The Zennist

Troubled ghosts

I have been watching the television series The Haunted which appears on cable's Animalplanet.  While the description of the series says it explores the "connection between animals and the supernatural realm" it really explores how humans, who don't believe in the paranormal, are suddenly faced with strange encounters that Western scientific models can't explain.  The animals, as we might expect, are not prejudiced like their human masters.  They react, mainly out of extreme fear to the unseen.

This all reminded me of the Peta-Vatthu (S., Preta Vastu), The Stories of the Departed, which appears in the Khuddhaka-Nikaya of the Pali canon.  These are stories about spirits who are more like wraiths which might be described as troubled ghosts, although not, strictly speaking, hell beings who are confined to the torments of the hells.  This is to suggest that the peta can be saved by the devotion of friends and the transfer of merit.

By and large, Western Buddhists are uncomfortable with the ideas of rebirth and karma.  This might explain why works in the Khuddhaka-Nikaya like the Peta-Vatthu and the Vimana-Vatthu, which are stories about the departed who live in relative bliss, have been off the Western Buddhist radar.  This tells us something about Western Buddhism and the direction it wants to go which mainly is in the direction of Western scientific materialism.

This is not a good thing for Buddhism, in general.  The spiritual world is real and it was real for the Buddha and his disciples.  Just because Western Buddhists want to believe there is no immaterial, spiritual world, even one with petas, doesn't mean they have  the truth on their side.  It only means that they have elected to be radical skeptics that no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to convince them to change their attitude, or at least keep an open mind.

 

Spiritual bodies

Those new to Buddhism, and even old veterans,  are under the assumption that the Buddha or Tathagata was with a human form.  Some might even envision some old guy walking around India named “Buddha” but this is taking things too literally.  Such people don’t understand that according to the Mahavastu, Tathagatas are born with spiritual bodies (manomayarupa).  In this respect, Buddha really means one who is awake to their spiritual body, or the same, pure Mind which is unconditioned.

Just because ordinary people are not in touch with their own spiritual bodies doesn’t mean such bodies don’t actually exist.  They do!  It is somewhat like the relationship between a radio signal and the radio.  Let’s imagines sentient beings are this pure invisible radio signal.  But all they see are the parts of the radio such as the antenna, the circuit board, resistors, capacitors and a speaker to name a few items.  Because of the fineness and purity of the radio signal, our sentient spiritual radio body remains unseen.  Only gross parts are detected.  

With this somewhat crude radio analogy in mind, when we internally examine our gross body of the five skandhas consisting of material shape, feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness we don’t see anything else except this.  But then the Buddha tells us these skandhas, just named, have to be transcended which is basically to say, using our previous radio analogy:  You, the signal, are not the radio parts—stop identifying with the radio!

I realize that what I am saying is not easy for some to get their minds around because they are unknowingly entrenched materialists.  This is a problem, by the way, which many Western Buddhists face.  They don’t realize that materialism has no place in Buddhism.  The universe is not a material universe.  Modern science has no idea what the universe is made of.  So Buddhist need to prepare themselves for a profound journey into the world of the immaterial.  It is what is interfacing with their carnal bodies.  They can’t see it.  It is only through dhyâna that it is reached—awakening to the signal.

The end of faith

The problem that all those who are new to Buddhism face is how does one go from faith in the teachings of the Buddha to direct personal knowledge (paccattam yeva ñânam) of the absolute (i.e., the unconditioned) which is not based on faith? As we learn in the Nigantha Nataputta Sutta, knowledge is superior to faith (S. iv. 298).  Faith alone is a dead end.

Personal preference, repeated hearing, reasoned thought, pondering over a view, all come under the heading of faith.  In this respect, we are followers of faith—not knowers of truth.  These forms of faith don't take us to a direct experience of true reality.  We just become more convinced we are on the right track.  We form strong convictions, in other words.  Such convictions are often a matter of feeling which can be confused with experience.  But however I feel about my faith I am still short of direct personal knowledge. 

It is only when we move to dhyâna, or deep introspection which aims at gnosis (jñâna), that we begin to move away from faith to knowing.  It is because dhyâna is directed by mind that there can be a gnosis of mind’s actual essence which involves penetrating through mind’s self-generated interference waves.  Zen’s place in Buddhism with the importance placed on dhyâna is thus obvious.

