The Zennist

Buddhist political correctness

Does political correctness find its way into Buddhism?  This is not an easy question to answer, but it gets easier if we define political correctness first.  The Oxford Living Dictionaries puts it this way:

“The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.”

Not too bad, but for our purposes lets take Buddhist political correctness one step further in which ‘political’ can refer to the common view.

“The avoidance of interpretations whether by speech or by writing that are offensive to the majority of other Buddhists who share a different interpretation of Buddhism.”

More to the point, Buddhist political correctness limits what can be discussed about Buddhism insofar as it might offend the sensibilities of the majority of other Buddhists.  This could be over the matter of rebirth since the norm for most people today is there is no afterlife much less a part of the person that continues on after death.  This political correctness would certainly put the kibosh on any pro forma discussion since, from one side, rebirth is impossible according to modern science which is materialistic.

We can see that Buddhist political correctness is really censorship by a new name.  However, its real purpose is to forestall any substantive discussion about the underlying meaning of Buddhism as regards certain terms such as nirvana or rebirth.  This allows a majority consensus interpretation to dominate and to continue even though it could be totally wrong.

This Buddhist political correctness is prevalent on the Internet in reddit forums, for example.  It is more prevalent in Zen centers or various kinds of Dharma centers.  In academic circles there is a “peer consensus” which could be wrong.  Already this kind of political correctness has turned into a system of power which is the truth of all political correctness.  Such power is not about persuasion or faith but, instead, about the ability to compel obedience.

 

We should not grab onto conditioned existence

As a matter of fact, the Buddha never said in a connected statement that the three marks of existence are:

1. sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā (“all conditionality is impermanent”).

2. sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā (“all conditions are suffering”)

3. sabbe dhammā anattā (“all phenomena are not the self (anātman)”

Rather this has been cobbled together from the Dhammapada, verses 277, 278 and 279.  What these three verses share in common is conditionality.  The definition of what is conditioned can be found in this particular discourse of the Buddha:

“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” (A. i. 152).

From this we can safely say that conditionality is impermanent along with suffering and anātman (i.e., what is not the ātman such as the conditioned five skandhas). 

But now we come to a problem that many Western Buddhists face as if they could say collectively, “But I thought Buddhism rejects ātman.  This seems to be suggesting the opposite, that we should reject anātman!”  I would say, you’re right. It does imply the rejection of anātman. Here we can see the Buddha saying as much.

“Bhikkhus, you should abandon desire for whatever is anātman/anattā” (Yo, bhikkhave, anattā; tatra vo chando pahātabbo. S. iii. 178). 

A serious reading of the Pali Nikayas tells us in clearest words that it is not the ātman/attā that we must deny in Buddhism so as to heap scorn upon but, instead, anātman/anattā. It is a serious misreading of Buddhism in a manner of speaking, to throw out the baby then heap praise upon the bathwater, but this is what is happening in Buddhism today.  The three marks of existence is nothing more than conditioned existence which is never more than suffering—and we should not grab onto it.  This is not who we really are.

The left is altering Buddhism and destroying Europe

Buddhists who lean to the left (i.e., neo-marxists) have to a certain extent altered and purposely ignored certain key elements of Buddhism including altering some of the various traditions that fall within Buddhism such as Zen.

This should be of concern because what is ignored by the work of these left oriented Buddhists is nirvana, karma, and rebirth.  Even practice or cultivation 修行 in which one tries to put the Buddha's teachings into practice on a continuous basis is changed into something akin to the practice of “political correctness” with zazen added for good measure. 

I have even seen the thin end of the wedge inserted into Buddhism’s door asking Buddhists to be sympathetic towards Islam which Sam Harris has recently characterized as the “Mother lode of bad ideas.”  Buddhist sympathy will be wasted.  The reason why I say this will be understood towards the end of this blog.

There is nothing all that good to say about leftist ideology since the ideologue is always a person who is a dreamer of dreams; who arises amongst the masses with a promise of a socialist utopia but can’t even supply potatoes to the denizens of this new utopia (look at what recently happened in Venezuela).

Nor is there any need to reproduce Comte's failed and shortsighted Religion de l’Humanité.  All that we need to do is to follow the right path that lies within each of us according to the teachings of the Buddha.  But more, I have personally experienced it, that fully realizing what animates us is sufficient to help us build a new world where even death is no longer to be feared and there are plenty of potatoes!  In the mean time, we must acknowledge that any socialist campaign is doomed to fail, bringing with it more hidden disasters.

