The Zennist

A satire on Buddhism? Yeah!

Yesterday, I imagined The Onion, which does news satire, doing a satire on Buddhism.  It would be about an upcoming conference for soul-denying Western Buddhists who are also interested in getting rid of the Buddhist tenets of rebirth and karma in an attempt to bring Buddhism into the 21st century.  

The conference would also host Buddhists who are secular humanists, physicalists, anti-religionists, atheists, agnostics, anarchists, and nihilists.  The conference would be led by Stephen Batchelor and Sam Harris both of whom are persuaded that the Buddha is trapped in the religion of Buddhism and needs some help escaping from its superstitious, and Hindu past.

The conference could begin with two minutes of hate (remember the scene in the film, Nineteen Eighty-Four?).  Hatred would be directed towards Buddhists in the past such as the Pali translator Mrs. Rhys Davids who proposed, to the contrary, that the Buddha did not deny the soul.  

“Ignorant Buddhists to-day uphold the ‘no-self’ doctrine, largely because they see in self, ‘selfishness’.  Historically they are utterly wrong.”

Members of the conference  would chant, "No soul! No soul! No soul!" while watching a picture of the bespectacled Mrs. Davids appear on a large screen followed by the picture of another Pali translator, I.B. Horner, George Grimm, and many others such as the great Japanese Buddhist scholar Hajime Nakamura.

The conference might continue with bright and colorful fMRI scans of the brain showing that there is no soul.  Just clumps of biological matter.  This is where the soul and consciousness come from.  When the biological system shuts down because of some incurable disease or ceases to function because of old age, nothing continues.  All one's sins and crimes go unpunished.  There is no karma or rebirth. 

I still haven't figured out a name for this conference. 

Following sacred footsteps

Sometime around the late 1960s, my idea of Zen, or what I thought Zen should be, was an experiential encounter with the absolute, in this sense the 'sacred', by which I became transformed.  Said another way, Zen meant for me a "sacred encounter" with the absolute. As of 1969 the absolute had become pure Mind.  I had faith back then that gnosis of pure Mind was attainable which meant I had to follow its footsteps.  It sure was not going to follow mine.

Let me pause here.  There is something I have to say about following these footsteps as compared with those of a teacher I could see and communicate with.  By following the teacher's footsteps, eventually, I came to see that it was not so much a commitment to a sacred encounter as it was a commitment to please him—to see things his way.  As I studied the works of the Zen masters, it became more and more obvious to me that all of the great teachers had an experiential encounter with the absolute.  I didn't hear this coming from my teacher or the institution of Zen.  Yet, the message was there all along.  For those committed to the institution they glossed over it so as to reduce its importance to almost zero.

Let me call these particular footsteps "sacred footsteps" which are in front of you; which you can't seem to catch up with; which don't seem interested in your theatrics and whining.  To be sure, they are leading you.  And you sense this after it has dawned on your pea-brain that you must have a sacred encounter with pure Mind.  

How many Zen adepts even get to this point?  I dare say not very many.  They are too busy following the footsteps of their teacher or the institution—or worse still, they are following their vanity to the summit of their pride!  All in all, they are hedging their bets that this is the right way to go!  They've bet their life on it.  

By following the sacred footsteps it is far more dangerous.  It is face climbing in Yosemite alone when the first snows come.  If you should fall, that's it. But we are not climbing.  This is just a metaphor.  You don't fall into an abyss.  The whole idea is to fall—and fall completely—after you have reached your greatest heights.  This is when the sacred footsteps stop.  You walk right into them.  You get the sacred glimpse.  That's it.  Yes, just that.  How amazing it is.  How pure.  From this all the world is made. 

Tathagata and the self

It is never other than the fact that the Tathagata is never identified with the Five Aggregates or skandhas which are impermanent, suffering and not the true self.  But this is also true with the self or âtman.  A disciple of the Buddha never identifies his self with the five skandhas.   In this regard, both the Tathagata and the self are the same.  In the commentarial literature we find the following: “tathagato’ti attâ” tr. The Tathagata is the âtman (Jayatilleke, Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge, p. 244).

In the Bâhuna Sutta, from the Anguttara-Nikaya (X, 81) we find a clear disassociation of the Tathagata from conditioned existence which includes the Five Aggregates of material shipe, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness. 

