The Zennist

There is no unchanging self-nature in the illusory world

The Buddhist doctrine on impermanence pertains only to the conditioned world which is the world of  the appearance of things as contrasted with true reality which is unborn, unoriginated, etc.  As we would expect of any conditioned thing such as our corporeal body or all conditioned things, there is nothing unconditioned to be had since the nature of phenomena or conditioned things is to arise and eventually pass away which is not the case with the unconditioned (A. i. 152).

Comprehending the scope of the relativity of conditioned existence means that we can find no unchanging self-nature (svabhāva), or intrinsic nature, in the conditioned—not even a Buddha-nature.  If we did, this nature would be marked with arising which would eventually pass away.  It could no longer be valid as unconditioned.

Fundamentally, our conditioned world originates in dependence upon the constructing mind which, itself, is self-existent and unconditioned but which, at the same time, can condition itself, making conditioned things arise which are never other than niḥsvabhāva (destitute of svabhāva) being illusory constructs.

If we are looking for self-nature (svabhāva) it is not to be found in each individual thing or things (all of which are conditioned) but only in that which is, so to speak, the constructor of the conditioned (which is never other than unconditioned).  In Zen we know this by various names such as 'unconditioned Mind', 'pure Mind', 'unborn Mind' etc.

“Just as a painter mixes and blends the various color [in his paintings], so by delusory projections of Mind are made the various forms of all phenomena . . . . The Buddha differs not from the Mind, nor sentient beings from the Buddhas, yet, both Mind and Buddha are by nature infinite! He who knows the Mind as the creator of all worlds, sees the Buddha and his true essence” (Mahāvaipulya Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra).

For the average person this is difficult to get their mind around.  The entire world we live in is not real although it seems otherwise.  Still, this illusory world arises from the real, which we do not know, and returns to it moment by moment.  Buddhism wants us to personally intuit the true source of all (the conditioned) which is unconditioned. 

Meditating with emptiness

There is a meditation going on in Nagarjuna’s teachings which is not often clear or rise to the surface even to the best of minds. In his Lokātītastava I found this verse to open the door to this meditation.

The ambrosial teaching of emptiness aims at abolishing all conceptions (sarvasaṁkalpana).  But if someone believes in śunyatā [emptiness] You [have declared] he is lost.

It is obvious that Nagarjuna is asking us to strip away all our conceptualizations—a negation process.  This is not easy because 99% of the people reading this have an imperfect grasp of what “all conceptions” actually mean including what it means to abolish them.

In this awakened state when all conceptions have been thoroughly emptied out (or śunyatā-ed) what remains is real and inconceivable.  Said again, the Madhyamika adept takes the resultant state from the emptying out of all concepts to be real and substantial.  This state is beyond the reach of being conceptualized and of course, beyond language.  Yet it is present and illuminating.  In this emptied-out state, the Madhyamika adept cannot construct a concept there.  The adept fully understands the limit: what is ultimate reality and what is a simulacrum of it.

For the sake of skillful means, like Nagarjuna, one can speak of this emptiness that is abolishment of conceptualizations.  But the emptiness just spoken of is, itself, a conceptualization. It has to be regarded as being like a finger pointing to the moon which is not the moon in the sky. Skillful means is not the actual truth but a teaching about it. 

To know what is left when all conceptions have been abolished requires of the adept a non-conceptual gnosis (prajñā).  Before this gnosis we are at risk of unconsciously "believing in emptiness."

 

 

 

Suffering from the three poisons

In the Buddha’s discourses, the three poisons, viz., delusion, covetousness/greed, and enmity, are the primary causes that keep sentient beings trapped in samsara, preventing them from realizing nirvana. 

Looking at delusion, the deluded mind does not know the true nature of things. It works by producing doubt which is closely tied with skepticism which strongly believes that certain states are impossible, for example, enlightenment and rebirth.  Delusion is also about adhering to various false views and opinions which stem from a lack of critical thinking.  One such view I find to fall into this category is materialism.  Most people are not aware that they are hardcore materialists even though their actions are those expected of a materialist.  

