The Zennist

Secular Buddhism wrong again

Secular Buddhists want to believe, like Stephen Batchelor, that rebirth was already prevalent in India during the time of the Buddha.  Okay, we hear you.  So, is it true that the notion of the cycle of rebirth was already firmly in place in India, let’s say, even before Gautama put forth his own teaching of rebirth?  The answer has to be probably not.  There is no compelling evidence to suggest that the idea of rebirth was widespread.  (Emphasis is mine.) 

(629) But this need not commit us to the view that rebirth (and karma) are uncritically or dogmatically accepted from the earlier or prevalent religious tradition. The only evidence adduced by those who put forward or suggest this view, is that rebirth is almost universally accepted in the Indian religious tradition. Since Buddhism too subscribes to this view, it is argued that Buddhism dogmatically accepted this theory from the prevalent tradition. From this it follows that the Buddha himself was violating the very injunction he was making, when he asked people not to accept a doctrine merely because it was found in a tradition, etc. (v. supra, 260).

(630) With all deference to scholarship, we wish to submit that this conclusion arises from both an unhistorical as well as an uncritical survey of the material. In fact, that a belief is found in a stratum A and in a chronologically successive stratum B, provides no conclusive evidence that the thinkers of stratum B uncritically and dogmatically accept it from the thinkers of stratum A. If we say so, it would follow that even a good scientist uncritically or dogmatically accepts the theories of his predecessors with whom he happens to agree, merely on the grounds of this agreement!

(631) Let us examine the credentials of the above widely accepted theory. In the first place it is false to say that rebirth was universally accepted by the Indian religious tradition prior to the advent of Buddhism. There is no trace of a belief in rebirth in the Rigveda, where we find only sporadic references to a belief in a life after death. The Atharvaveda, too, makes no reference to the doctrine. The Brâhmanas show a greater interest in the after-life and we meet with a variety of views on this subject but no conclusive reference to rebirth is found. The conception of a 'second death' (punar mrtyu) is pregnant with the possibility of developing the idea of rebirth and all that can be said is that 'the Brâhmanas contain all the suggestions necessary for the development of the doctrine of rebirth'” (K. N. Jayatilleke, Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge (1963), pp. 371–72).

Is it true that Gautama knew of the arguments against the idea of rebirth which might explain, partially, why rebirth was not a widespread idea in India?  More than likely.  According to Jayatilleke the Buddha “would have been well acquainted with the Materialist critique of the doctrine of survival” (p. 375).  Moreover, he would not have blindly accepted such a notion without having good grounds for it (cp. p. 375).  After all, the Buddha was a religious maverick when it came to following religious traditions that there were no grounds for; who also went against the stream.  He was the same Buddha who gave us the Kalama Sutta that said, among other things, that we shouldn’t go by  traditions but by self knowing.

Unawakened practice

One of the classical Zen masters Tsung-mi once said: “If one practices without having awakened, it is not true practice.”  Probably what he didn’t expect or foresee was the coming of Dogen Zen in which unawakened practice is believed to be identical with Buddhahood, which is almost like saying, “Being unawakened is Buddhahood.”  

This, no doubt, is a touchy subject for those who have invested literally years of their life in unawakened practice sitting in zazen.  But hear me out.  How can an unawakened practice lead to awakening?  It is only by completely putting aside such unawakened practice, in a finger snap, that one has any chance of entering Mumon’s gateless gate.  Again, how might sitting upright in zazen produce awakening?  The psychophysical body is Mara’s and so is its various postures!  Practicing with Mara’s body is somewhat like using desire to quell desire.

True practice only begins after awakening to pure Mind.  At that point, one is a first stage Bodhisattva who is a fledgling Buddha; who still needs to enlighten all of his thoughts or sattvas, which are still afflicted despite his initial awakening. This is what the vow to awaken all sentient beings means.  The totality of thoughts has to be Bodhi-ized so that our ordinary thoughts become luminous and blissful. This is what the authentic practice is about.  This can never be for the unawakened whose practice wallows in avidya.  The unawakened practitioner is always vexed by mental suffering.  He has never known the light of the Mahayana being sustained by Buddhas.  He doesn’t understand the samadhis of a Bodhisattva.  At the same time the unawakened practitioner attacks the true Bodhisattvas, collecting even more bad karma. 