Freed, dissociated, & released from ten things, the Tathagata dwells with a mind (cetasâ) free from boundries, Bahuna. Which ten?  Freed, dissociated, & released from material shape ... feeling ... perception ... volitional formations ... consciousness ... birth ... aging ... death ... suffering ... defilement, he dwells with a mind free from boundaries.  Just as a red, blue, or white lotus born in the water and growing in the water, rises up above the water and stands with no water adhering to it, in the same way the Tathagata—freed, dissociated, & released from these ten things – dwells with a mind free from boundaries. 

This is not a metaphysical position but rather a state of mind one attains which is independent of all conditionality.  If one has authentically realized the unconditioned or the One Mind, their mind is free from these boundaries which includes the five skanhdas.  They don’t identify with them as being their self.  Instead they identify (samâdhi) with what is unconditioned and undying which is the true self.

Beyond the sphere of thought

The Buddha’s teaching is not based on some cobbled together metaphysics which is essentially based on letters and words, resting on concepts.  The individual who takes up the Buddha’s teaching must attain gnosis or super-intuition.  Without it it is impossible to grasp the essence of the Buddha’s teaching.  This is what the Buddha means when he says the following:

"This doctrine is profound, hard to see, difficult to perceive, calm, sublime, beyond the sphere of thought (P., a-takka-âvacara), subtle, to be grasped only by sages" ( S. i. 136).

Western Buddhists are uncomfortable with the term atakkâvacara because they are slaves of modern reasoning and  logic which exists solely within the sphere of thought.  They know of no other way of access.  These same Buddhist are unwilling to bend to gnosis or super-intuition.  Nope!  According to them Buddhism is not mysticism.  If anything it is a kind of nihilism which surrenders to the ways of the world.  It believes all as empty or the same, meaningless.

Awakening from the fantasy world of materialism

When one finally decides to take the red pill (from the first Matrix movie) so that they awaken from the fantasy world they are presently living in (being unplugged) they see that their social order is completely under the domination of materialism with its model of ‘bottom-up causation’ (matter creates the immaterial mind).

Being unplugged, thanks to the red pill, we no longer believe that molecules, somehow, make biological tissue which then becomes an organ (a brain?) then many organs with limbs, which turn into a specific organism followed by a breeding population of such organims.  This could be a colony of termites or humans.  But the plain fact is this:  We cannot get from molecules to human beings by bottom-up causation, i.e., materialism.  It is a naive as rolling a ball down an incline then attributing its motion to atoms making the ball roll!

Western Buddhist who are espoused to materialism have no problem agreeing with the Buddha’s Five Aggregatesor skandhas; that we consist of material shape, feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness.  Where they draw the line is with acceptance or faith in a self or the âtman—even Buddha-nature.  They believe there is no self which is spiritually distinct from the five skandhas.  They will even accept a conventional self if it is understood that it is just another name for the skandhas which are never other than conditioned.

With such a materialistic orientation such people (unfortunately too many Western Buddhists) believe that our psychological human world is reducible to biology, which can further be reduced to chemistry which, finally, can be reduced to physics which finds only the Void!  But none of this is the direction Buddhism is aiming at.  To put this into modern terms, we are top-down beings who are engaged and entangled with what appears to be an emerging world from the bottom-up.  Moreover, we are mistaking what we see and experience for our self which is never more than finite.  Truth be told, to use the Buddha’s words, we are engaged and entangled with what is “not the self” or in Pali, anattâ.  No, the emerging bottom-up world is not really who we are.

If anything modern Buddhism is counterfiet Buddhism.  This is the soul denying materialism of Ajita Kesakambali, which the Buddha condemned; which has been unknowingly embraced by modern Buddhists instead of condemned.   

 

The disputes in Buddhism

Beginning Buddhists and Zen Buddhist are often surprised to find that beneath the calm exterior of Buddhism there are quiet disputes (non-violent of course) going on.  Such disputes have always been a part of post-mortem Buddhism with the proliferation of many sects each with a different spin on what the Buddha taught.  Usually, where there is a different sect there is more or less a dispute with another sect.  

In most cases, for example in Zen, the disputes are not deep with perhaps the only exception being Dogen Zenji’s position with regard to zazen in which sitting was considered by him as being synonymous with enlightenment.  When Dogen claims, "Sitting is itself the treasury of the eye of true Dharma and the mystic mind of nirvana" (Carl Bielefeldt, Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation, p. 169), he seems to be raising a particular physical action to the level of nirvana.  Yet, nowhere in the Nikayas or Mahayana, for example, is sitting itself deemed nirvana or is nirvana dependent on the sitting posture.  Japanese Rinzai didn’t buy this idea and I dare say, some of Sotoshu.

