The Zennist

The storehouse of consciousness II

I originally called this Venn Zen.  For a long time I had been toying with this image.  I believed I could reduce
the storehouse of consciousness (ālayavijñāna) and the tathāgata embryo (tathāgatagarbha) down to something more simple but something that if you begin to look into it can become very complicated.

The outer circle or ring is meant to symbolize the absolute.  We could also call  it Mind, the One Mind, the Universal Mind and many other names.  It can also be thought of as a womb or garbha suggesting an interior which contains the vijñāna symbolized by the two intersecting circles.

Vijñāna is the intersecting circles of subject and object knowing which are never complete or perfect.  Where the two circles intersect is the potential absolute or the Buddha-nature or even the embryo of the tathāgata.  The intersection can be quite small (an evil person) or quite large (a god or deva).  

By means of meditation the intersection of the two circles can be made to increase in which the extreme differences between subject and object start to become eroded.

During sudden enlightenment or satori the circles merge, perfectly.  The absolute is realized which means the former subject and object differences are now seen to be illusory, just like the rising and fallen of waves is still only water.

The hard truth of Zen practice is actually to merge the subject and object together which is the only way the absolute can be realized (belief is not enough according to the Buddha).  Hitherto, the differences were a product of Mind's reflection into itself in which it did not recognized itself.

The storehouse of consciousness I

Without a doubt the ālayavijñāna, sometimes translated as the storehouse (ālaya) of consciousness (vijñāna), is somewhat of a mystery in later Buddhism.  We are all familiar with the word himalaya (S., himālaya) meaning abode of snow.  In Pali, ālayo means about the same thing as it does in Sanskrit except there is added, longing, desire, attachment and lust.

The most important part of this specialized word is vijñāna which is often translated with the English word ‘consciousness’ although vijñāna means much more which I translate as subject-object knowing, “vi” meaning “in two parts” while “jñāna” means “knowing.”

Vijñāna is the reality we are stuck in.  It has, it appears, almost total dominion over us.  Vijñāna is always conditioning and crafting itself.  It’s always getting reborn, too.  It can become a hell born being or a god (deva).  As we might expect, the subject doesn't fully accord with the object and the object doesn't fully accord with the subject (the less the accord the more suffering). 

There is a endless restless and change with the vijñāna.  Because of this, we never attain insight into true reality.  We always fall short of it.  We only succeed when, so to speak, the pure subject meets the pure object at which point Mind itself (cittamātra) is revealed for the first time.  In this state we realize the true basis of vijñāna has always been Mind, Mind that has been reflecting into itself, but remains ever ignorant (avidya) of itself.  From the very beginning, there has been Mind-only (cittamātra), plurality comes through vijñāna being māyā which is an illusion, a trick as in some kind of magic.  We are being, more or less, constantly deceived by our self.

The real purpose of meditation is to transcend vijñāna, that is, to realize Mind itself, Mind that by reflecting into itself knows itself instead of not knowing itself.  Truth be told, the twelve links of conditioned origination have always been dependent on Mind.

Digging the grave of Star Wars

I saw the film Star Wars by George Lucas, back in 1977 when it first came out.  What impressed me most about it was the so-called Force, a mystical energy field that could be thought of as the hidden essence behind all religions.  But there was, in addition, a “dark side” which was antithetical to the Force, although in some respects those who had become truely one with the Force had great power over those who relied on the dark side.

Both in Buddhism and Christianity there is a dark side which is a major part of these religions.  In Buddhism it is Māra, the evil one.  In Christianity it is Satan.  Māra has dominion over the psychophysical organism, namely, the five aggregates of physical form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness.  In the Māra Sutta we find this:

"When there is form, Radha, there might be Mara, or the killer, or the one who is killed.  Therefore, Radha, see form as Mara, see it as the killer, see it as the one who is killed.  See it as a disease, as a tumor, as a dart, as misery, as really misery.  Those who see it thus see rightly.  When there if feeling ... When there is perception ... When there are volitional formations ... When there is consciousness, Radha, there might be Mara, or the killer, or the one who is killed” (S.iii.189).

In Christianity, which is somewhat different, man is totally flesh because he is a fallen being under the dominion of Satan who, like Māra, is a corrupting power in us that shouldn't be in our body but nevertheless is.  The presence of Satan is full of lusts which is to say, the lusts are of the flesh not of the spirit or the animative principle.  As long as we hanker after the flesh we are subject to Satan’s power.  In this body of flesh there is only sin and death which is the same with Buddhism’s five aggregates.

Both Buddhism and Christianity understand their evil ones, Māra and Satan, to have the power to possess us but who have no power over those who are truly awakened so that in the end, evil is transcended.

