The Zennist

Zen and the practice of dying

Zen master Bankei tells us that the corporeal body, being something created, has a birth and a death, but that the mind, which is originally the unborn Buddha-mind, does not. 

How we should approach such a mind—hopefully to see it firsthand— shouldn’t be too difficult to understand when we raise the question of what, exactly, animates this corporeal birth and death body of ours.  I guess you could even use the analogy of a radio and the invisible signal that the radio amplifies to drive home the point of the mind while being unborn nevertheless possesses a kind of animative power without which the body doesn’t function anymore.

Bankei’s unborn mind his hard to grasp for the modern mind which has not been weaned off of the brainwashing that says, “If you can’t see it or hold it, it doesn’t exist.” 

While I was going over Zen’s treatment of the matter of life and death for this blog, which is very important, I remembered Socrates’ words from the Phaedo: that philosophers truly practice dying.

As I looked into this, all that I can say is Socrates wanted to know the truth as much a Bankei did rather than illusions and impermanent phenomena that make up our life which are mere shadows.  And it follows that the best way to do this is not to indulge in the senses, our emotions and the physical desires.  In other words, to see the true world or Bankei’s unborn mind, how can a person, who is so attached to their senses and sensory objects including their physical body with its drives and sexual needs, hope to see beyond it? 

To get to where Bankei and Socrates were, we must first withdraw from the world and also withdraw from our habit of over indulging our body of birth and death.  This also requires of us a watchful mind, like that of a warrior who is watching for the enemy all the while accepting the eventual death of the carnal body but at the same time being connected with the undying this being the Buddha-mind.

Zen by consensus?

It’s just my opinion but there is too much of what I shall call “consensus knowledge” going around, otherwise known as truth by consensus.  It is really—let’s be honest—fake or pseudo knowledge.  For example, something is true because a majority of scientists say it is true without any real empirical verification relying instead upon theoretical speculations which really amounts to an elaborate persuasion argument.  A good example of this is the sun generates its energy by nuclear fusion or the human brain creates consciousness.  Before that, it was the earth is the center of the universe—a settled theory at the time. 

I could go on and on giving examples of knowledge by way of consensus.  The point is there is too much of it from science to history (don’t even get me going on history)—and people really get pissed at you when you point out the weakness of knowledge by consensus or in some examples, knowledge by the mob as was the case, by the way, with the French Reign of Terror which happened somewhere around the 1790s.  The mob was incited by fake news and reports about Louis XVI who was truly a great monarch—perhaps France’s Ashoka, Ashoka being a great and compassionate Indian emperor the Maurya Dynasty.

I see consensus knowledge sneaking its way into Zen Buddhism and Buddhism in general.  I see Buddhist writers like Stephen Batchelor trying to frame a consensus derived Buddhism (what the majority of Westerners want to believe Buddhism teaches).  The only problem is that this consensus Buddhism is not grounded upon the discourses of the Buddha.  It is almost like providing a Cliff Notes account of Mark Twain’s, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, without Jim.

In Zen, a consensus that Zen has some connection with Daoism has taken hold of the public mind.  They will not let it go.  This can lead to the phenomenon in which Zen and Buddhism are gradually separated.  They might drag in ideas such as, Zen shows the influence of Daoism or Zen was a reaction to Mahayana Buddhism.  This is meant to shift the religious intent of Zen Buddhism, trying to turn its Buddhist roots into an expression of Daoism with Buddhism mixed in, but only in an external way (I have in mind the book, The Tao of Zen).  This tactic, I hate to say, is something like stripping Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christianity of all of its saints (including their writings and icons) and having a Pat Robertson style of Christianity.  Sorry, but I see Zen being much closer to the work (śāstra), Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna, than the Dao De Jing attributed to Laozi 老子. 

When you tally up the number of Mahayana sutra references Zen masters have made, not to mention paraphrases from Mahayana sutras, one can only conclude that Zen is Mahayana Buddhism made simple for the Chinese public by very skilled Zen masters who knew their Mahayana Buddhist canon.  The consensus knowledge that Zen is just Daoism in Buddhist robes is flat wrong. 