The deterioration of Buddhism

Since I first took Jukai back in 1965 I have watched Buddhism in the West gradually deteriorate, first becoming psychologized (get rid of Buddhism’s mysticism) then become turned into a religion for materialists who are either skeptical of rebirth or absolutely do not believe in rebirth; who, in addition view nirvana as absence (Stephen Batchelor).  

Unlike Asian Buddhism, in general, which has always believed that life doesn't end with death and nirvana is a  positive state, Western Buddhism is fast becoming a black hole which tacitly teaches the eventual destruction of being (this is your last life buddy, enjoy it while you can!).  As this suggests, Western Buddhism is having less and less to do with what the Buddha actually taught and appears to be more preoccupied with undermining the core principles of Buddhism, even going so far as to teach nirvana is just absence.  For example, nirvana is merely the absence of the three poisons, viz., delusion, anger, concupiscence.  If you’re sitting one day outside having a cold beer and you don't think you're deluded, you're not angry, and you’re not wanting anything in particular—that's nirvana! 

The bulk of the evidence of the Western Buddhist underminers used to support their materialist positions amounts to their own personal opinions as to why, for example, they don’t find the notion of rebirth credible even though the discourses of the Buddha are rife with such terms as “renewed existence”  (punabbhava), “rebirth” (upapâta), and “samsara.”  Ignoring the Buddha, they are absolutely convinced that rebirth is not real even when the Buddha cautions: “Although something might be thoroughly believed in, it may be empty, void, false; on the other hand, something not thoroughly believed in may be fact, truth, not otherwise” (M. ii. 170). 

Personally, I see these underminers as wanting to control, so to speak, the gates where those new to Buddhism will likely enter so they can fill their heads with pseudo-Buddhist ideas, for example, learning to be in the here and now although the Buddha never said such a thing.  If anyone wants to see where the bulk of their lies are being spread go to any Western Dharma center.  

 

A better kind of teacher

Buddhist centers are, more than often, magnets for people with mental health issues who believe Buddhist teachers can help them.  Such people are not mentally in the best shape to understand what Buddhism is really about which is quite esoteric.  Even for a graduate student who is studying Buddhism, it’s difficult.

Needless to say, I have given this problem some thought over the years.  I have come to the conclusion, based on my own experiences, that we have to get rid of what we imagine a Buddhist teacher is supposed to be.  One reason is, our expectation of Buddhist teachers is often too high and misplaced.  Teachers are not Buddhas or great psychiatrists.  Nor are they paragons of moral behavior.  A good teacher, however, should know a lot about Buddhism, especially its principles and history.  

When I knew Bishop Nippo Shaku who, at the time, was teaching in San Francisco at the California Institute of Asian Studies on 21st Street, he was like the Gandalf of Buddhism to me.  He was approachable and very knowledgeable.  But you never got the impression that he was there to help people with a bad case of severe social anxiety or people who were depressed.  He was there to teach Buddhism.  Above all, to teach pure Mind.  

Back then in the 1960s, Bishop Nippo was like one of us, a person you could talk to about many things.  There was nothing holier-than-thou about him.  He was a cool dude.  That is what I admired about him.  So-called “Zen masters” were a little too stilted for my blood; who didn’t seem to know that much about Buddhism in general.  Ironically, I had to discover the heart of Zen through Nichiren!  What can I say?

Maybe the model I am looking for is someone more like a Gandalf who well understands our struggles, what life is all about—and when we are at the Brick Store Pub having a few beers teaches us about pure Mind.  He is our closest friend.  He can dance with us.  He tells the best jokes and moves us to achieve our goals like no other person.  He is who we want to be like when we get older.  But he is like no Christian minister.  He is no moralist.  Nor does he require obedience—just love.

I am convinced that Buddhism cannot flow as it should into the world without a teacher such as I have described who, naturally, resonates with us; who has no need to tell us so much what to do as, instead, to inspire us to reach beyond ourselves (or think out of the box).  But I haven’t seen that many.  I have seen ambitious teachers who are looking to reshape Buddhism into their own image which is often strongly Western with a lot of materialism thrown into the mix which is the present reigning dogma.