In Star Wars, the dark side seeks dominion over the universe.  It has already saturated and mingled with the Force so as to weaken the effectiveness of the Force if not to completely conceal it in darkness.  It is up to the Jedi Knights who represented the light side of the Force, to keep those of the dark side in check.

Overall I was intrigued by George Lucas’ concept of the Force.  But from my own spiritual experiences, much more could have been done with the Force and the struggle between the light and dark sides of the Force in subsequent films.  Sadly, Mr. Lucas sold the Star Wars franchise in 2012 to Disney who is already digging the grave of Star Wars together with its wonderful concept of the Force.  It appears like the dark side has finally won out—but not entirely.  There is something going on—a real war against the dark side.  The future of our world is in a precarious state right now. Un uestionably, something is going on q.

We are dealing with spirit or Mind—not matter

Buddhism as a religion is not so much about the divine or learning about it as it is about liberating human beings from samsara which rests upon the belief that after this life there will be another life which might be better or worse than this life depending upon our moral and spiritual intentions in this life.  The proof for this, if we can call it that, is since we have been born once already (which is quite obvious) then the absolute certainty we will not be reborn again is not a hundred percent.  And we need a hundred percent to be sure.

In this respect, Buddhism is not a simple religion about the divine which generally involves manipulating human beings to think, feel, and act in ways that seem to be good for the individual and the society they live in.  And as history shows us, religion is sometimes good for the business of adaptation, i.e., Darwinian fitness—but I dare say Buddhism would be much better.

The atheists are satisfied to roll the dice and take their chances with their belief that when you are dead, that’s it.  No rebirth; no reincarnation.  The Judeo-Christian religion is betting on an afterlife with God, in fact few people know that Judaism does, as a matter of fact, believe in reincarnation. 

As we might expect, if Buddhism receives any criticism for accepting rebirth as a fact, it comes from atheists who are practicing Buddhism.  It’s not that they have a hundred percent proof that there is no afterlife, they just say that since the Buddha denied a soul or ātman there is nothing that is reborn.  But they are wrong on both counts as I have tried to show in many of these blogs.  The are wrong about the ātman and that there is no transmigrant that fares on and continues (sandhāvat saṃsarati) which is consciousness.

The atheists who are practicing Buddhism appear to be cut from the same cloth as the neuroscientists who have a difficult time giving up their materialist view (a settled theory for them) that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.  Have enough brain cells and out pops consciousness.

There is no way to end this dispute which has been going on even before the Buddha appeared in the world. 

While those in neuroscience believe they have proven there is no such thing as life after death and that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain, the physical, real world which they depend upon, is not so physical as to be a real ‘something’. 

Reality is more like nothing that can create the illusion of something.  It satisfies the law or rule that something cannot suddenly spring out of nothing since this ‘something’ doesn’t really exist insofar as it is an illusion.  But of course we understand this, because we are dealing with spirit or Mind—not matter. 

Truth be told, matter, including biological matter and brains is something but something that can only be illusory which comes from the real which is Mind that is “no thing” (i.e., not something).  Hence, an afterlife is real enough even though it is an illusion stemming from the real, which is Mind which is not something.

This brings us to the biggest advance in human thought and science which is the notion of illusion or in Sanskrit, Māyā.  It was the Buddha who taught us how to exercise control over illusion; not falling prey to lives of suffering in repeated rebirths.

As he gradually goes up the higher stages, he will realise a state of Samadhi where he comes to the understanding that the triple world is Mind itself. The Samadhi he attains is called Māyā-like. He will further free himself from all images, perfect his knowledge, and realise that things are unborn, and entering upon the Samadhi called Vajravimbopama, will obtain the Buddha- body. — Lankavatara Sutra

 

Turning the light to shine back

What is fundamental in us is not what we observe with our mind’s eye.  This includes our primary and secondary emotions.  It even includes consciousness.  Nothing here is fundamental.  What is strange is that we cannot get behind the “mind’s eye” while it seems to be able to stand before phenomena and observe.

It is somewhat like we are only able to observe in one direction while the observer cannot be observed.  We don’t have a mirror whereby the observer can be observed. 

Zen sometimes speaks of “turning the light to shine back” 回光返照.  This term, unfortunately, is not as unpacked as we would like it to be.  What do we do with it?  I can only speak from experience, and suggest that the way to turn this light back is to realize pure Mind.  A singleness is reached when thought (which is interference of Mind) suddenly halts.  In an instant, Mind (our mind’s eye) is revealed.  The light then comes rolling in big time.  The light has, in other words, just been turned around.  Mind has met itself but not with any distinguishing marks, which would be the case with consciousness.  We have just been introduced to the absolute.  There is no part of us that was not bathed in this light.

