The Zennist

Getting over emptiness

In the original teachings of the Buddha there is no mention of emptiness (suñña/shunya & suññatâ/shûnyatâ) as being important in his enlightenment.  It’s movement from obscurity to a rising star, where it gained prominence, was due to the Madhyamaka system of Nagarjuna.  

In the Pali Nikayas emptiness appears to retain its status as a syncategorematic term which must be joined implicitly or explicitly to a categorematic term which means it can’t stand alone. Here is an example of emptiness being used syncategorematically (brackets are mine).  “He sees an empty village [empty of people], “The rooms of the house are empty  [of people].” “It is, Ananda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that it is said, ‘Empty is the world (sunno loko)’ [of the âtman or Buddha-nature].”    

As Buddhism enters into its Mahayana development emptiness begins to take center stage but still with some of its syncategorematic nature left.  E.g., emptiness represents the fact that there is no soul (pudgala) in the five skandhas (differently, in the Nikayas we learn that the five khandhas are not my self).  Curiously, with the rise of the doctrine of Ânatman in which there is supposedly no âtman, total negation or negation without implication (prasajya-pratisedha) enters the scene.  All is empty and illusory, in other words.  There is no noumenon or non-illusory absolute behind phenomena.  This is clearly not negation with positive implication (paryudasa-pratisedha).

The reduction of every thing to nothing leads, naturally, to nihilism—which is a huge mistake.  While it is true that things which are empty are dependent originations, upon what do they depend since they can’t depend on themselves or others or any such combination?  Rightly, one should think that things, which are mere illusory constructions, depend on the unconstructed and non-illusory from which they are formed which neither arises nor perishes; which is beyond the pale of temporal existence and non-existence.  This naturally calls for the absolute.  All phenomena, which are dependent originations, originate by dependence on the One Mind which is absolute; which is uncreated and independent of its phenomenalizations.

Of course, the average Buddhist can’t see this nor the Madhyamikas who tend towards nihilism.  In order to realize the One Mind or the same, the unconditioned Mind, requires more than average abilities.  As I have mentioned before using the analogy of a radio, it would be like a living radio looking for the radio signal using the various parts of the radio for its standard!  This is certainly a fool’s errand. The right standard is to see pure Mind in the midst of phenomena.  This, naturally, takes extraordinary skills which many lack.  But it’s certainly doable with extraordinary results.

Welding the two together

There have been many attempts to weld science and materialism together.  If someone uses the word “science” we understand it is materialism.  We even equate science with technology.  Eventually we can drop the word “materialism” and feel secure that science rests on the bedrock of materialism!  But this position is not what science is about.  It’s really materialism.

If a person informs me that there is no scientific basis or proof that brains depend on consciousness I can turn the tables on them and say, “Sir, you are espousing materialism under the guise of science.  You’re only saying that the brain, which you believe can be reduced to some kind of matter, is the source of consciousness.”  

When a person uses the expression “scientific basis” it should be understood as meaning, materialism, which is opposed to idealism, which is the theory that the universe or reality is essentially spirit or mind.  Matter does not exist, in other words.

Not wishing to leave out science, what does it mean?  First of all, science has no connection with materialism or technology.  Those who make science fungible with materialism and technology err.  The most rudimentary definition of science is: “The state or fact of knowing” (Oxford English Dictionary).  If I come to know ultimate reality or the same, the ultimate substance of the universe, this is science, that is, the highest science.  If I come to know that squirrels bury their acorns in my front lawn as a means of preserving them, this is a different kind of science than knowing ultimate reality. 

 

Is secular Buddhism really Buddhism?

Stephen Batchelor, to my knowledge, was one of the first Western writers to try and render Buddhism secularly intelligible.  Let me back up a little and say that many Western Buddhist writers have always felt a need to make Buddhism chime with the demands of modernism but never to quite the extent of Mr. Batchelor who has no problem, it seems to me, ignoring much of the Buddhist canon (the Nikayas).  The big thing he is missing is nirvana.  It seems not to be an important part of Buddhism which I must say is rather odd since it is the most important part of Buddhism!

So how does Mr. Batchelor treat Buddhism in his most important secular Buddhist work, Buddhism Without beliefs?  First we begin with:

“Over time, increasing emphasis has been placed on a single Absolute Truth, such as "the Deathless," "the Unconditioned,” "the Void," "Nirvana," "Buddha Nature," etc., rather than on an interwoven complex of truths” (p. 4).