If those who follow this blog were to go around and preach that Buddhism teaches the personal awakening to the unconditioned, would this simple teaching really be Buddhism?  The answer is, yes it would! which is why it could take on the simple shape of Zen, spreading from China, to Korea and Japan never losing much of this elegant simplicity.  Again, the consensus knowledge that the roots of Zen are Daoist is flat wrong. 

Unique among the world’s religions is Buddhism

Almost every religion gets itself entangled in words which try to clarify various doctrines which depend upon faith, faith that these doctrines stem from a direct transcendental experience.  But now the question arises, is this transcendental experience which the religious scripture describes attainable by us with the right kind of effort?  In some religions the answer is no.  Only one person in history attained this transcendental experience—there will be no more.

Certainly unique among the world’s religions is the fact that the Buddha taught those who followed him how to have his transcendental experience.  Thus, the truth of what the Buddha taught can be verified when we, personally, see ultimate reality which he saw.  Short of this, we only have our faith to guide us which is what most religions have to accept.

Again, Buddhism is unique among the world’s religions in that one’s faith can turn into realization with the right effort.  One day we hope to say, not only did I have faith in the Buddha’s teachings but one day I realized what Siddhartha realized who became the Buddha.

This is somewhat like a wealthy man selling a book on how to become rich like he did.  He started out with almost  nothing, educated himself and over time became wealthy.  It’s all in the book how to do it.  So, how many are going to become rich after they buy his book?  Most everyone or just a small number?  Most likely it is the latter.  Let’s assume that the author makes demands on the reader that are difficult.  Maybe only a few will stick with the program.  Looking at the overall results let say that maybe five percent became wealthy.  Well, this is sort of where Buddhism is coming from.  Not everyone will succeed.  Maybe a few.  But at least it offers more than just words and faith.

 

Christians and Buddhists see the same light

The goal of the Hesychast (sacred stillness) practice in the Eastern Orthodox Church is, personally, to realize through prayer the uncreated light which had been manifested to Jesus' disciples at the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor (Matthew 17:1-13).  It needs to be underscored that this is the paradigm used for this theology.  Of course, there is much more to Hesychasm than what I am presenting in this blog, such as purification, illumination and the personal experience of Theos/God as the uncreated light.

In my initial awakening of 1969 and the light of Mahayana that I personally experienced in 1976, light/prabhāsa/phos was not unknown to me.  It was blissful beyond words and such that those around me could experience and partake of it.  When I discovered that the Eastern Orthodox Church also went in this direction in what is called Hesychasm I was excited to know that Christians were into the subtleties of subtleties as I was.  I eventually taught myself how to read a little Greek and use a Greek dictionary so that I could explore some of the terminology, some of which was quite helpful in explaining Buddhism!

While it is easy to stress the differences between the Orthodox Church and Buddhism one does so without really knowing either religion as they are meant to be known which is through a realization of the transcendent.  Taking some advice from the Dalai Lama, I only want Christians to be better Christians; to look deeper into their ancient tradition and take another look at Orthodoxy.  It is well worth the trouble. 

I should mention, I have enough trouble with Zen Buddhists and Buddhists in general who seem to believe that Buddhism is religious nihilism or materialism since the Buddha denied the ātman (which he didn’t).  I have had direct experience with spiritual light, more than enough to warn such Buddhists that they've wandered off the path.  And I also believe that Christians who have experienced the uncreated light experienced the same light as Buddhists experience: “Gone is the darkness, arisen is the light, as it does for one who dwells serious, ardent and composed in the self” (Itivuttaka III, vi, x).  

The death of Metaphysics and the birth of evil

With the advent of Darwinism we can't fail but notice also the decline of metaphysics and its replacement with scientific materialism and such things as social engineering.

Metaphysics is generally about the categories of substance (self-existence or svabhāva), causality, finality and individuality, order, law, relation, space and time. It can be about what is simple and immutable in every being (i.e., ontology).  It can include the study of mysticism, consciousness or mind, rebirth, and an afterlife. 

Zen Buddhism still falls under the rubric of metaphysics that brings to the West, whether it knows it or not, a rebirth of mysticism.  This mysticism, although Asian, is the way of gnosis.   The Zennist strives to gain immediate knowledge of the absolute which is hidden within.  It is accomplished by a process of contemplation which is Zen or dhyāna in Sanskrit.  Eventually, the absolute is, suddenly, actualized which is buddhatā (the actual state of being a Buddha/awakened).

