Myth-making is extremely useful. It is almost the foundation of human culture—some might argue that it is. We construct from our imagination a system of thought to satisfy certain needs which ring more of human inadequacies, thereby, assuming that this construction agrees with reality. The explanatory power of myth certainly extends to the modern vision of science. However, take away the elements of myth-making, there is no science. The same goes for religion; almost all religions.
Try as we might we cannot escape our myth-making (in science such mythologies are theoretically constructed 'models'). We can only acknowledge them and from there hope to see what is wrong with them, that is, where the major holes lie (no pun intended) and how they are intended to deceive—hopefully to make better myths! Our various institutions are really machines of deception. They make myths, in other words. It is more like writing great fictional novels that seem so real. Like you're right there.
Turning to Zen Buddhism, its great myth is not about seeing our true nature or the absolute (J., kensho, satori), that much is really, real. The myth is the system for getting to this transcendent abode such as a lineage of enlightened masters going back to the Buddha. This includes the myth that sitting with legs crossed or the myth that certain forms of behavior exhibited in the stories of Zen masters will open our eyes to Buddha Mind. Yes, Zen Buddhism is truly a myth, that is, a story invented as a plausible explanation of how truth is arrived at but which is a fiction, nevertheless. It is 'as if' it were all true acting in order to make us treat the history of Zen as actual.
Breaking out of Zen's myth is what also Zen does, or should do. It has to be as much about seeing our true nature or pure Mind as it is demystifying the various methods for seeing pure Mind. If Zen has a method it should be more akin to something like Paul Feyerabend's, "anything goes," which is coordinate with The Zennist's going to our wits' end. I need add, that we have to see Zen as a product of Song period myth-making which carefully omits that Zen was far from being iconoclastic or against the discourses of the Buddha. This checks some of the tendency in some Zen circles to ignore the importance of realizing our Buddha-nature settling instead on zazen as the alpha and omega of Zen.
Comments