Next,

“We could decide simply to remain absorbed in the mysterious, unformed, free-play of reality. This would be the choice of the mystic who seeks to extinguish himself in God or Nirvana—analogous perhaps to the tendency among artists to obliterate themselves with alcohol or opiates” (p. 102).

And finally (yes, really),

“After his awakening, the Buddha spent several weeks hovering on the cusp between the rapture of freedom and, in his words, the "vexation" of engagement. Should he remain in the peaceful state of Nirvana or share with others what he had discovered?” (p. 106)

By the way, this is the extent of Batchelor’s treatment of nirvana!  This should tell anyone a lot about the depth of secular Buddhism, that first of all it is pseudo-Buddhism!  I hazard to guess that Mr. Batchelor could not care less about nirvana; certainly, not the way Guy Richard Welbon did who was the author of The Buddhist Nirvana and its Western Interpreters (1968).  This omission—and that is what it is—puts secular Buddhism on one side of the Buddha’s teaching, that of impermanence, suffering and the absence of self or âtman.  The other side is simply not there, that is, nirvana.  This is extremely pessimistic and also incomplete.  For those who are strongly inclined towards materialism this is what is to be expected by such deranged minds. 

Usefulness and truth are different

Generally speaking, the understanding of our everyday world is useful but not necessarily true.  Usefulness and truth are different.  On an average day, we might guess that nobody is walking around looking for true reality or thinking about it.  It is closer, maybe, to finding a good coffee shop and having a caffè latte with a sticky bun or a plain cup of hot coffee and a donut.  It could be checking our iPhone or just waiting for the bus, daydreaming.

It takes a huge amount of time and energy to seek the truth.  There is little or no payoff, biologically speaking.  Fitness rather than truth is the name of the game.  Fitness is my ability to survive in the everyday world and make a contribution to the gene pool.  What is useful is what helps me to survive in the example of finding a job.  This means I am fit rather than unfit.

To make Buddhism and Zen Buddhism useful rather than a way to see ultimate reality is what sells to the general public.  It is not difficult to market mindfulness and meditation if they can be shown, for example, to help relieve stress.  To seek the truth is much more difficult.  How is it useful in helping me to raise my family?  I will have to expend a lot of time and energy with little or no benefit except seeing ultimate reality.  And what is that worth?  A gunny sack of broken rocks?

My education only consisted in learning, as much as possible, useful things such as driving a car, using a credit card, cooking, etc.  While I use things like a car, I know very little about the things I use.  I really don’t have to know how to work on my car or how to make a plastic credit card.  Still, in all this, I firmly believe that I am getting somewhere.  It is ‘as if’ I am getting all the time closer to the truth.  But I am not.

The long process of natural selection has made us deeply dependent on our everyday world and learning how to master it by learning useful skills.  Even if we lived in a tribal society we would have to know certain kinds of plants that would heal us, or be able to identify insects and reptiles that are capable of harming us or other special skills.  Thus, there is a seriousness that always attends learning useful things and adapting.  But none of this is non-illusory and non-deceiving truth.  None of it is a reality that is veridical, in other words.  

The world we perceive is a fiction, although at times a serious and deadly fiction.  When Niels Bohr said that, “Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real” we have to take him at his word.  From the Buddha’s perspective our world is not real—it is illusory.  Nor is the body and its pain we so tenaciously cling to real.  Naturally, there is a great deal of apprehension about breaking the spell which makes us see our world ‘as if’ it were the true world. Let’s face it, if neither Buddhism nor Zen appeared useful, nobody would be interested.  The few who seek the truth—and they are precious few—never see Buddhism and Zen as being useful.  Buddhism and Zen are ways by which we can see true reality.  When they seem useful, they’ve been corrupted.

A letter to an avuso (friend)

It is always necessary to keep in mind that Buddhism, including it various schools, is about awakening to ultimate reality. Next, it is necessary to understand what is blocking our realization of that awakening.  It is over-identification with the psychophysical body otherwise known as the five skandhas. It is, unfortunately, also our criterion — our measure of all things. If you think about it, the Buddha in the Pali Nikayas speaks a lot about overcoming our deep connection with the psychophysical body—these khandhas (S., skandhas). 