This speaks to me of a certain degree of derangement that naturally plagues the human race in one degree or another.  It cannot be eradicated by purely external means such as multiculturalism or by some socialist five year plan, but must be overcome through the culture.  And there are, it follows, degenerate cultures and advanced cultures in which reciprocity appears to be the cornerstone which enters into the spiritual and social life of a people.  Reciprocity happens to be very strong in Buddhism, in the example of karma, which the left leaning Buddhists almost totally ignore. 

Also, there is a kind of natural justice or law (dharma)—also based on reciprocity—that guides human interaction which the more advanced culture is tuned into in the example of Japanese culture and at the opposite end, Islamic culture in which the notion of reciprocity is almost totally lacking.  This is revealed in Europe in which Muslim immigrants, lacking any sense of reciprocity could not care less about their hosts (this is negative reciprocity in the sense of trying to get something for nothing or feeling entitled).

Those who come to Buddhism leaning to the left will, to my mind, end up destroying Buddhism and Zen.  It is like adding more and more water to milk which destroys its nutritional value.  Ridding Buddhism of such people by sticking more to the teachings of the Buddha will, I think, over time drive such people away who are too immature to study Buddhism.  Unfortunately, looking at the big picture those on the left, the neo-marxists, lack a developed sense of reciprocity which takes the form of insanity and very poor interpersonal relationships.  They can never be trusted or relied upon.

Freeing the one who is suffering

The Buddhist [Pali] canon assumes that the Pātimokkha pertains to monastic regula such that it formulates and defines offenses which are essentially violations of regula. But this was a later development. 

The original Pātimokkha is described in the Mahāpādāna Suttanta (Dīgha Nikāya, 14).  It is not a long list of offenses that is recited, but rather a confession of faith consisting of sāsana (injunctions) of the religion held once every six years which was first initiated, not by Gotama Buddha but by Vipassī Buddha who lived many millions of years before Gotama.

"Patient forbearance is the highest austerity; the awakened ones say Nirvana is supreme.

One who has gone forth does not harm another; a recluse does not torment others.

Refraining from what is detrimental, the attainment of what is wholesome, purifying one's own mind that is teaching of the Buddhas.”

By its definition, the Pātimokkha does not allude to a system of regula as mentioned before.  The commentary to the Udana says:

“It is the Pātimokkha since it is this faller (pātinaṃ) that it frees (mokkheti) from the dukkha of samsara. For it is due to the release (vimokkhena) of the mind (cittassa) that a being is spoken of as “liberated” (vimutto). For there is said: “It is through cleansing the mind (citta) that beings are purified (S iii 151) and “(Just when your) mind (cittam) became released (mutto) from the āsavas without clinging” (Udana-Att. PTS edition, p. 576).

The Pātimokkha is all about freeing the one who is suffering having fallen into samsara (i.e., cycles of rebirth).  This is accomplished by the process of purifying one’s own mind (sacitta) of defilements (āsavas) which eventually reveals the luminous Mind (A. i. 10).

Luminous Mind

I think sometimes people reading Zen literature get confused as to what, in particular, is Mind (in the highest sense) often confusing it with thought which is the action or process of thinking.

When Mind or the same, pure Mind is realized it is found to be luminous (S., prabhāsvara).  Upon the realization of Mind, after surpassing consciousness in its various forms, it is strictly luminous which suffuses every part of the adept’s  body, from head to foot. (I hesitate to bring this up for the reason that people have the bad habit of talking themselves into fantasy states which, I hate to say, is a process of self-delusion.) 

Westerners reading about Buddhism are handicapped by materialism which doesn’t understand mind as being anymore than thought which originates in the brain and dies when the brain dies.  So the idea of a higher Mind which is altogether luminous seems rather strange to their cultural ears.  Yet, if anyone has actually experienced this luminous or pure Mind as I have, the Buddha is very accurate when he says the pure Mind suffuses every part of his whole body.  To be sure this is not the description of a thought or thinking by any measure.

One thing to keep in mind, the primary validating experience of having realized pure Mind is luminosity which engulfs the entire body including even thought.  Nothing is outside of its range.  In this state, one has become for the first time what they truly are rather than what they imagine they are, or bound down to what they are not, such as the psychophysical body.  From this awakening or bodhi experience, which is our spiritual birth, we are then able to clear away the habit energy (S., vāsana) of the past which is not ours although we imagined it was.

 

 

Looking for the unconditioned with the conditioned

A general common question among Zen adepts is how do I realize my true nature or the same, how do I realize pure Mind? 