From the side of the truly spiritual teacher, he doesn't have to preach Buddhism or wear robes, he has to connect with the Buddha-nature of others in order to get them to begin to learn the process of discovering it.  It is not easy even though we all have such a nature.  But his efforts pay off when the light of Buddha-nature is reflected in both which establishes a bond that will grow helping to lift the dark veil that is cast over Buddhism presently which makes it so difficult to understand even though it is not.

 

Slouching towards annihilationism

Buddhism in the West it seems to me will only allow so much strangeness in Buddhism then the weird-o-meter starts to go off which means Westerners can say, "Buddhism is a cool religion, don't get me wrong.  I really like it. But I am not quite sure about rebirth and some transcendent state.  I really can't buy it right now."

These Buddhists don’t seem to realize that the Buddha was dead set against those who denied rebirth and the transcendent, such people being annihilationists, teachers like Ajita Kesakambalin and Pâyâsi.  Pâyâsi, the discourses inform us, went so far as to perform hideous experiments to prove there was no soul that went from one life to the next.

“He puts a man (a thief) alive into a jar, closes its mouth securely, covers it over with wet leather, puts over that a thick cement of moist clay, places the jar on a furnace and kindles a fire. When he believes that the man is dead, he takes down the jar, unbinds and opens its mouth and quickly observes it with the idea of seeing whether his soul issues out" (K. N. Jayatilleke, Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge, p.105).

If one were to seriously measure Western Buddhists by what the Buddha actually said they would not fall into the category of Buddhism but, instead, annihilationism which is against the notion of rebirth and the âtman.  The thrust of the annihilationist argument is this:  If I do not know it or sense it, it doesn’t exist.  The scriptural Buddhist counter argument against this belief was about a man born blind (jaccandho puriso) who, because he could not see forms, colors, the stars, the sun and the moon, etc., claimed that such things did not exist.  Despite such a counter the annihilationists wouldn't give up their position. 

It seems to me that the bulk of modern Buddhists use the same reasoning to evaluate rebirth and the transcendent, “I do not know this, I do not observe this; ergo it does not exist.”  Important I think, and somewhat related is the view of neuroscience which many Buddhists seem to embrace and which strikes me as being non-Buddhist and annihilationist.  This position, during the Buddha’s life, was “the body and the soul are identical” (tam jivam tam sarîram, S. ii. 60).  Updating it, it would be, “the brain and mind are identical” which is anti-dualist.  (We should keep in mind that the self or âtman of the Buddha is transcendent.  It is not even dualist [âtman and body are completely different]).

 

Ending the dogma of nonself

In order to overthrow the current Buddhist dogma that the Buddha’s teaching of anattâ or nonself is meant to do away with a metaphysical self such as the âtman, one only needs a few words of the Buddha and simple logic.

When at SN 22:22, and more than seven other places in the Samyutta-Nikaya, the Buddha said:“What is suffering is anattâ” (yam dukkham tad anattâ), he struck a blow not against the self, but against anattâ, i.e., nonself, and all that anattâ implies and is linked with.  

For example, when in the Dhammapada we read that “all things (dhammâ) are anattâ” (279) this implies that all things are suffering.  Moreover, it implies that nirvana is also suffering in as much as some Theravadins insist that nirvana is a dhamma which makes it anattâ!  One such Theravadin, Walpola Rahula, in his book, What the Buddha Taught (1962) wrote these words:

“There is no term in Buddhist terminology wider than dhamma.  It includes not only the conditioned things and states, but also the non-conditioned, the Absolute, Nirvana.  There is nothing in the universe or outside, good or bad, conditioned or non-conditioned, relative or absolute, which is not included in this term.  Therefore, it is quite clear that, according to this statement: ‘All dhammas are without Self’, there is no Self, no Âtman, not only in the Five Aggregates, but nowhere else too outside them or apart from them” (p. 58).

Thus also, we should conclude, by way of implication, that there is nothing beyond suffering, either, or the same, anattâ (all dhammas = anattâ = dukkha).  In other words, there is nothing outside of the universe other than suffering insofar as all things or dhammas are anattâ, and anattâ is suffering.  But this is patently absurd.  This is why the current anattâ dogma must be rejected.  It’s not what the Buddha taught.