Not surprisingly the Buddha says in the Udana, "Bound to delusion (P., moha) is the world (P., loka)" (VII, x). We look upon this world as holding the answer. We trust our senses, etc. We have little or no respect for the transcendent which is outside of the reach of our psychophysical body which, by the way, is called "old karma" by the Buddha. Do you see the problem we face in trying to awaken? Even if I wrote 2000 more blogs I would never succeed in lifting the veil that blocks us from seeing ultimate reality. Even if I provided a reading list that a graduate student of Buddhism might benefit by reading, it would never unbind them from the basis to which they are deeply attached, enough to awaken from the delusion to which they are bound (P. moha-sambandha).

Nothing I can do or say is sufficient to release anyone from their delusion by which they over-identify with the psychophysical body which they insist is the sole criterion for becoming awakened! Every blog I write has its detractors who believe they are right.  They will tell me that I am the one who is deluded even though the evidence I use comes straight from the Pali Nikayas and Mahayana sources.  Where is their evidence?  Only their opinions, that’s all they have.  Pretty soon it becomes apparent that I am dealing with the movement of 'secular Buddhism' or what I label in various blogs as "puthujjana Buddhism" which is worldly Buddhism that denies the transcendent in Buddhism.  

At this rate, I dare say that Buddhism, including Zen Buddhism, is not going to survive very long without transforming into counterfeit Buddhism and counterfeit Zen. Modern culture is not ready to let go of its materialism or nihilism, nihilism being the sad and horrible truth of materialism.  Modern Buddhists imagine that Buddhism might be of use to help advance materialism—to make it compassionate rather than cruel.  This is delusional thinking.  Where this path goes is to epistemological nihilism and moral relativism which is a species of nihilism.

Those who are blessed with good karma (in the sense of being open to authentic Buddhism) know in their heart of hearts that they carry the embryo of ultimate reality.  It only needs to be conceived.  Others not so lucky have to amass good karma.  They must have deep and sincere faith in ultimate reality; in what completely transcends their psychophysical body.  Without such faith how is good karma possible?  Without such faith they will have only bad karma that keeps them deluded; bound down to the world of conditionality.  The more such people accept and cling to conditionality—which is like a growing thirst—the more entrapped they become.  Hence, they are firmly tied down to delusion and all the bad karma that comes with such a predicament.  

I would even argue that there is a spiritual war going on at this point in which the forces of light are trying to help the forces of darkness who fight to hold onto their pain and delusion (we need to remember that the Buddha equates the five skandhas with pain).

It is better for you if you are skeptical of the conditioned world.  Its purpose is to deceive everyone.  However, there is still hope; it’s not too late to have faith that what animates your psychophysical body, is undying—the element of nirvana.

Questioning the authenticity of Buddhism

The skeptical newbie argument against the teachings of the Buddha as being authentic is that we have no concrete evidence that the Buddha actually delivered these discourses some of which are fantastic.  In fact, the earliest manuscript found, to date, is from the first or second century A.D.  This, in itself, is not a strong argument against the antiquity of the Buddhist canon; nor does it disprove that the Buddhist canon is pre-Christian.  But above all, this kind of argument doesn’t disprove the existence of the Buddha.

Such arguments are of no serious interest for those who find the teachings of the Buddha—let’s say—intriguing.  The Buddha’s teachings offer something meaningful for those of us looking for spiritual answers to such questions as “Who am I?” and “What is the meaning of life?”  It is not too difficult to conclude that those people who don’t find the Buddha’s teachings intriguing lack spiritual curiosity, or belong to another religion.

I will go so far as to say that those who question the teachings of the Buddha do not seem to understand that the truth of what the Buddha taught in his discourses doesn’t depend on whether or not he actually spoke them, or depend on some kind of archaeological evidence, but rather depend on whether the experiences which the Buddha taught in his discourses, such as nirvana, actually obtain.  This, I hasten to add, is the problem with Christianity and other religions.  They lack the clarity of the Buddha’s teachings which tell us, specifically, that we can attain a supramundane state which is free from the limitations of the conditioned world.  The history of Buddhism also tells us of many who have attained such deliverance.

