The Zennist

Religion and secular demands

When religion is made to please secular demands there is little left of it that can be rightly said to be religious in which direct knowledge of the spiritual substance is of ultimate importance. All religions perhaps should be measured by their spiritual content to the extent that this spiritual content sublates and supersedes the secular.  In this respect, the secular has limited but important value.  In the example of Buddhism, the Buddha’s teaching which is skillful means is a path that overcomes and transcends the secular.  One acquires on this path wisdom and knowledge that helps to uncover the spiritual dimension that hides beneath the dominating and deceiving surface of the secular world. 

In the revelation of the spiritual content the adept sees for the first time that his secular world is dependent upon the spiritual substance.  This is confirmed through the direct experience of this spiritual substance that, in the words of Bodhidharma, moves our hands and feet.  When the secular is seen to be an illusory show resting upon the spiritual, drawing its very life from it the world is in harmony with itself.  Short to this, when the spiritual is completely ignored or forced to enter through lowly doors, the world is not in harmony with itself.  It is out of kilter.

Religion’s duty is to bring the world into harmony through the elevation of the spiritual.  But not all religions do this.  Certainly not Judaism or Islam.  Christianity is somewhat neutral insofar as it still torn between resurrection as being spiritual or of the flesh.  Buddhism and Vedanta are unique in that the illusory must logically rest upon the non-illusory spiritual substance.  Our world in this respect is a dependent origination of the spiritual substance like a pot is an origination of clay.  Still, I see the waning of Buddhism having become too submissive to secular demands losing its spiritual light in proportion.  This cannot be allowed to happen.  A world that is blind to the spiritual substance will degenerate.

Finding our real home

We have no real home, i.e., a home in the sense of a lasting, deathless refuge.  We have temporary shelters of various kinds from huge mansions to a small shack or tent.  In this light, we can’t help but be rolling stones or wanderers.  Externally, in this illusory world, we might live in an apartment for a few years, then move to another, looking for security but never finding it—at best it is temporary security.  We might even spend a few years in a Buddhist monastery then get married, moving into a house to rear our children.  Unbeknownst to us, we have left our true, spiritual home and are unable to find our way back. 

In our all-too-human external world neither real peace nor enlightenment is to be found.  Peace is just a pause between economic depressions and war or just a period of time without violence, illness or death.  This is the hard reality of our human world.  Not even these frail bodies are our home.  They can be pleasure machines to us when we are in our twenties or thirties but it doesn’t last long.

Even though the Buddha realized, first hand, the immortal refuge which is transcendent and supermundane, he continued to teach and lead his students in a body of previous karma which was rundown owing to the practices (tapas) he engaged in before his awakening.  He had to rely on his cousin Ananda who was the same age as he was.  That is not the sign of a healthy person.  Nevertheless his saw his real home—not a home of utter nothingness or annihilation but one that was immortal and blissful.  Through meditation he could see it and also see what was not a true home.

It is not easy

It is not easy for Buddhists to understand that Buddhism always assumes “unrealized unconditionedness” which is another way to describe avidya (ignorance).  Said again, Buddhism assumes that, intrinsically, we have the seed or garbha of  the unconditioned already within us but we are unable to awaken to its presence within us.  Instead, we are mired in the conditioned world including our bodies and thoughts. It is only when our conditioned thoughts are stopped for even a split second does our native unconditioness recognize itself. This is proper awakening.  This is what I have called a return-to-self. 

Let me try to make it clearer.  We have to totally drop all possible forms of the conditioned, especially, our conditioned mind/thoughts.  There is no other way to awaken.  Moral behavior will certainly not accomplish this.  Yes, it helps.  But acting according to certain social standards and expectations is not the same as directly seeing, face to face, our intrinsic unconditionedness.  Far from it.  Resting Buddhism on moral behavior is a huge mistake.  It is really a failure to understand what is the primary teaching of Buddhism.  Such a failure undermines Buddhism.  It’s proponents are actually working counter to removing the veil of conditionality.

The modern depiction of Buddhism is more like something Hollywood might create which would ignore awakening to our unconditioned Buddha-nature.  It could not portray the inward journey except superficially and that is not good enough.  As crazy as it sounds modernity has made our spiritual ear almost unable to hear the Buddha’s real message.

