A target for discordant comments

The comment section of this blog is for supporters of this blog and for those who have constructive countervailing opinions about what I post. Yes, I could be wrong about things. I make typos and grammatical errors.  I appreciate the corrections. From time to time, I have to ban certain people.  To date I have only done it twice.  Not a bad record.

I was on chat rooms before Netscape came out with their browser.  Back then, the debates were academic which means, among other things, the wrangling was kept to a minimum.  I could only manage to be a spectator as big name scholars fought bloodless battles with their peers.  I must say, it was exciting; like watching a great chess match.  I learned from the debates the importance of first getting the 'big picture' which can only be reached by dhyâna.  Lucky for me back in the late 1960s and in 1976 I had some incredible 'awakening experiences' by which I was able to get the big picture. 

1976 was a watershed time for me, which proved to be extraordinary.  I had a spiritual event like no other which allowed me to see how the pieces of Buddhism's puzzle fit together in which, almost paradoxically, not a single part could explain the whole but the whole (our big picture) could explain the 'why' of the parts.  From this I could see that modern Buddhism had become a contest of the parts against each other.  The big picture was almost always lacking.  No one saw the importance of first having a direct insight into pure Mind.  It was as if the parts were saying, "I am sufficient, don't go any further, dude." 

With the opening of the blogosphere, I saw my chance.  I decided to encourage learning about the big picture (that is, gnosis of pure Mind) and hopefully, at times, show the 'why' of the part[s] most notable why the five aggregate/skandha system was developed as a way of teaching us what is not our true self (the via negativa).  For example, don't confuse material shape (rûpa) with your true self (we find our true self only through gnosis of pure Mind).  Looking back, The Zennist blog was not about what Western Buddhists were learning in their Dharma centers from their teachers.  Students, to be sure, were not learning that the Buddha taught his doctrine (dharma) for the sake of final nirvana without clinging (SN 35:75).  Nirvana, in fact, is something very seldom discussed in Buddhist circles except in an offhand manner.

Because The Zennist is in a weird position, in which it is looking at the big picture—top down—to the parts, it has been accused of being Vedanta.  This criticism, therefore, assumes that Buddhism contains nothing transcendent.  There is no going beyond the pale of the five aggregates/skandhas.  And if you do (Buddha forbid!), that's Vedanta!  To meet this vacuum (the outlawing of the transcendent in Buddhism) modern Buddhists have taught emptiness—the big Void—with their star Nagarjuna leading the charge.  But this is only putting nihilism in place of positive nirvana.  To drag in a line from the movie Star Wars this is only the dark side of the force; said otherwise, it's the worship of absence.

This is not a healthy position for Buddhism to be in.  For The Zennist it means it can become, sometimes, a target for discordant comments which become over time increasingly more personal and outrageous.  In any event, life goes on and so does this blog.  As for the RAM issue, I am working on it. :)

 

Comments

[thezennist]

No one:

You're not alone here. :)

[No one]

I recently found your blog and have been pouring over your post history, I found this post and felt that i had to comment.

I, though not nearly as refined, experienced something similar that led me straight to buddhism and it connected all the pieces in a way that as i studied buddhism, zen especially, i realized this was what was meant. My experiences have continued to deepen over time, which has led to many profound and amazing changes within and without (of course). I have too dealt with this kind of treatment, being accused of speaking of vedanta / being the vedanta guy; when i try to explain through zen and pure mind, I am continuously told how foolish and disrespectful to the dharma I am being. I eventually decided that I had no need for this, as I wanted to focus on my own practice, so i stopped all posting and decided to rest on my insights; continuing to cultivate but no longer attempting to share.

While I still am of that same mindset, I really do appreciate what you have written, it is like reading something that i would be thinking about but more refined and with greater depth; truly feels like "wow, finally, i'm really not alone".

So thanks, that's all I really wanted to say:) Thanks for all of this, it's incredibly insightful.

[n. yeti]

It is a pity we live in a world where mental derangement is but one of the many obstacles to Zen practice. I myself am open to views and experience gained through the various forms of spiritism, seeing these as lesser reflections of buddhism, and in my opinion the deranged spiritist is probably more in tune with reality than the hardened materialist or empiricist who views reality not only through an opaque filter, but from an entirely upside-down perspective so remote from Buddha's teachings. Somehow, some way the work of the bodhisattva is to enable understanding, and the case of great mental disturbances, perhaps this is to establish some kind of karmic connection with the Buddhadharma, that perhaps in future lives, once the mind is purified through good moral conduct, can reach fruition.

Regarding the point on nagarjuna and viewing the schematics of reality from highest to lowest order, it is interesting that the great sage Dignaga -- who like Nagarjuna is remembered perhaps only because of later commentaries -- provided an "essentialist" perspective on buddhism that is quite in line with tradition of the Indian forms, and indeed one that resonates with many of the points raised about self in the Zennist blog.

Unfortunately, one of the great criticisms lodged against this blog is by Soto folks in particular who feel their lineage is representative of "authentic" Zen, seemingly in complete ignorance of Yogacarin philosophy, and sages such as Dignaga and Vasubandhu, his teacher later in life, who did not apparently reject the Atman, but understood the limits of positive logic and the fallible nature of words and concepts to describe the higher levels of realization.

That this so called "real" lineage includes so many monks who deny even the principle of rebirth, is a sign of how far the later schools have gone from the original insights of blessed Buddha.