Reaching the heart of Zen might begin with faith and its various forms but in the end this all has to be put aside.  Our mind of birth and death, which takes up dhyâna, still has to push through the veil of its own interference waves that make up the world of birth and death.  Failing to accomplish this is not Zen.

Too many skeptics?

 The Buddha criticized skeptics or ajñâninah who were those who believed not knowing is best if not the suspension of the effort to know. This implies that perhaps there is no one intelligent enough, or one who is an authority, that knows, fully, the truth of anything.  Even if there were such a person, how might we know his statements are true since we all lack the necessary intelligence to determine if he is telling us the truth or not?

And so goes the world of the skeptic who were plentiful in the Buddha’s day.  Unfortunately, modern Buddhism in the West has its fair share of skeptics.  It is not that they reject Buddhism altogether but rather they reject important portions of Buddhism which they contend are unprovable such as rebirth and karma; and in some cases, even nirvana if it is transcendent.   Overcoming their criticism is almost impossible.  They are unwilling to be open minded if not innocent when studying the discourses of the Buddha.

Modern skepticism, we need to bear in mind, is not without its own set of dogmas, or let’s call them presuppositions for now.  The arguments against rebirth involve deep attachment to the general claims of scientific materialism which have, to quite a degree, infected Western culture and thinking in which there can be nothing beyond physicality.  When you are dead, that's it.  This is not the skepticism of Pyrrhonism the outcome of which is supposed to be ataraxy, that is, calmness of mind.

Modern skepticism can and often does lead, inevitably, to despair which comes on the heels of its destructive criticism which seems almost irrational; which even in the face of plausible evidence seems even more determined to doubt.  An example of this is NDEs (Near Death Experiences).  I haven’t found many Western Buddhists excited about this.  They are not going to be won over by testimony of those who have experienced an NDE.  Anything paranormal such as Dr. Stevenson's 1987 book, Children Who Remember Previous Lives: A Question of Reincarnation seems out of place in the hall of modern Western Buddhism including Zen Buddhism.  Modern Buddhism, in my opinion, has too many skeptics.

A different kind of zero

The film, The Zero Theorem (2013) which was directed by Terry Gilliam is for me a Buddhist film.  The main character Qohen is asked by management to solve the "Zero Theorem" which management hopes will prove that life is essentially meaningless in light of the Big Crunch theory which posits the idea that the universe is like an expanding soufflé that eventually will collapse on itself.  Hence, the Big Crunch.  This is a play off of 1+-1 =0 which suggests that everything adds  up to nothing.  Even Steven Hawking seems to agree.

“This may sound odd, but according to the laws of nature concerning gravity and motion, laws that are among the oldest in science, space itself is a vast store of negative energy – enough to ensure that everything adds up to zero. I’ll admit that unless mathematics is your thing, this is hard to grasp, but it’s true.”

The problem with this theory seems to be zero or in Buddhism shunya.  Assuming the Big Crunch happens, our soufflé-like universe returns to the very substance from which it was composed—a kind of super nirvana.  So far so good. But it is more likely that our universe is not going to crunch.   

If we assume a wave-based universe, a wave being an alternating quantity of x plotted against time, zero or rather zero-phase  simply reveals x or the substance x which has been alternating.  Our zero is not sheer nothing, in other words.  The zero is really what composes the wave like the element water showing itself as waves.  The waves arise this being 1; then the waves subside, this being -1.  At zero or no waves, there is only the unwaved water itself.    

Based on the Lankavatara Sutra let’s regard x as absolute Mind, akin to Kingdon Clifford’s mind stuff (Clifford coined this term in 1878).  Because of this, our endeavors are not meaningless.  As long as we whole heartedly seek the substance of the universe, everything relative to our search has meaning for us.  All alternating wave phenomena are just an expression of Mind—we just don’t recognize it since we are mesmerized by phenomena.

From a Buddhist perspective what is most primordial in us is the substance or essence of the universe which is neither 1 nor -1.  While our monkey mind or our thoughts might be considered to be like 1+-1, still, at the same time, this alternation serves to disclose the immediacy of our true, primordial nature if we begin to attend to it, first out of faith.  What we are going against is ignorance of our primordiality which is locked on the wave:  the 1 and then the -1 back, again, to the 1 ad infinitum.  We never get in phase-lock with 0 (this would be satori).  Instead, we remain bound down to samsara. The meaninglessness of life is being caught up in eternal alternation without knowing what is alternating which is naturally liberated. 