For starters it cannot be done with consciousness (S., vijñāna) because it dualizes (the vi prefix means in two parts).  It takes the one, i.e., the original one, and splits it into two sides, usually, subject and object.  As a result of this splitting, the adept tries to be aware of pure Mind (i.e., the object).  Essentially, the adept is looking for pure Mind with a tainted, conditioned instrument (the subject).  It can’t be found this way.  Consciousness is always biased towards the conditioned; trying to see the unconditioned pure Mind as something conditioned.

In order to reach pure Mind, that is, our true nature, consciousness has to be transcended.  We have to personally merge with the original one prior to its splitting into consciousness.  So, how are ya gonna do that?

As I have said a number of times before, one has to go to their wits’ end thus reaching the limitation of consciousness itself. (In the KJV version of the Holy Bible we read in Psalms 107: 27. “They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wits’ end.”).

The real story of Zen is about bringing the adept to their wits’ end where consciousness cannot grab hold of anything.  Then some time later, something happens. A sound such as the churring of a cricket, pushes the adept into the arms of the original one before the arising of consciousness.

The beguiler of fools

The fifth aggregate consciousness is said to be the “beguiler of fools” (P., māyāyaṃ bālalāpini).  As I have pointed out before consciousness is the rebirth transmigrant which is always looking for a resting-place, for example, an embryo.  As with all the five aggregates (pañca skandha) they are said by the Buddha to be murderers.  Each aggregate is slayer of the other.  And by clinging to these aggregates we are caught up in their slaying.

"He [the uninstructed worldling] does not understand as it really is murderous form as 'murderous form' … murderous feeling as 'murderous feeling' … murderous perception as 'murderous perception' … murderous volitional formations as 'murderous volitional formats' … murderous consciousness as 'murderous consciousness’” (S. iii. 114).

The Buddha tells us that we should, instead, make a refuge for the self or ātman rather than become engaged in the mutual slaying of the aggregates which constitute our psychophysical body.  The Buddha warns us that by such an engagement or clinging one suffers for a very long time.

Most of us identify with these murderous aggregates because that is all we perceive and know.  But they are not who we are; they are not our self but we have no other choice but to believe they are us.  At the same time we can believe that with the destruction of these murderous aggregates which is death, we don’t have to worry anymore.  This is the end of suffering.  But consciousness, our beguiler, has deceived us again.  It has found another resting-place because we have never transcended consciousness where it is unable to find rest for itself.

 

Teachers need to be more like Ananda

The Buddha delivered many teachings to his followers but most often they were very brief and not unpacked.  It was left up to Ananda to provide a more detailed exposition.  Hence, Ananda gained a reputation of being able to expound the teachings of the Buddha.

I think most of us would have appreciated an Ananda because a teaching in brief can sometimes be too brief.  It is somewhat like Jōshū’s famous Mu 無 reply to the question, “Does a dog have Buddha-Nature?"  For most of us, his reply proves to be a barrier 関 that we cannot pass through.  We are left stymied. Thankfully our Ananda is Mumon Ekai (1183–1260) who put together the Mumonkan which is a collection of 48 Zen or Chan koans compiled in the early 13th century.  He explains how to approach koans.

As students of Buddhism and in particular Zen or Chan we are left pretty much in the dark most of the time as to Buddhism’s big picture.  We often don’t have an Ananda.  Even if we came across the big picture many of us would not recognize it.  When we read that someone asked Jōshū what is it like “not mistaking the Way.”  He said. "Know your mind. See into your true nature. This is, 'not mistaking the way’.”  Jōshū was right.  But what is this mind?  We read that this mind is luminous which is not the same as the mind between our ears.  This ‘luminoisty’ is something we have to personally experience or know.  It is certainly beyond our mental conceptions (here I am being an Ananda).

I think teachers need to be more like Ananda when it comes to the teaching.  It is their job to unpack the often recondite words of the Buddha and Zen masters.  For many of us it is too much.  We have jobs and families.  What we bring to the Dharma center is our faith that our teacher will be more like Ananda!

Does Buddhism deny a transmigrant?

Over these many years I have noticed a hardening of the general belief that the Buddha denied an afterlife, specifically, that after this life there is no more continuation for us.  The following I found on the Internet sums up this view. 

However the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth should be differentiated from the transmigration and reincarnation of other systems, because Buddhism denies the existence of a transmigrating permanent soul, created by a God or emanating from a Paramātmā (Supreme or Universal Soul) (Source). 

It should be obvious, however, to anyone who has read the Pali Nikayas that the Buddha was not a rebirth-denier or a reincarnation-denier; not in the same way a modern is.

