberative vidya (knowledge), dependent origination is absolute.

In a state of vidya, what we see as originated in the way of phenomena is in dependence upon what is absolute and non-arising. This we can call absolute, final causation:  all is actually Mind-only (cittamatra).  Mind, now recognizes itself even in all of its temporal originations just like a potter recognizes that his “pots” are just formations of clay.  Not a single pot is apart from the clay, in other words. 

This means that phenomena have no real existence from their own side.  They are nish-sva-bhâva, i.e., lacking-own-nature.  The phenomena we behold on a daily basis are only configurations of Mind.  Nothing else.  This is why the Avatamsaka Sutra says: “everything in the Triple Realm is due to Mind” and “the twelve links of conditioned origination are all dependent on the One Mind (Cheng Chien, Manifestation of a Tathagata, ix).  

Unless we see our temporal world through the eyes of vidya we have but no other choice except to be under the power of relative dependent origination.  Relative dependent origination then becomes the law of contingency with regard to phenomena.  It is purely negative in this respect.

For those weighted down by the heavy burden of avidya, phenomena seem always to be depending upon other depending causes.  It is origin by one thing in dependence upon another.  There is no end to this kind of dependent origination except with the end of avidya.  By the twelve links or the twelve detrimental causes (nidâna), beginning with avidya, beings are continually reborn into the world to experience, eventually,  jarâmârana (decay and death).  We can almost sense our own ignorance together with our predispositions and our consciousness continually latching onto name-and-form (nâmarûpa) unable to break the spell of relative dependent origination.

Not knowing upon what koans are based

All koans, without exception, are based on pure Mind.  The transmission of the light literature such as the Chung-te ch’uan teng lu or Keizan’s Denkoroku is based on pure Mind.  Nevertheless, by studying the culture of modern Zen in the West one might easily conclude that Westernized Zen has never heard of pure Mind!  It’s overarching importance is altogether lacking.

I find it almost impossible to read classical Zen literature and not find it alluding to pure Mind.  But it seems only The Zennist blog knows this even though the evidence is overwhelming that the realization of Mind is the alpha and omega of Zen—at least classical Zen.  The Zennist, I should also mention was one of the first Buddhist blogs to explore the hua-t’ou (話頭, J., wato) and how it, importantly, relates to the study of koans (http://goo.gl/KPlLc).

If Western Zen masters are seemingly clueless as to the importance of pure Mind in the study of koans and as it appears in the transmission of the light literature, then what are they doing teaching koans, pretending to know upon what koans are based?  It boggles the mind.  Without knowing upon what koans are based how can Zen be anything but ersatz Zen?  It looks like Zen, it acts like Zen, but the study of pure Mind is altogether missing which means today’s Zen is not authentic.  It is only authentic if pure Mind is taught.