Other disputes are found in Tibetan Buddhism, that is, Vajrayana.  The debate faces off between those who insist that emptiness boils down to absolute negation without positive implication (prasajya-pratisedha) which are the Rangtongpas; while the other side argues for relative negation with positive implication (paryudasa-pratisedha) this being the Shentongpas.  This has implications for the correct meaning of emptiness which is not a settled theory in Tibetan circles.

The dispute most Westerners are aware of is between those who claim that the Buddha did not deny the âtman; who only taught his followers not to identify with that which is not the âtman or in Pali, anattâ; and those who insist that the Buddha did in fact deny the âtman as a true reality.  In Thailand, this dispute is out in the open. It is between the Theravadins, themselves, who are split between Self and not self.  This dispute is taken up in Potprecha Cholvijarn’s book (a dissertation), Nibbana as Self or Not Self: Some contemporary Thai discussions.

Closer to home, is the growing dispute between secular Buddhists and those who are against its unbridled form of revisionism.  Stephen Batchelor’s book, Buddhism Without Beliefs, has become something of a manifesto of secular Buddhism.  It invites skepticism of such notable tenets of Buddhism as karma, rebirth and, I would argue, the very importance of nirvana.  It leans heavily in the direction of materialism.  Batchelor, himself, does not believe in spirit (cp. Confession of a Buddhist Atheist. p. 68).  He is no vitalist, in other words.

I don’t foresee such disputes ever coming to an end.  This is why it is important for anyone serious about awakening to their true nature to live like a hermit—even an urban hermit will do!  Buddhism is, as I have mentioned before, an “introspective science” in which we have to zoom in on, and break through the veil of mental phenomena, reaching a point in which we come face to face with the very essence  or substance of thought which is radiant. 

The dharmic principle

Going back to Bodhidharma, the tradition which has been named Zen or in Chinese Ch’an is about cultivating our mind, that is, bringing our mind to enter the principle or Dharma.  This means to see mind unmoved which is transcendent.  In doing so, we are able to distinguish mind as pure unmoved essence or principle from mind which is constantly stirring itself with desires, emotions, mental images, abstract thoughts, etc.

This is like first seeing water, this being H2O; then being able to distinguish water from wave-phenomena.  When we directly enter into the principle or Dharma, we then come to understand that the phenomenal world we perceive, including our psychophysical body, is a transformation of the principle.  This also means that phenomena are dependent originations of the principle.  Phenomena reveal the active nature of the principle.  It is just not a lifeless principle.  For example, our internal thoughts are a function or activity of the principle.  But they also hide the principle; making it not seem to be present in which people come to believe there is no such thing! 

Those who undertake the study and practice of Zen have to be dedicated to realizing the principle as impossible as it might seem.  Helping us along, we are aided by studying the discourses of the Buddha, and by meditation which stills the action of the physical body so mind can be studied and observed so as to uncover, not the waves, but the very substance or essence of the waves!

Buddhism off the grid

Living off the grid used to mean not being dependent on the electrical grid.  But more recently, it can be taken one step further.  Living off the grid means to detach yourself, more or less, from the turnstile/metered economy consisting of natural gas, water, sewerage, telephone lines (including cable) and other things, even store bought food.  In short, one obtains their own fuel, potable water, food, etc.  It is all about living an autonomous life at the margins of a corrupt and failing social text; one that is not meeting the needs of the majority but only the predatory minority.

Living off the grid is nothing new for the traditional Buddhist who might be a monk or a nun, or a Bodhisattva (Yogi) living as a hermit in the forest.  Buddhism has always favored a life off the grid; living at the margins of society, acting as a constant reminder to the public that they cannot escape their mortality and sooner, rather than later, must face it; hopefully, in some measure, following the teachings of the Buddha.

Whatever utopian vision we all might share of progress to a beautiful world, it only takes a few people to destroy it which, historically, every economic depression has shown to be true.  Moreover, it only takes a handful of evil people to start a war by which millions and millions of innocent people are slaughtered.  In one respect, living in the grid is like a dog willfully walking into Ivan Pavlov's laboratory to be conditioned.  

In the example of humans, we are all too willing to submit to conditioning. In some examples, we make laws which prevent the lessening of stress from the conditioning such as prohibiting the building of small or tiny houses within city limits in which the turnstiles receive less money and we end up owning our own home within a year.