Emptiness doesn't mean what you think it means

Emptiness is used somewhat differently in the Pali Nikayas as compared with Mahayana.  It is closer to when we say, “vacant lot” or an “empty house”.  This doesn’t mean there is an actual lot that is like a black hole.  It means a lot without a house or a building on it.  An empty house really refers to the fact that no body is home.  Maybe they went on vacation.  The house is not invisible—empty of form, in other words.  If the Buddha says to Ananda, “The world is empty of the atman (attena) of what belongs to the atman (attanīyena)” (S. iv. 54), this means there is no atman to be found in the conditioned world.  By implication the atman is unconditioned.  What we truly are as the atman is to be found not in this world or loko which is a world of impermanence and suffering.

With regard to Mahayana, emptiness has a number of different meanings.  When, for example, Dudjom Lingpa says, “Emptiness does not constitute an inert void, but is subtly lucid, free of sullying factors, like a polished mirror in which anything at all can arise—this is mirror-like pristine awareness.”  This is saying that the conditioned world arises from the non-arising unconditioned.  To reiterate, emptiness means the unconditioned which is empty of all conditionality (e.g., sullying factors).  In the Heart Sutra when we read that the five skandhas are empty, this means they are empty of self-nature, self-nature being synonymous with the unconditioned.  Again, in the Heart Sutra when we read “in emptiness there is no material shape, no feeling, no perception, no volitional formations, no consciousness; no eye, no ear, nose, tongue, body, thought," etc., this emptiness is the unconditioned.  There are no five skandhas such as material shape and feeling in it, along with the senses, etc.

In previous blogs, to help the reader see Buddhism in its simple and most correct form one only has to consider the conditioned (saṃskṛta) and unconditioned (asaṃskṛta).  Buddhist terms will be variants of these two terms.  We can treat emptiness as referring either to conditioned reality (empty of the unconditioned) or highest unconditioned reality (empty of the conditioned).  Incidentally, this is like looking at water in its wavy form (conditioned) or looking at it in its natural unwaved state (unconditioned).  I hasten to inject, there is no actual duality here.

One last thing.  In Zen, the empty mind or no-mind refer to mind in its natural unconditioned state, like waveless water, which is minus conditionality.  It is the same with the so-called ordinary or natural mind.  This means mind that is unconditioned.  No-mind and One Mind are the same in virtue of the fact that both allude to the unconditioned.  Normally, our minds are always in a conditioned state, constantly, more or less agitated and maculate.   In Zen the practice is to see, first hand, mind in its natural or unconditioned state.  From this vantage point we see phenomena dependent, ultimately, upon the unconditioned which further means phenomena are not real.

Hinduism vs Buddhism?

In 1867 F. Max Müller, a noted translator of Indian religious texts including some Buddhist texts said, "Hinduism is a decrepit religion, and has not many years to live."  Well, so much for Max Müller’s predictive powers! The word Hinduism first appears in the English lexicon in 1829. It is not a term of Indian origin, it stems from Persian. In Sanskrit it would be “Sindu.”

The term Hindu was invented by British colonialists to describe India's complex religious culture as if it were coherent enough to be construed as a single, systematic religion. In that light, it is a mistake to pit the term “Hinduism" against Buddhism as some modern Western Buddhists are of the bad habit of doing.  Colonialist inventors didn't understand Indian religious culture or its history, moreover, that such diversity could not be homogenized into a single religion.  It should be noted, by the time the colonialists coined their word, there was no Buddhism in India.  It had disappeared or was assimilated.  Also the savage Muslim invasions of India took its toll on both Indian culture and religion.

Despite the fact that Hinduism is a colonialist term that is problematic, it still doesn’t seem to stop Western Buddhists from trying to differentiate Buddhism from so-called Hinduism, especially, when it comes to the notion of atman.  I tend to see Buddhism as very Indian; as part of a long tradition that sheds its light on the central and vital aspects of Brahmanism (the Brahmā cult) from which it can be argued both Jainism and Buddhism emerged.  I should mention that a notable symbol of the Brahma cult was the so-called bodhi-tree (aśvatthava tree).  The Pali Nikayas are also not without a number of references to Brahmā, for example.