So what is the reason for this entrenched position?  I am inclined to believe that most of it is do to materialism.  By this I mean that many people are under the strong conviction that the material body is really who they are.  They believe their thoughts and consciousness come from the physical brain which is an organ of the body.  When the body dies, which includes the brain—that’s it.  What possibly could survive?

When such types become interested in Buddhism they are usually just content doing meditation and practicing mindfulness because both tend to work to make their life easier.  What they don’t understand is that their consciousness survives the death of the body. 

It has never been the soul or ātman that transmigrates but, instead, consciousness which is why Buddhist meditation works on transcending the resting-places of consciousness (vijñāna-sthiti) which can only be accomplished in the 4th dhyāna.  In the Lankavatara Sutra, the Buddha says, “I enter into nirvāṇa when the vijñāna which is caused by discrimination ceases.”  And in the Pali Nikayas we come across this interesting conversation between the Buddha and Ānanda in which it should be obvious that consciousness is the transmigrant:

"If consciousness were not to come into the mother's womb, would mind-and-body develop there? 'No, Lord.’ Or if consciousness, having entered the mother's womb, were to be deflected, would mind-and-body come to birth in this life?' 'No, Lord.' 'And if the consciousness of such a tender young being, boy or girl, were thus cut off, would mind-and-body grow, develop and mature?' 'No, Lord.' 'There- fore, Ānanda , just this, namely consciousness, is the root, the cause, the origin, the condition of mind-and-body" (D. ii. 63).

Frankly, if I were a betting man, I would bet that this will not convince any Western Buddhist who is an entrenched materialist to give up their belief that there is no afterlife.  Certainly not rebirth or reincarnation.  But isn't the whole point of Buddhist meditation to transcend the resting-places of consciousness and thereby become free from further rebirth?

Consciousness has an important place in Buddhist meditation

Like something out of a science fiction film, we are trapped in a prison-like world from which even escape is only an illusion of escape; which is a necessary part of that prison-like world.  In other words, there is no real escape.  As if we were under the power of some demon-like alien race, we are forever going from one birth and death to still another birth and death while denying that we do so. 

What makes this prison work?  It is consciousness (P., viññāṇa; S., vijñāna) which literally in Pali and Sanskrit means “in two parts knowing” — a kind of mutually reinforcing mind-system in which each side influences the other while at the same time maintaining each their difference (the Buddha likens it to a magician's illusion).  We can find no way to break out of it despite our efforts.

Consciousness, for this reason, has an important place in Buddhist meditation generally known as dhyāna.  It’s goal is to overcome the subtle states (S., sthiti) of consciousness; to ferret out all of its resting-places (S., sthiti).   

The highest state of consciousness is the sphere of neither saṃjñā nor asaṃjñā.  Here saṃjñā is closer to a ‘conception’ or a ‘percept’ in the sense of an impression. Asaṃjñā is a bit more subtle. It suggests impressionlessness, i.e., a blank. Translated into more simple terms, this is a state of neither-conception nor non-conception.  According to the Buddha even this sublime state does not imply final emancipation or nirvana which is the cessation of all conceptual and empirical experience.  Only in nirvana or the unconditioned does consciousness not find a resting-place.

Few in Buddhism understand meditation this way.  The huge majority treat it as almost a ritual of sitting.  What it yields in the way of happiness I contend is from the placebo effect.  But this is not real meditation which has to overcome consciousness and reach the true ground of existence—the most fundamental essence.  Consciousness in this regard is but a mode of this fundamental essence which unfortunately leads us never other than in a circle. 

Consciousness is also the dark world of the people who live in Plato’s cave; who cannot somehow break free from their bonds and if they did, would be unable to explain what they beheld outside of the cave to those who are still prisoners in the cave.  This is not far from the Buddhist story of the turtle and the fish. Bhikkhu Bodhi tells the story:

There was once a turtle who lived in a lake with a group of fish. One day the turtle went for a walk on dry land. He was away from the lake for a few weeks. When he returned he met some of the fish. The fish asked him, "Mister turtle, hello! How are you? We have not seen you for a few weeks. Where have you been? The turtle said, "I was up on the land, I have been spending some time on dry land." The fish were a little puzzled and they said, "Up on dry land? What are you talking about? What is this dry land? Is it wet?" The turtle said "No, it is not," "Is it cool and refreshing?" "No, it is not", "Does it have waves and ripples?" "No, it does not have waves and ripples." "Can you swim in it?" "No you can't" So the fish said, "it is not wet, it is not cool, there are no waves, you can’t swim in it. So this dry land of yours must be completely non-existent, just an imaginary thing, nothing real at all." The turtle said that "Well, maybe so" and he left the fish and went for another walk on dry land.