With the stripping away of the metaphysical, the spirit of mankind turns to nihilism and evil; it becomes self-destructive.  What is left to the individual is a body of animated flesh which has no value except for exploitation and pleasure.  This is the truth of scientific materialism and social engineering.

One more thought, it is odd and disconcerting about the present day culture, while it might worship at the altar of scientific materialism, striving to implement a technocracy, it secretly worships at the altar of Satanism.  In other words, it has sold its soul to the Devil like old Faust.  Need proof?  Just study Kubrick's film Eyes Wide Shut.  While on the set filming the movie, Nicole Kidman, who played Alice Harford, the wife of Dr. William Harford played by Tom Cruise, said Stanley Kubrick told her, "the world is run by pedophiles."  

 

There is seeing and then there is seeing

Bodhidharma’s fourth slogan of Zen which is, “seeing one’s nature and become Buddha,” is not in Zen to be understood as visual seeing which has an empirical basis.  Nor is it a seeing that somehow involves the activity of reason that is derived from thought itself which is an understanding.  Said another way, sensory experiences and reason, which may classify sensory experiences, prove inadequate.  They are not where Bodhidharma is coming from as regards Zen insofar as the object which the Zen adept wants to see is transcendent.  It is beyond sensory experience and reason.

Seeing as regards Zen has to do with the ‘mind’s eye’—not the carnal eye and its various objects.  The eye of the mind beholds only one thing, perfectly, (which is not a material thing) and that is the other of itself by a process of abandoning what is inadequate to it.  The final convergence of the seeing with the seen ‘nature’ is the original one a Buddhist henosis/ἕνωσις.  With mind’s seeing of the other of itself there is no duality as would be the case with consciousness or vijñāna.  The adept is now a Buddha: one who has awakened to the unconditioned Mind.

Most of us can develop this eye which is mind’s eye.  But then we have to learn to distinguish it from the carnal eye whose vision is dispersed, outwardly, as it were, looking for something of interest.  Discovering our mind’s eye which is not interested in external sensory objects takes some effort.  Nor is mind’s eye interested in various concepts or mental images.  Even the most sublime concepts are inadequate.  In my example I was focused on one thing beholding pure Mind.  I was in retreat, alone, far from the madding crowd.  I searched inwardly. I was a Buddhist detective, like the fictional Sam Spade.  I was looking for pure Mind, not the Maltese Falcon.

Becoming disheartened

In Zen Buddhism, if we stick with it long enough we soon have to accept at least on faith that there is nothing objective and conditioned to observe called ultimate reality or Buddha-nature.  But this doesn’t mean that there is no awakening realizing what is truly real and fundamental.  It just means that we can’t expect to observe ultimate reality in the same way that we might observe a tree in blossom or a Buddha statue on our shrine.  We have to give up that way of approaching Zen.  It ain’t going to work as far as becoming a Buddha.

The more this has to be accepted (and it does have to be accepted) the natural tendency of human nature is to consider giving up.  For example, after studying Zen for five years in San Francisco as a student I might have to face the fact that I can’t trust Zen.  What if zazen and reading books by Zen masters that I frankly don’t understand isn’t working out for me, what then?

And what if my intellect is turned too much to the ways of the world which I find perhaps too alluring right now?  In this regard, I have to admit to my self that my capacity for the highest intuitive and immediate insight, which Zen requires, is lacking.

It is easy to become disheartened since we are not making progress as we had hoped in the beginning.  Realizing ultimate reality is not as easy as we once believed.  A lot of work is involved that requires more than an academic attitude or doing lots of meditation and acting pious.  And what if our illustrious teacher is of no help, then what?

Becoming disheartened may not be a bad thing if we understand that our loss of enthusiasm is really a call for us to be humble in the sense of being more open to Zen’s nuances and begin to come to the conclusion as I did a long time ago that between our two ears is the territory of our search which will require of us to see or to observe pure Mind which right now we can’t see but with enough effort and dedication to the path, we can.