When we turn to the Four Noble Truths, the first one being suffering, it is correct to say that the first noble truth is also anattâ or what is not the self!  Incidentally, the Buddha never once says the first noble truth is the self or attâ.  It follows from this that the second noble truth is the origin of anattâ which is desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding based on anattâ.  The third noble truth then should be the cessation of anattâ.  What does the Buddha actually say: “Bhikkhu, you should abandon desire for whatever is anattâ” (S. iii. 77) which happens to be the Five Aggregates.  In addition, the Buddha actually states that “the Five Aggregates are the noble truth of suffering” (SN 56:13).

Anattâ dogma has not purged the Buddhist canon of a metaphysical self.  Only in the imagination of the self-deniers has it done so—it fact, it does just the opposite.  Everywhere I have looked, including others before me like George Grimm, I have seen the opposite: the Buddha his asking his followers to reject what is anattâ or not the self.

A different emptiness

The opponents of Nagarjuna’s theory of emptiness assert that it is destructive which, in other words, amounts to an assertion that Nagarjuna is marketing nihilism which boils down to a total rejection of reality.  Of course, Nagarjuna denies this as one might expect.  Who wants to be thought of as a nihilist?  But Nagarjuna’s subsequent explanation as to why his theory is not nihilistic is difficult to follow if not muddled because the idea of emptiness takes on a new meaning. His explanation is not based on the Nikaya’s or the Agama’s notion of emptiness which is summed up here: 

“Ananda, that which is not there, I view that as empty, but what remains there, I view that as really existing.  Ananda, this is called practising true emptiness” (MA 191).

Nagarjuna’s idea of emptiness is equivalent to dependent origination (pratitya-samutpada).  He says in his karikas, “Whatever is dependently originated, that is declared to be emptiness (MMK XXIV: 18).  But to reiterate, this isn’t the notion of emptiness that the Buddha explained to Ananda.  Nagarjuna is using emptiness in a double sense that’s different from the earlier meaning.  First, he wants us to understand that entities are devoid or empty of reality or svabhâva which is the same as saying they are unreal.  Next, he wants us to understand the real is empty or devoid of plurality (prapañcha-shunya) which includes verbalization and thought-contructs.  

Emptiness is thus inexpressible (avâcya, anabhilâpya), maybe even something like a black hole.  From this one gets the sense that emptiness is total negation without positive implication.  There is no indication that there is a synthesis in which all things are, from the ultimate standpoint, phenomenalizations of Mind in which the conditioned reflects into the unconditioned, which is why all things [the conditioned] are devoid of reality [the unconditioned] and why true reality [pure Mind] is devoid of plurality.  Perhaps it is true that Nagarjuna’s emptiness helps us to overcome the pretensions of language that hide reality.  But the price might be nihilism.

 

True practice redux

One cannot be called a practitioner of Zen if all they do is sit on their arses.  True practice is not about sitting but about clearly seeing into our true nature.  This nature has various names.  According to Korean Zen master Chinul (1158–1210) some of them are:

"In the Bodhisattvashila Sutra it is called the “mind ground” because it produces the myriads of good dharmas.  In the Prajnaparamita Sutras it is referred to as “bodhi” because enlightenment is its essence.  The Avatamsaka Sutra names it the “dharmadhatu” because it interpenetrates and infuses all dharmas.  In the Diamond Sutra it is called “tathagata” because it does not come from anywhere.  In the Prajnaparamitas sutras [sic] it is also referred to as “nirvana” because it is the sanctuary of all the saints.  In the Golden Light Sutra it is said to be “suchness” because it is true, permanent, and immutable.  In the Pure Name Sutra it is named the “dharma-body” because it is the support for the reward and transformation bodies.  In the Awakening of Faith it is termed “true suchness” because it neither arises nor ceases.  In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra it is referred to as “Buddha-nature” because it is the fundamental essence of the three bodies.  In the Complete Enlightenment Sutra it is called the “dharani” because all meritorious qualities flow from it.  In the Srimaladevisimhanada Sutra, it is named “tathagatagarbha” because it conceals and contains all dharmas.  In the definitive sutra [the Complete Enlightenment Sutra] it is named “complete enlightenment” because it destroys darkness and shines solitarily of itself.  As Son [Zen] Master Yen-shou’s Secrets on Mind-Only says, “The one dharma has a thousand names: its appellations are each given in response to different conditions.”  The true mind appears in all the sutras, But I cannot cite all the references” (Robert Buswell, Tracing Back the Radiance, pp. 121–122).