Is Buddhism like a western religion?

If the "essence of religion" turns out to be indistinguishable from morality or moral perfectionism then Buddhism, including its Zen sect, cannot be put under the rubric of religion—Wester religion that is.  As the dictionary defines it, such a religion is “the personal commitment to and serving of God or a god with worshipful devotion, conduct in accord with divine commands especially as found in accepted sacred writings or declared by authoritative teachers, a way of life recognized as incumbent on true believers, and typically the relating of oneself to an organized body of believers (Merriam-Webster).

On the other hand, the goal of Buddhism is certainly not in the achievement of moral perfection.  What morality seems to be present in Buddhism is not like the 'thou shalt not' morality found in the Judeo-Christian context.  It is more about discipline and behavior that keeps one on the path to achieving nirvana.  Yet, Buddhism is not strictly humanistic; which at times seems more like a reaction to the authoritarian history of Christianity, and certainly its abuses.

If anything, Buddhism falls under the heading of Indian religion (or some believe "philosophy," but closer to ancient Greek philosophy in the example of Neoplatonism).  In this unique take, right view (samyagdrishti) or darshana appears to be at the heart of Indian religion.  In almost every Indian religion the goal is to attain a profound and all penetrating intuition of ultimate reality. Thus each Indian religion claims to provide the final and absolute vision which is not without its difficulties.

Unlike the Judeo-Christian religion that still dominates the West which is believed to be final and absolute, Indian religions, including Buddhism, see a problem that Westerners do not see.  This is exemplified in the Tittha Sutta found in the Udana of the Pali Nikayas which is about blind men unable to explain what an elephant is.

"Those blind people who had been shown the head of the elephant replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a water jar.' Those blind people who had been shown the ear of the elephant replied. "An elephant, your majesty, is just like a winnowing basket.' Those blind people who had been shown the tusk of the elephant replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a plowshare.' Those blind people who had been shown the trunk replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a plow pole.' Those blind people who had been shown the body replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a storeroom.' Those blind people who had been shown the foot replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a post.' Those blind people who had been shown the hindquarters replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a mortar.' Those blind people who had been shown the tail replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a pestle.' Those blind people who had been shown the tuft at the end of the tail replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a broom.'"

In the same way do men, blind to the transcendent, seek the truth of religion which amounts to guessing. Until they have the right vision they remain blind and foolish, always quarreling and fighting.  Belief in God, obedience to his commandments, cannot give one right vision nor does moral behavior.

For very serious beginners

As much as some contemporary Zennists might not like this, Zen is really an introduction to the Bodhisattva’s world—not its actualization (not yet at least).  Zen is, rightfully, an efficient and faster way to reach bodhicittotpada (generating the mind that is bodhi) after which, one becomes an authentic Bodhisattva who then works to attain full Buddhahood.

The study and practice of Zen doesn’t mean we are automatically awakened to the Bodhi Mind.  It only means we are trying to become awakened.  In light of this, the sermons of the Zen masters are intended to help the adept realize the Bodhi Mind, whereby he beholds his true nature which is luminous and undefiled by conditions.  Zen, in this respect, is all about awakening which implies we have not yet awakened but hope to in the near future.

In a way, Zen is for very serious beginners who are committed to realizing the Bodhi Mind which has various other names such as pure Mind, the unborn Mind, Buddha Mind, the Mind-ground, etc.  Being such a beginner is not without its problems, because the beginner might come to the conclusion that Zen is just about sitting in zazen or learning to live in the moment.  Hence, there is no further need to read and study the various discourses of the Buddha.  But soon it is easy to lose sight of the trajectory of Zen which aims at awakening/satori which is quite profound.

Zen is more than likely to fail the very serious beginner through its institutions when, for example, the teacher dwells on zazen as the means and the end.  Zen fails, too, when the study and practice of Zen becomes extensively psychologized which aims at teaching us various kinds of coping skills.  Repeating myself, Zen is for very serious beginners who see it a Buddhist version of Gnosticism.  It demands of us that we awaken to the absolute, the Bodhi Mind.

 

The end of duality

Duality is eventually acknowledged by us when we confront a world outside of ourselves.  It can sometimes be you and I, or it can just be myself facing nature alone.  It can even be the thoughts in front of me or the same, the thoughts in front of my mind’s eye.  Nothing seems to connect, substantively, the poles of the duality.  When I sit in meditation looking out over the foothills watching the sunset, I have no real connection with what I see.