The Buddhist response is to support living off the grid since it helps to extinguish the artificial conditioning of a corrupt society which supports the three poisons of delusion, hostility, and concupiscence.  The unintended consequences of living off the grid is there is less destruction of the environment and the many creatures who live in it.  There is also more leisure for us which allows us to spend more time with our families and engage in spiritual studies and practices.  These things, I hasten to add, enrich our lives. 

Historical and religious Zen

Zen has a history.  It also has a religious core which is better described as introspective or spiritual science.  Zen’s history and its religious core need be kept separate,  One comes through Chinese culture, the other, the religious or spiritual core, concerns seeing what the Buddha saw, directly.

For the present, I put the historical context of Zen or Chan into two general groups.  The first group is pre-Song dynasty documents which includes documents found at the Dunhuang caves.  The second group is made up of Song dynasty Chan texts (e.g., yulu, denglu, koans) derived from the Zutang ji (952) and Chuandeng lu (1004) and other Song textual sources. 

From the second group we find the popular image of Zen that we have today which is really the product of the Fayan and the Linji schools, in that order, which are Song.  We can think of the two groups as separated by a ‘document gap’ in which the notable difference is the first group is very obviously tied to the sutras and Mahayana Buddhism whereas the second is poetic and somewhat iconoclastic, although still wedded to Buddhism.

Where the two groups are inseparable is both acknowledge that Zen’s main goal for the individual is that they spiritually see their true nature (kensho).  Less than this there is no authentic Zen.  Unfortunately, this inseparability is only understood and acknowledged by those who have seen their true nature.  The unchecked tendency is to move to the historical side of Zen and turn it into an institution.  

At some point we have to get it into our heads that Zen is little more than a school of Chinese Mahayana Buddhism which emphasizes spiritual introspection leading to direct gnosis of pure Mind which is our true nature.  What we believe to be historical forms are symbolic; not to be taken at a literal level.  All the works of Zen are meant to inspire us to look deeply within, more than we can imagine.

 

What is Zen really about?

In previous blogs I have only brought up the question, “What is Zen” a few times (I think I did one blog on it).  For the beginner, this may not sound like an important question, but in the time it takes to answer this question whereby we might really learn what Zen is, it is a very important question that needs answering.  The average beginner might believe they know what Zen is, but then they could very well be wrong.

It is not all that difficult to answer the question of what Zen is.  The first answer would have to be the historical answer, in this example, from the Encyclopedia of Religion (the author is John R. McRae a well known scholar of Chan/Zen Buddhism).

The Chan [Zen] school of Buddhism developed in China beginning in the sixth century CE, spread to Korea, Japan, and Vietnam beginning in the ninth century, and has moved to Europe, the United States, and other parts of the world in modern times. The name Chan (Seon in Korean, Thien in Vietnamese, and Zen in Japanese) is the Chinese transliteration of the Indian word for concentration meditation, dhyâna in Sanskrit and jhâna in Pali (and similar forms in other prakrits or vernacular Indian languages). (Brackets are mine.)

These facts are as simple as it gets.  Of course, these facts can all be unpacked requiring us to read several bookshelves of books!  But this is not necessary for either the curious or the beginner.

The next, and most important question, is what Zen is from the standpoint of the first-person as in, “What is Zen for me, personally?”  The best and most succinct answer comes from the 28th patriarch of Zen, Bodhidharma who said:

“And the Mind is the Buddha. And the Buddha is the Path. And the Path is Zen. But the word Zen is one that remains a puzzle to both mortals and sages. Seeing your true nature is Zen. Unless you see your nature, it's not Zen” (tr. Red Pine). (Emphasis is mine.)

Permit me to repeat the answer: Seeing your true nature is Zen.  Again, we can unpack this answer—which we should do, which will take us many years!  The historical answer doesn’t need that much unpacking.  But the answer for us does require ‘personal’ unpacking and clarification in a most deep and profound way.  

This “true nature” is just one of many epithets for what the Bodhisattva saw when he awakened and became Buddha (cp. Lalitavistara Sutra).  Other epithets include true Mind, Mind-ground, One Mind, pure Mind, unborn Mind, unconditioned Mind, radiant Mind, clear-light Mind, etc.  In this respect, Zen is seeing what the Bodhisattva saw who became awakened.  This is also what the fourth slogan of Zen says: see one‘s nature and become Buddha (見性成佛).  

These answers allow the beginner to choose whether or not to take the blue pill or the red pill (remember the movie The Matrix?).  If we just want to join a Zen center and, basically, just sit to help deal with our stress, we take the blue pill.  But if we really want to see our true nature, yup, we have to take the red pill.  There is no purple pill.