There is nothing unreliable or irrational about Buddhism either. The religious claims of the Buddha, if we can call them that for now, are reasonable to hold because the spiritual states which he predicts in his discourses, such as nirvana, seem possible to attain.  It is somewhat of a red herring to demand historical evidence of the Buddha and his teachings as if we are supposed to produce documents written by him!  This is only a diversion intended to distract our attention from the real issue: does Buddhism work to get us to gnosis of ultimate reality?  In my example, it worked beyond by wildest dreams.

 

Being pushed to insanity

In terms of mental illness, the U.S. is fast going downhill or so it seems if you look at the usual MSM data.  But is this really so or are people being pushed to insanity?  There is a lot of money to be made by putting people on medically prescribed drugs for various pseudoscientific mental disorders.  At the same time, these drugs have the potential to cause great harm.  More than likely such drugs will only worsen the problem by introducing dangerous, unintended, side effects — we might call this phenomenon for now, a ‘pharmacological vicious circle’. 

Just recently, it was found that sixty-nine percent of the DSM-5 task force were connected with Big Pharma which raises ethical questions.  By the same token there is no money to be made by meditation and the simple practice of everyday mindfulness, which is now considered to be an alternative to individual cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) which still includes the use of antidepressants (Study: Meditation as effective as psychotherapy for depression).  The beauty of this alternative approach is that it is inexpensive and doesn’t require med cocktails which can lead to serious problems.  But will it convince the majority of people who like to run to their primary care physician when they are upset hoping to get a legal fix at CVS?

There is something horribly wrong with a system that allows unchecked exploitation of its citizens in various guises; which actively creates and maintains the necessary machinery to make people both mentally and physically ill because that is where the money is.  Let’s call it what it is, predatory capitalism.  

It constantly insults and deceives the human heart and its intrinsic goodness. It wants to keep everyone at the level of being 'prey' with just enough education to follow the system but not enough to change it so as to make it compassionate and meaningful instead of cruel and hopeless.  The system even seems to perpetuate itself as if there were some kind of demonic organism in control of the apparatus, pulling the levers; giving orders to its minions.  The only escape such a system allows is suicide which comes in various forms which is first sensed as a feeling of exhaustion and a wish for oblivion.

Even if one chooses blind rebellion, the system absorbs the blows.  At the end of the day we find ourselves still turning into automatons.  No longer do we even believe there is a soul or the way to the transcendent within us.  We are even taught that we are only a brain that is encoded to eventually destroy itself, and we believe it, even defending such a view even though it is patently evil.

 

The privation of self

When the Buddha says that the Five Aggregates are not the self or in Pali anattâ, this means that the aggregates are the privation of the self.  It doesn’t mean that there is no self which in Pali is natthattâ.  People who read the following discourse to mean there is no such thing as a self or attâ/âtman have no understanding of the Buddha’s sublime teachings.

“Bhikkhus, form is nonself [anattâ].  What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus:  ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my  self'.  Feeling is nonself... Perception is nonself... Volitional formations are nonself... Consciousness is nonself.  What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom:  ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my  self’ (S. iii. 22–23)  

Let's say, many years ago I once believed these aggregates (my psychophycial organism) were who I was.  Now, I know they are not who I am. They are not myself.  Considered from the vantage point of my true self I now read the discourse of the Buddha this way:

“Monks, form is the privation of self.  What is the privation of self should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus:  ‘This psychophysical organism is not mine, this I am not, this psychophysical organism is not my self'.  Feeling is the privation of self... Perception is the privation of self... Volitional formations are the privation of self... Consciousness is the privation of self.  What is is the privation of self should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom:  ‘This psychophysical organism is not mine, this I am not, this psychophysical organism is not my self.’

Until one gets to the point of seeing all conditioned things as the privation of the âtman, or the same, as the privation or lack of one’s Buddha-nature, they don’t understand—and can't understand—the Buddha’s teaching.

Being alone with nature

Nature wants us to be alone with her when we decide to go on a spiritual quest.  I know it sounds rather odd to be saying this, but it is true.  Something in your heart changes, so as to open up, when you are finally able to be alone in some small cabin or a run down old house, that is miles away from the nearest human other than yourself.  Only then does nature find you.  At this point magic begins to happen, magic in the sense of understanding things you never thought possible.  Maybe it is because there is little if any interference to block the natural spiritual aether.  I don’t really know—but a difference is felt.

