Zen beginnings

Zen is rooted squarely in Buddhism which I hasten to add is far more mystical than any kind of  theology.  Hence, Zen outside of Buddhism is not Zen, in a strict sense, since it cannot be properly understood outside of its Buddhist context.  We have to keep in mind that Siddhartha developed Zen (dhyana in Sanskrit) as a means to attain Buddhahood or awakening all other means having failed him. 

Not so much a system of rules or specific behaviors Zen can be thought of as a science of spirit which seek’s man’s true nature or essence which in Japanese is called kensho.

In order to attain kensho, the territory the adept must travel is not external but, instead, internal.  Similarly, it is an inner landscape which to the beginner is almost totally unfamiliar.  This becomes more apparent as the adept engages with Zen literature.  Page after page of this literature consists of obscure and sometimes confusing paradoxical statements.  Even sitting meditation or zazen is difficult to make heads or tails of beyond just sitting on a cushion.

But the complexity soon disappears when we realize that Zen is more about achieving a subtle intuition since Buddhist dhyana is more of a negative path, the via negativa, or as Zen master Sixin Wuxin put it, the practice of dhyana consists of abandonments.  

In this regard, we throw out any and all ideas or concepts of what it is.  In fact, it does not tell us what it is because it is not anything that our conditioned thoughts or feelings can perceive or connect with.  Our true nature transcends all forms of conditionality.  It is thoroughly empty of it.  Faced with this we have to start tossing out our conditioned hypotheses about this elusive and mysterious nature.

To be sure, Zen is not for those who have a dull mind, who expect the fruit of Zen to be handed to them on a silver platter.  To master Zen requires a super work ethic, an unrelenting drive to  intuit one’s true nature first hand.

 

Comments

[mathesis]

addendum:

I find what I wrote above needs to be corrected. Further meditation and investigation - and the first sutta of the majjhima nikaya as well as the first sutta of the samyutta nikaya - have revealed that it is neither by letting go nor by controlling that bodhi is attained. Rather we must have a higher penetrative insight reaching equally into both sides of such dualities, including for instance giving into desire vs. repressing desire.

[mathesis]

The problem is the false equation of shoshin (beginner's mind) with mushin (satori). This (the counterfeit-dharma of the modern age) completely undermines the necessity of first passing through zanshin (satipatthâna, the activation of the superior controlling principle) and fudoshin (the stoic and neoplatonic apatheia/ataraksia/haplosis) to obtain mushin, the paradoxical designation of bodhi. To use a parable: you must become a king first in order to renounce your kingdom; there is no selflessness without finding first the sovereign self, there is no spontaneity and letting go without first achieving perfect control.

[Emptismith]

awesome writing
in this article;
see thought
it vanishes
pure heart
true nature