Turning the light to shine back is certainly a mystical accomplishment and falls under the category of the paranormal.  Normally, in our ignorance there is no light and only phenomena.  When there is a turning back we see, firsthand, that phenomena are made of light, something like waves are made of water.  One more word, it is not enough to believe this.  It has to be personally realized. 

Buddhism based upon assumptions

The Buddha was a daring sage.  He offered no theory like is common today; theories which are speculative and for the most part have not been actually proven but, instead, are invested with an image which makes them seem true. 

The Buddha’s entire teaching is based on his personal awakening.  By means of it he came to know how suffering arises and how we are reborn from one life to the next, seemingly, never to escape the vicious circle of rebirth.  He spent his lifetime teaching the many how to awaken and by awakening escape, winning immortality.

How people today look at the Buddha’s teachings is almost never with an open mind.  In fact, much of what we know about Buddhism is not Buddhism but stems from the assumption of a writer, scholar or journalist all of whom are in one degree or another committed to certain presuppositions which are not Buddhist. 

These people say things, for example, that are patently false such as the Buddha denied the self or ātman—so therefore nothing transmigrates.  (It is consciousness that transmigrates instead of the ātman.)  Or the Buddha rejected the ātman of the Hindus.  Another problematic statement which I shall clear up shortly.  Such people are more interested in what the Buddha did not say than what he said!

The biggest misunderstanding is, as we might have guessed, over whether or not the Buddha rejected the Hindu atman.  But the Buddha, in fact, tells us what the ātman-view of the Brahmins was as he understood it at the time.  It’s quite clear and concise.

“At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who regard anything as self in various ways all regard as self the five aggregates subject to clinging, or a certain one among them” (SN 22:47).

In other words, Brahmins regard material form as the ātman.  They regard feelings as the ātman; perception as the ātman, volitional formations as the ātman; and finally, Brahmins regard consciousness as the ātman.

How did the Buddha counter their particular view?  He basically said that each one of these five aggregates is not the self or in Sanskrit, anātman.  He said other things like the aggregates are suffering and impermanent.  Or they are a disaster, not a refuge.  They are empty, vain, and void just to name a few more of the negative attributes.  So the Buddha is lambasting the aggregates which the Brahmins believe to be the ātman! 

What we can derive from this is that his ātman is not like that of the Brahmins insofar as it has nothing to do with the five aggregates.  So how did the Buddha understand the ātman (Pali, attā)?

“At Savatthi.  Dwell Monks with the self as an island (attā-dīpā) with the self as refuge, with no other refuge; with the Dharma as an island, with the Dharma as a refuge, with no other refuge.  When you dwell with the self as an island, with the self as refuge, with no other refuge; with the Dharma as refuge and no other refuge, the origin should be investigated” (SN 22:43).

I am sorry to say this but most people who take up the study of Buddhism are asleep, resting in the arms of nihilism/materialism who believe that Lord Buddha is telling them, “When you die, that’s the end of suffering.  Until that glorious moment of your dying arrives, bear your suffering through doing meditation, and do a lot of virtue signaling.”

Don't depend on a conceptual understanding of koans

The rise of the literati class in an advanced society like China’s Song dynasty, a kind of gentry class, had a powerful influence on Chinese culture.  This class was made up of individuals who were either preparing to pass or had already passed the civil service examinations.  Such individuals were not without a keen love of the arts; who sometimes became painters and poets of high repute.  One might even characterize the Chinese literati as scholar-artists who found great value in aesthetics and aesthetical experiences.

Naturally, the literati were drawn to Buddhism, especially, Chan (J., Zen) which, on the surface, appeared to offer such experiences.

It is not easy to admit that the arts tend to be more of an intellectual endeavor than spiritual.  The insight of a poet, for example, often doesn’t go beyond the reaches of their imagination and practical wisdom gained through various difficulties and struggles.  Buddhism goes much deeper.  Aesthetical experiences are not its goal although Buddhism can be presented artistically and is not without aesthetical appeal.  Still, its overarching aim is to disclose the transcendent in man that he may know it, personally.    

It is from the twisting together of the literati mind and the mind of Chan Buddhism that the koans became popular, especially with the literati.  Soon an alliance grew with the literati but also an inherent danger since one of the core slogans of Chan is, “do not depend on written words.” 

The task of Chan in the Song, with it growing popularity, became how to use the written words to destroy dependence on written words and thereby also destroy reliance on the intellect which skirts gnosis of one’s inherent nature.  The koan became like bait for those who habitually conceptualized koans thus turning the study of koans into merely a literary activity.  The outcome, naturally, is a conceptual interpretation, not gnosis.  This eventually leads to a loss of faith when using the intellectual approach.