Turning to covetousness/greed it is basically the yearning to have and to possess the conditioned; mainly the five skandhas which as a result leads to rebirth, again and again.  In everyday life covetousness/greed is our over-preoccupation with our sensual life which is never other than conditioned.  We are always treading water in this world and still we don’t want to leave it by seeing true reality.

Looking at enmity it is irritation created by other persons or objects which are taken to be offensive.  Today we might call this “being triggered,” hence, being unable to un-trigger ourself.  It can lead to violence and uncontrolled hurtful behavior saying things that should not be said.  Enmity makes a person incapable of forgiving leaving them with burning vexation.  It can lead to long term resentment and anger.

Taking all three poisons together they work to support each other.  Generally if you suffer from one of the poisons the other two are not far behind.

While the three poisons are very important, I just can’t see people today asking themselves, “Am I suffering from the three poisons?  Maybe I am deluded or hostile (enmity).”  The usual pattern in today’s world is to accuse the other person of what you are guilty. 

 

 

 

Detachment is outgrowing attachment

Some who claim to understand the teachings of Zen tell their followers that detachment from the world around us with its pleasures and struggles is another kind of escapism which, in itself, is just a form of desire.  They want us to understand that Zen teaches: Just keep doing what you are doing.  No need to change yourself or dig deeper into your being to see your true nature which is unconditioned and transcendent.

But this is not what Zen says or for that matter, Buddhism.  First, the notion of attachment means the condition of being attached to someone or something which in Buddhist terms is attachment to suffering, impermanence, and what is not our self or anātman (in this sense, what is not our Buddha-nature). In the widest sense, attachment denotes attachment to the conditioned.

On the other hand, when it is understood what the unconditioned is, which has many different names such as pure Mind, unconditioned Mind, nirvana, Suchness and so on, then the degree of our attachment to the conditioned changes and becomes less because now we see the conditioned as a composition of the unconditioned which is unchanging; not subject to birth and death.

Our attachment becomes less as we understand more and more that things and events in our life are transitory as is this body we inhabit which daily grows older.  It is somewhat like a young child who is attached to a blanket or a special stuffed animal who eventually outgrows their attachment.  In a way, detachment is outgrowing attachment.  Buddhism just helps us along by reminding us that we are attached to the conditioned which is suffering and transitory and not really who we are.  So why become so attached to this?

The Buddha teaches us by a different method

Korean Zen teacher, Hyon Gak 현각/玄覺 (born Paul J. Muenzen in 1964) not too long ago asked the question, “What is this I?”  While a very good existential question and certainly one that is hard to get our head around, the Buddha never asked this question or one to that effect.  He teaches us by a different method.

With regard to each one of the five aggregates (khandha/skandha), namely, 1) physical form, 2) feeling (or sensation), 3) perception, 4) volitional formations, 5) consciousness (which is also the rebirth transmigrant) the Buddha went this way with regard to each aggregate: “I am not this, this isn’t mine, thus one is detached (P., virajjati) from it [the aggregates].” In many other places, the Buddha said with regard to each of the aggregates, "this is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self [attā/ātman].”

As the reader can see this is the via negativa, i.e., the way of negation.  We are setting aside or the same, decoupling our self from what is not intrinsic; which is conditioned (the aggregates are never other than conditioned).  What remains for us is only the intrinsic self.  Said in a different way, the result of setting aside, thoroughly, the not-self (anattā), which are the conditioned aggregates, we come face-to-face with our true self for the first time.

Let me say that the via negativa is not without difficulty.  Decoupling from the influential power of the aggregates which, by the way, are also Mara the Buddhist devil, requires that we accept the fact that we will eventually have to give up all of our presuppositions about enlightenment, entering the so-called dark night of the soul.

Back to the existential question, “What is this I?” We are actually deceiving our self with this question.  For the very source of this question—whence it arises—is what we are really looking for but cannot seem to find.  We have to keep in mind that the source is totally unconditioned whereas, by contrast, every question we raise is never other than conditioned!  This is why we have to proceed in a negative way.  We keep scraping off the layers of black paint until we reach the gold.   

Letting go of the conditioned

In Zen Buddhism the phrase, “letting go” or words to that effect means to let go of the conditioned in order to reveal the unconditioned which is our true nature or the same the enlightened Mind (bodhicitta).