Surprisingly, few Zen practitioners pay attention to such details even to what true practice is about.  They just do what everyone else does at their particular Zen center.  

When it comes to zazen (C., tso-ch’an) they don’t understand that its meaning is symbolic just like a Buddha statue symbolizes awakening.  In The Platform Sutra, “za” means to gain absolute freedom and to be mentally unperturbed in all external circumstances.  “Zen” means to realize inwardly the essence of Mind which is unmoved.

While it is true to a certain extent that practice is a particular exercise that is repeated many times, Buddhist practice implies that one has already had a glimpse into the absolute.  Every time we see into our true nature is samâdhi.  To give an idea of the samadhis of a Bodhisattva, in the Dashabhumika Sutra, the bodhisattva's charge gets larger by orders of magnitude as he advances from stage to stage.  First he has 1000 samadhis, then 100,000, then 1,000,000 etc.  The Bodhisattva is becoming more of the absolute Mind.  This is his practice.

A limit to our practices

I can just imagine all those new to Buddhism working on their particular practice today in hopes that, one day in the future, this will help them to better understand Buddhism.  But any kind of physical practice will eventually prove inadequate because the physical body—I hate to say this—belongs to Mara the Evil dude!  In addition, based on each of the five skandhas or aggregates, there are ten false enlightenments according to the Shurangama Sutra; none of which takes us beyond the domain of the aggregates where the unconditioned is to be found.  Is this starting to sound hopeless?  Well, don’t give up.  Nobody said Buddhism was easy.

Any particular practice works better if you can visualize your physical body together with your mental life, including the emotions, desires and worries, as being the skandha apparatus or instrument.  Whatever you’re doing, does the apparatus see the unconditioned, or the same, pure Mind?  The answer is a resounding, NO!  And it never will.  

Keep in mind that you are intrinsically absolute Mind—but you don’t recognize yourself; you are mistaking the five skandhas, that is, your psychophysical body for Mind.  Yes, the psychophysical body that belongs to Mara the Evil dude! What makes the problem even worse is habit, lots and lots of bad habits of believing you are the psychophysical body together with its drives and sufferings, including its thoughts.  

Siddhartha, before he awakened, had to give up all of this physical practices.  The meditation he discovered consisted in penetrating through the skandha apparatus including the most subtle part of it, consciousness (vijñâna).  (This is the symbolic battle with Mara and his army.)  

For the typical Western Buddhist who is always looking for a quick fix, i.e., the easy path, Buddhism presents a conundrum like no other.  Paradoxically, we are being asked to look at ourself not mistaking ourself with an aggregate, especially consciousness.  Buddha-nature, âtman, pure Mind, unborn Mind, Dharmakaya, Suchness are functional synonyms for this immaculate substance.  Our greatest problem ends by overcoming the last aggregate consciousness when, so to speak, the pure subject beholds the pure object.  

Seeing the unimaginable Mind

Years ago when I first started Zen, little did I realize at the time, that my true nature was pure Mind—a state so pure as to be literally unimaginable.  Before seeing this Mind, the problem I faced (which sounds obvious) was recognizing it.  At the same time I had to avoid getting caught up in my presuppositions about this Mind.  

Mystically seeing pure Mind is a real occurrence.  You could write the time down on a piece of paper exactly when you discovered it.  How wonderful it was then to tap into this pure Mind substance.  On the flip side, I came eventually to see how utterly stupid the human race is (I read somewhere the Buddha once remarked that people are crazy).  They live in the rain of Dharma (dharmamega) but can’t see a drop of it—and its a hard rain, too.  

Of all the bewitching forms humans chase after, little do they understand it all adds up to zero.  It is really like the wheel of samsara.  It is a wheel that spins and spins and goes nowhere but gives the illusion of a goal or some end.  Countless dreams are born then die only to be reborn branching off into still more dreams that mean, ultimately, nothing.

We never cease being victims caught in our own well constructed traps.  Our psychophysical body, i.e., the Five Aggregates, is all trap!  It is a well designed trap, too.  According to the Buddha, "The five grasping aggregates are previously composed and willed out, and to be known as previous karma” (SA, 260, 65c-66a).

The only way out of this elaborate mess is to realize out of what it is made.  After that one learns why it came into being, what its real purpose is, and what has to be done to see everything liberated in which pure Mind is like the sun.