When we realize the essence or substance of Mind, this all changes in a huge way because the essence of our phenomenal world, which is Mind, overcomes the differences which were the result of discrimination rather than anything real.  This is an event like no other we have ever experienced.  It is hard to describe except to say that when we see Mind, this seeing is like a power which reduces all things to a state of luminosity-bliss for want of a better word.  

When Mind is not recognized, dualistic discriminations take place—there is almost no stopping them.  One may even enter into metaphysical discussions about duality and non-duality or discuss theology in the form of God and his creation.  This is still discrimination which is cutting up the one substance into a plurality of differences.  Related to this, the Lankavatara Sutra says:

“There are, Mahamati, those who have fallen into the dualistic way of thinking, being unable to comprehend the truth of Mind-only; they desire to discriminate a world which is of Mind itself. Mahamati, body, property, and abode have their existence only when measured in discrimination.”

When Mind is fully recognized, duality wanes, eventually losing its sting.  Gradually, everything becomes more and more dream-like.  The  multitudinousness of objects we once held in high regard are seen to be an illusion, Mâyâ.

 

Realizing the mind that is bodhi

It seems that Bodhicitta is seldom seen much less discussed in the literature of Zen.  Certainly, Zen master Ho-tse Shen-hui (684–758) spoke about it when he said:

“Since you have already come to this ordination platform to study the perfection of wisdom, I want each and every one of you to generate the unsurpassable bodhicitta both mentally and orally and to become enlightened to the cardinal meaning of the middle way in this very place!” (John R. McRae, Seeing through Zen, p. 56).

What does Bodhicitta mean?  It means the mind that is bodhi.  In Sanskrit, bodhicittotpada means to generate the mind that is bodhi.  It is by generating such a mind that rapid progress to Buddhahood can begin.  Short of it, nothing is accomplished.

Actual Bodhicitta, not just the aspiration or wish for it, is the direct experience of the pure nature of Mind.  To be sure, this is not our everyday monkey mind but, differently, it is the very essence or substance of thought.  Also, with Bodhicitta comes the realization that phenomena are illusory and empty of any intrinsicalness.

After the generation of Bodhicitta only then does the adept become an actual Bodhisattva who then proceeds to expand Bodhicitta by the ten different stages which are called the bodhisattva-bhumis (i.e., the stages of the Bodhisattva).  Zen doesn't really discuss this and for a very good reason.  Zen is really a path for advanced beginners, for those who have no idea what the nature of pure Mind is but are willing to aspire to Bodhicitta.

No categorical denial

If the Buddha categorically denied the self he would not say, for example, that material shape is not the self (anattâ) or say, "Regard material shape as 'this  is not mine, this am I not, this is not myself'" along with the other four aggregates or skandhas.  The Buddha is speaking about a self or âtman that should not identify with the five aggregates, the sensory fields and their objects—in fact, should not identify with all conditioned things!

It is when we identify with conditioned things like our five skandhas consisting of material shape, feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness that we fall into the cycle of birth and death this being samsara.

Very clearly, the Buddha is speaking about a self or âtman which is most primordial, but which is unconditioned.  By comparison, the self we normally talk about is conditioned which is satkâya (P., sakkâya).  The satkâya self, if we can call it that for now, is the empirical human being with its anatomy and physiology.  It is when we identify our transcendent self with the five skandhas, or the empirical human being, that our problems begin and seem only to get worse.  This is the false view of self which the Buddha wants us to dis-identify with.

The Buddha doesn't want us to negate the self but merely stop glomming on to what is not our true self which is never itself since it is conditioned.  This becomes more obvious as we age and change.  We left the toddler satkâya self and now we are an old satkâya self.  All the time, and after many transformations of the five skandhas, our true self has not changed one bit.  Why?  Because it is unconditioned.  It is only conditioned things which change and suffer—never the unconditioned.

Our problem then becomes discovering our unconditioned self in the turmoil of the conditioned.  This is what Siddhartha did before he became a Buddha, a being who awakened to the unconditioned.  Everything a good teacher teaches has to do with getting us to see the unconditioned in the midst of the conditioned.  It is no easy task.  It takes a lot of commitment on our part but we are capable of it.  We can even do it as laypersons.