I know Brahmā and the world of Brahmā, and the way to the world of Brahmā, and the path of practice whereby the world of Brahmā may be gained (D. i. 249).

Buddhism grew up within Indian religious culture—not outside of it.  The Buddha prior to his awakening was an ardent student of several Indian religious systems and their praxis.  That he attained enlightenment which went beyond the level of his teachers was not a rejection in the sense of being antithetical but, instead, the actual fruition of their path which they had not fully completed.

Mindfulness leads us to the starting point of the spiritual path

A general overview of Buddhist training, we begin with mindfulness of the immediate world around us from putting on our socks to using a toaster.  I remember my first instruction by the abbot.  I was taught how to put a tea cup down on the table.  This gradually expanded to washing dishes, cleaning the small Japanese garden even putting my mind on turning a doorknob. Mindfulness is meant to transform the haphazardness of our everyday life; to break our unawareness so that we are not always living in spiritual sluggishness. But this is only the beginning.

Next our mindfulness has to work on our emotions and daydreaming.  This is not so easy.  It might take a teacher to help us do this.  A good teacher will make the serious student mindful of just how much they are out of touch with themselves (it's a lot—trust me).  No, none of those daily emotional outbursts.  Try silence or just smile.  Working with our emotions and daydreaming takes a long time especially when it comes to curtailing our daydreaming.  But mindfulness still goes even further, to our very thoughts.

The practice of mindfulness has to be sustained during our waking hours. No let up (sorry).  Maybe after a year of this kind of practice it becomes easier.  It was that way with me.  But it takes about a year of super focus with a Buddhist abbot pushing you, granting you no slack even when you drink a few beers.  All this, of course, works to an internalization of mindfulness becoming especially aware of our daydreaming.  We have to learn to snap ourselves out of this mental slackness.  People who talk about their anger or their depression have little or no understanding of what mindfulness is about.  They run on their emotions and daydreams.  They are unwilling to take up the practice of mindfulness which is a simple practice that leads us to the starting point of the spiritual path or, the same, the voyage across the sea of suffering to the land of nirvana.

Buddhism, an advanced form of materialism?

The Buddha never spoke about an Upaniṣadic doctrine of the ātman (if ever there was such a thing) and he certainly didn’t teach a counter doctrine aimed at an Upanisadic doctrine of the ātman called Anātman.  To contend that he did speak against such a doctrine is largely an invention of modern Buddhists.  This kind of false narrative, if not an outright lie, allows modern Buddhists to launch baseless attacks against the principle of ātman. 

In Nikaya Buddhism there is not a single word uttered by the Buddha which treats ātman (in Pali, attā) in the same way that he treats the five khandha or aggregates, including the senses and their fields.  Not only the five khandhas, but forms, sounds, tastes, odors, tactiles, including all mental objects, according to the Buddha, are the bait of Mara the Evil One.  It is only by transcending this bait does the disciple of the Buddha shine like the sun surpassing Mara’s realm (cp. M. i. 113).

Nowhere in the Pali Nikayas does the Buddha equate the ātman with Mara’s world which is rather odd when we consider the narrative of modern Buddhism, which I mentioned earlier, which is against the principle of ātman.  It is from our strong inclination to the sensual that our suffering springs which ties us to the finite world according to the Buddha.  It is certainly not our ātman, the higher self that ties us of which the Buddha speaks of in the Dhammapada (160) which is our protector (nātho).  And has the Buddha declared ātman to be the origin of suffering? The answer is, no.  The origin of suffering is craving and clinging to what is not the ātman, which is always conditioned, for example, the five khandhas.

So why the strong push against ātman in modern Buddhism?  I can only guess, but I think the overarching reason stems from a latent form of materialism that lives in most people which I hasten to add is an ancient philosophy found both in India and Greece.  Man because he lives in a material world looks for the basis of such a world in the material.  He wrongly assumes that matter arises from matter.  This is not Buddhism—not even close.  So when some people learn of Buddhism’s anātman (no ātman) they wrongly assume Buddhism to be an advanced form of materialism.