So what are the signs or marks of the conditioned and the unconditioned.  According to the Buddha they are as follows:

“Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the conditioned.  What three? An arising is seen, a vanishing is seen, and its alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the conditioned. “Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the unconditioned.  What three? No arising is seen, no vanishing is seen, and no alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the unconditioned” (A. i. 152).

Since students of the way have never realized the unconditioned face-to-face, who also unconsciously conceive of it, thus making it a mental impression or representation which is never other than conditioned, it stands to reason that the student must first comprehend what the conditioned is.  Only then can letting go be understood, which is the best way to proceed. 

Letting go reminds me of the Advaita Vedanta expression, neti neti, which in Sanskrit means “not this, not this” but for our purposes it would mean the setting aside of the conditioned.  Switching gears, I need to say that there is no need to posit the unconditioned thinking, for example, it is awareness.  This would only make the unconditioned, conditioned.  The unconditioned in its own right is far deeper and more subtle.

Everything about our human condition is conditioned.  Every thought, feeling and emotion is conditioned—every tear and peal of laughter. We inhabit a sack of blood that is thoroughly conditioned which will one day die and because of our ignorance, we will not recognize the unconditioned when we are free from this sack dooming us to further rebirth in the conditioned.  But Buddhism says while we are still in this conditioned body we can recognize the unconditioned so that death has no sting for us.

Men are like the Buddha women are like the goddess Isis

Some of these blogs are channeled inasmuch as an idea pops into my head, seemingly, out of the blue (most come from the light of the Mahayana).  One that happened not to long ago which was quite clear were the words: Man is sagely and the disciplinarian/ woman is the healer and the nurturer.  That was it. 

As I began to think more about this I began to fit the male with the Buddha and the female with the Egyptian goddess Isis.  I saw these as sought for but necessary ideals occurring from the restraint of our biological form meaning that few men and women actually attained these exalted ideals.  Nevertheless, the closer a society moves to these ideals the better off it is spiritually and even materially.  In contrast, the more a society or a culture moves away from these ideas it tends to become increasingly degenerate in which society starts to fail and lawlessness (adharma) gradually prevails.

On the degenerate side, men grow gradually foolish, making bad decisions as a result.  They lack profound wisdom and forethought, always asleep to true reality—almost always running away from it; never wishing to be awakened by it.  They also become inwardly lazy lacking self-discipline or said better in Sanskrit as śīla meaning good conduct, character, and practice in the sense of right discipline.

When women become degenerate their innate sense of what is wholesome turns into vanity and neglect.  Their nurturing energy with its power to sustain life transmogrifies into sexuality and with it excess.  The female form, itself, becomes a sexual symbol that seduces both men and women. I need to say, that for a number of years I began to sense this nurturing energy.  It was unmistakable yet strangely the women I knew had no sense of it.  They were always puzzled when I said, "You have some good energy today."  This energy was never constant and seemed to have a mind of its own.  But it was often there, like a dense field around them.  It was very nurturing when it was present.  I found the whole thing to be amazing and quite a discovery which took me over five years to bend my mind around. 

Instead of men and women being in harmony they work in opposition to each other.  Together, man and woman mutually degenerate causing everything around them to likewise become degenerate.  Even the Buddha’s Dharma is bastardized into something it was never meant to be.  One thing for sure, men and women are not biologically the same.  Anyone who imagines they are is dreaming.  Our true body, the Dharma body, has to work with the biological form it is incarnated with.  The Buddhist monk and the Buddhist nun in early Buddhism, as far as I can see, represented the ideal I mentioned in the beginning.

The subject-object dyad stopped

Eventually, after a few years of doing zazen at a Zen center or a Tibetan center it comes to our attention, “Is this all?”  Zazen soon becomes the same old rigmarole in the sense of being more ritualistic than meaningful. 

With all the zazen we really haven’t left the box of our consciousness that is doing zazen.  It is in a predicament, insofar as it can’t get beyond itself (consciousness in Buddhism means subject-object knowing = vijñāna).  As consciousness,  I am the subject aware of inner objects, for example, my heartbeat, my breathing, my thoughts and internal dialogue, including my emotions and inner tension.  I am unable to make the subject and object become the original, single essence.