I found myself sometimes walking several miles during the day, or cutting firewood and hauling water from the well.  Sometimes I picked a bunch of wild watercress from the stream. I did many other things.   I did all this with a frame of mind that was stilled by the trees, the wind blowing through the dry grass, the smell of wild sage, and the occasional sound of a meadowlark.

In the evening I might study some Zen literature or read from the Lankavatara Sutra.  I would usually sit in zazen; many times in an old abandoned copper mine.  It eventually came to the point when sitting was no different than following the stream, or hiking up some hill.  When I sawed firewood it was a pleasure to work the saw and hold the rough oakwood steady as I cut off a section.  When I dropped the bucket down the well to get water, the smell of the well, the weight of the full bucket made me mindful.  All these things I did conspired together to settle my mind.

All the time my concentration was increasing.  As I paid more and more attention to the smallest of things such as putting my saw back in the right place or trimming the wick on the kerosene lamp, or lighting incense, in seemed that I was starting to step into another world.  All the while this was happening I was deeply engaged in trying to see where this pure Mind was in my own head.  I never gave up looking for it.  All the Zen literature I read shouted at me that this pure Mind is totally invisible, yet very real.  I had learned to accept that bit of information as fact although, at the time, I hadn’t engaged with such a mind.

This was all back in 1969, a time before portable computers, the Internet, iPhones  and all the countless other diversions.  Sometime later, I got lucky.  You can read about it here.

Noble Buddhism vs secular buddhism

Those who study Buddhism are certainly aware that Buddhism has always been divided between monk and layperson.  But this division is not a spiritual division.  A layperson can eventually become a monk and a monk can demit entering back into the life of a layperson in the example of Stephen Batchelor, the author of Buddhism Without Beliefs, who demitted twice setting aside his monastic robes.  In all this there is nothing spiritual.  Among other things, this person has not yet entered the stream (sotâpatti) of sanctification nor is this person in possession of right view, etc.

In short, such a person is a puthujjana who has entered no paths; who is just a ordinary person or worldling.  He or she is a person of spiritual darkness (andhaputhujjana) or better, a person striving after their spiritual good this being a kalyanaputhujjana.  This category even includes the Buddha’s own monks.  Monasticism is still superficial, just as superficial as the life led by a layperson.  Puthujjana monastics and laypersons lack right view which is supramundane (lokuttara).  They neither know nor see things as they really are, especially that mind is radiant.

We might recognize puthujjanas as being secularists.  Secularism relates to temporal matters as distinguished from the spiritual. The secularist like the puthujjana is always subject to suffering in all of its forms unlike the Buddha’s noble disciples (ariyasâvaka).  Neither the secularists nor the puthujjana can make an end to suffering.  In this regard, the puthujjana and the secularist are outsiders; who lack the necessary insight to be true followers of the Buddha, one who is part of the triple gem sangha.

When we take into account the rise of Buddhism in the West, it is more of a lay phenomenon.  But also, the growth of Buddhism in the West is of a puthujjana/secular kind.  It is not noble (anairyan).  In fact, I would argue that the secularization of Buddhism runs counter to what might be considered to be true or noble Buddhism which is wholly spiritual in such a way that it cannot be understood by puthujjanas.  

Individuals like Stephen Bactchelor who considers himself to be a ‘secular Buddhist’, but is really a puthujjana of the worst kind, is attempting to hijack true Buddhism along with everyone else who tries to rid Buddhism of it spiritual center.  Nirvana, for example, is pushed aside by Batchelor:

“Rather than attaining nirvana, I see the aim of Buddhist practice to be the moment-to-moment flourishing of human life within the ethical framework of the eightfold path here on earth.”

He ignores the fact that nirvana is transcendent, undying and unconditioned among just a few of its epithets!  One could even say, in light of this, that secular Buddhists are leading a kind of revolution.  Not only are they trying to hijack Buddhism, but they are attacking its very foundation which is gnosis of the absolute which is supramundane.

Secular Buddhism as I have mentioned before in an earlier blog is really puthujjana Buddhism.  It can be boiled down to the simple practice of mindfulness; concern with the quality of one’s life in the secular, temporal world, and the elimination of religious dogmatism, including any vestige of the transcendent in Buddhism such as the attainment of nirvana. I some respects it is evil.