Unaware of our transcendent nature

I am sure amongst a few Buddhist scholars and followers of Buddhism some would argue that the language of transcendence, which belongs to mysticism, is foreign to Buddhism.  By “transcendence” I mean, generally, lying outside of what is presented in our human experience and certainly beyond ordinary sensory experience and scientific explanation.  In addition, “transcendentalism” would be the doctrine that intuitive or spiritual intuition is higher than the empirical.

I would first counter the view that Buddhism does not speak the language of transcendence by saying that it is a gross, outrageous distortion of Buddhism which is intended to fit inside the Western box of physicalism along with secularism, the latter being anti-religious in the sense that it views a first-person experience of ultimate reality to be impossible.  Yet, it is unambiguously clear from the Pali Nikayas, for example, that nirvana is treated as being in the category of the transcendent or the same, the unconditioned.  Nirvana is not realized within the world of the conditioned by adhering to the conditioned, and certainly not within the sphere of the five khandhas (S., skandha), namely, physical form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness.

Along this road, the Buddha teaches us that our bio-physical apparatus: the five khandhas, or aggregates, are really not who we are, viz., ātman. Perhaps of equal importance, these aggregates are not to be identified with as being who we really are. In other words, we are not to desire and cling to what is not our ātman.  Fundamentally, we are intrinsically beyond the pale of these human bodies and their limitations, although we are unaware of our transcendent nature.

Letting go of the dream

The Buddha said in the Diamond Sutra that he attained anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (unexcelled, complete, awakening) without attaining anything.  Sound confusing?  It can be.  Let’s first keep in mind that Buddhism is about removing what is adventitious and illusory.  If your white shirt gets stained, you remove the stain which is extrinsic to the white shirt.  No need to make a new shirt.  Almost the same, we only need to remove the illusion—especially, our attachment to the illusory—that makes enlightenment seem unattained which causes us to set about to attain it. It is the removal of illusion or what is extrinsic to pure Mind that is important, not attainment.  The minute the illusion is removed, pure Mind appears.

To awaken from our illusory dream means to be completely free of the dream we were previously in.  On the other hand, if in our dream we attain enlightenment, it would not be real enlightenment but, instead, a dream enlightenment.  The Buddha in the Diamond Sutra should have said, “unexcelled, complete, awakening from the dream.”  Worthy of brief mention, from the Dhammasangani commentary we learn that “awakening” (bodhane [√BUDH]) “is to rise from the slumber of the continuum of the lower nature, or a penetrating the aryan truths, or a realizing nirvana.”

After we awaken from our nightmare the difference between being in the dream and awakening is, needless to say, striking and worlds apart.  We might reconsider that Buddhism is warning us  about rebirth as being more about going from one dream to another dream, never completely awakening; always oppressed by an illusion so pervasive that is seems there is no escape.  But of course there is an escape which is only to be found in the very stuff that dreams are made from which is inconceivable; that cannot be dreamed.  We arrive here, so to speak, by letting go of the dream/illusion, suddenly.

Beyond questions

I read this the other day in the Pali Nikayas. Radha asked the Buddha, “What is the purpose of nirvana?”  To his question the Buddha replied, “You have gone beyond the range of questioning, Radha.”  I realize that those who are new to Zen Buddhism and Buddhism, in general, have a great curiosity about the Buddha’s enlightenment, and they believe a path of questioning is one of the better ways to learn about nirvana or enlightenment.  But then the Buddha seems to say that there is a limit to one’s questions.  The answer Radha wanted was outside of questioning.  Even if Radha asked the Buddha, “What is enlightenment like?” it would be beyond the range of questioning and by implication, an answer.  Certainly, no answer, no matter how skillfully put, would suddenly transport Radha to nirvana so he might see what it is like for himself. 

While it is easy to imagine our questions being answered in the example of, “How long does a chicken live?” certain other questions cannot be answered as we might expect, for example, “What is the substance of the universe?” or “What is electricity?” 

Let’s be frank, the Buddha did not teach questioning as a sure means to enlightenment.  Yes, he tolerated questioning but only in a limited way even to the point of not answering a question.  We shouldn’t forget that Buddhism is what I have called before, an introspective science (in the O.E.D. “science” is defined as: The state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something).  By the right application of introspection we hope to reach the transcendent which is unconditioned.  Once we have arrived, our questions will be answered although nonverbally.  From that vantage point it will become apparent that questions are limited.