In this box of consciousness I can play with my imagination.  I can even paint a door on a wall of my box opening to a beautiful painted world.  But even expanding this box and creating a virtual reality on its walls, I am still in the box of consciousness.  I have not actually gone beyond it.

It is only when, as the subject, I begin looking for the pure object is there any chance of making the two inner sides of consciousness return to the original essence or nature, thus getting beyond the box.

When I did zazen looking for this pure object (I generally used the term “pure Mind”) I became more and more aware what was going on between my ears and I would have to include the five skandhas and other states.  I abandoned every determinate or explicit thing knowing full well it was not the pure object.  Eventually, to make a long story short, I hit pay dirt.  And in that moment of the subject seeing the pure object the subject-object dyad stopped and there I was, the pure Mind, suddenly.  There was no box. 

 

Never subservient to our thoughts

Often to read about Zen and Mahayana Buddhism is also to try to make everything we study subservient to thought (especially our thoughts) as if our thoughts about Zen and Buddhism are the ultimate arbiter. But going deeper into our study, we find that koans are never subservient to our thoughts.  The same goes for much of what the Buddha and Zen masters taught. 

The ultimate purpose of Zen is to see the essence or nature of thoughts which, to be sure, is beyond thoughts! Thoughts are constructs of this essence.  As Zennists we can’t stop at thought.  We have to go deeper.

In the example of a koan or a dialogue between a student and a Zen master, the teacher’s response to the student’s question is a response that the student's thoughts cannot comprehend or get behind.  When a student asked Zhaozhou the question, “Does a dog have Buddha-nature or not?” and Zhaozhou replied “Wú,” meaning has not, this was a response that came from the absolute (i.e., Buddha-nature) on Zhaozhou’s part which went beyond thought or the expression, Wú.  No matter how much the student brought up Zhaozhou’s Wú, trying to make it subservient to his thoughts, he failed. 

The Zen student is always unknowingly using the luminous Buddha-nature to generate thought which is a mere construct.  A Zen master wants us to meet the real Buddha-nature face to face, not the one subservient to our thought. 

 

Not the true Mind

Most people just assume there is one mind, the mind that is between their ears.  We were born with it.  It is who we imagine we are.  Most have never heard of the true Mind 真心.  So Zen comes along (maybe they read a book about it) and talks about various kinds of mind such as pure Mind, one Mind, unconditioned Mind or true Mind.  So many Minds!  But these are just names like the word “moon” in different languages which represent that bright orb in the night sky.

Beginners studying Zen who may have sat in meditation a couple of times or maybe even a monk or a nun might review what is not the true Mind as part of their learning curve working towards intuiting true Mind.  This is taken from Thomas Cleary’s book titled, Teachings of Zen, on pages 189–190.  We can call this something like not the true mind even though Cleary calls this sermon, True Mind.  It is by Zen master Yuan-hsien (1618–1697).

The flurry of ideas and thoughts arising and passing away without constancy is not the true mind.

That which shifts and changes unstably, sometimes good, sometimes bad, is not the true mind.

That which wholly depends on external things to manifest, and is not apparent when nothing is there, is not the true mind.

The heart inside the body which cannot see itself, blind to the internal, is not the true mind.

What is unaffected by feelings outside the body, cut off from the external, is not the true mind.

Suppose you turn the light of awareness around to look within, and sense a recondite tranquility and calm oneness; do you consider this the true mind? You still do not realize that this recondite tranquility and calm oneness are due to the perceptions of the false mind: there is the subjective mind perceiving and the object perceived—so this recondite tranquility and calm oneness belong to the realm of inner states.

This is what is meant by the Heroic Progress Scripture when it says, "Inwardly keeping to recondite tranquility is still a reflection of discrimination of objects." How could it be the true mind?

So if these are not the true mind, what is the true mind? Try to see what our true mind is, twenty-four hours a day. Don't try to figure it out, don't try to interpret it intellectually, don’t try to get someone to explain it to you, don’t seek some other technique, don’t calculate how long it may take, don’t calculate the degree of your own strength—just silently pursue this inner investigation on your own: “Ultimately what is my own true Mind?”