As I see the place of the koan in Chan Buddhism during the Song, its main purpose was to bring the intellect into great doubt—the tool the literati used most in their study of koans.  The intellect is the very same tool we moderns use when trying to decipher the koan failing every time to realize that any conceptual interpretation of a koan is really a misunderstanding.  There is only one key that unlocks these seemingly different koan doors and that is awakening or satori.

 

The identity-view problem

These days, sakkāya—diṭṭhi is often translated as “identity-view” which pertains to mistakenly identifying our self or ātman with any of the conditioned (and corrupt) five aggregates such as physical form, feeling, perception, volition (i.e., choice) and consciousness.  We see it evident in this passage to give an example.

"Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling [puthujjano] … regards form as self … feeling as self … perception as self … volitional formations as self … consciousness as self … or self as in consciousness. This, bhikkhus, is called the way leading to the origination of identity [sakkāya]. When it is said, ‘The way leading to the origination of identity,’ the meaning here is this: a way of regarding things that leads to the origination of suffering” (SN 22:44).

Such passages like these in for us that the average person (puthujjana) regards his or her temporal body as primary (this is all I got!).  In such a deluded state, form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness are misjudged and wrongly identified with as being who I am. 

The Buddha saw the nub of the problem, not with our self or the ātman but, mistakingly, identifying our self with what was not our self, namely, the five aggregates or in Pali, khandhas which, as a result of mis-identification, keeps us in the stream of samsara (the cycles of birth and death).  In the following passage from the Paṭipadā Sutta (The Way Discourse) we see a clear-cut disassociation with the five aggregates which is the true way.

“And what, bhikkhus, is the way leading to the cessation [nirodha] of identity [sakkāya]?  Here, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple … does not regard form as self … nor feeling as self … nor perception as self … nor volitional formations as self … nor consciousness as self … nor self as in consciousness. This, bhikkhus, is called the way leading to the cessation of identity. When it is said, ‘The way leading to the cessation of identity,’ the meaning here is this: a way of regarding things that leads to the cessation of suffering” (SN 22:44).

And one more from the Mahāpuṇṇama Sutta:

“But, venerable sir, how does identity view not come to be?” “Here, bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple, who has regard for noble ones and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, who has regard for true men and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, does not regard material form as self, or self as possessed of material form, or material form as in self, or self as in material form. He does not regard feeling as self…perception as self…formations as self…consciousness as self, or self as possessed of consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. That is how identity view does not come to be”(M. iii. 18).

This is not the difficult to understand, yet Buddhism’s many scholars and Buddhist practitioners, including the curious public, only understand the Buddha to teach, there is no self.  They conveniently overlook many other passages which, in regard to the previously mentioned five aggregates, say of each aggregate: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.  Does this imply a self?  Yes, a self not identified with the five aggregates.  What else would wrongly identify then correcting, not identify?  According to the Dhammapada (165), "Purity and impurity belong to the very self [paccattaṁ]."

 

Banned by Reddit

On /r/Buddhism the following was banned in such a way that it could not be seen by the public that is posting on various Buddhist subjects.  This, evidently, is not Buddhism!

Nirvana transcends our all too human body and its world which in the final analysis is suffering. We find that the truth of our human bodily life is death. After death the body—now a corpse—is no longer anything but a mass incapable of producing those former motions, the sum total of which constituted our life. But what exactly animated the body? And where is it now since the corpse is motionless? To cut to the chase, Siddhartha discovered what animated the body which is deathless. On the same track, he also discovered the important role of desiring the wrong things and how this causes us to become embodied having, as a consequence, to experience pain.

This passage needs editing.  But I have elected to post it in its raw form.  Anyone who follows The Zennist has some idea where I am coming from and what the Buddha actually taught vs what the modern Buddhist public imagines he taught.  In my own defense, I have no problem getting round pegs into round holes, but the modern Buddhist still insists that its square pegs, with some force, can be put into the round holes. 

Oh, before I forget, I would guess that about 80 percent of the people who post on /r/Buddhism are close to being hardcore materialists which means they don't believe in rebirth.  This does not bode well for Buddhism or Zen. :(

Beings really don't have a Buddha-nature

I have met a few Buddhists who think that because the Buddha said that all beings have the Buddha-nature they must already be Buddhas!  But what the Buddha really meant is that we have the potential to become Buddhas just like milk from a cow has the potential to become butter or cheese. 

If people saw in fresh cow’s milk cheese, for example, they would be deluded.  There is no cheese in milk.  The milk has to go through a certain kind of process in order for it to become cheese.  This the Buddha explains in a number of similes in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra about the way milk becomes cream or ghee when properly processed.  Likewise, the Buddha-nature is apprehended by sentient beings only though the fulfillment of certain conditions.  It is not automatically already present.

People who firmly believe they are already Buddhas because they have read somewhere that all beings have the Buddha-nature are without a doubt deluded.  I thought of this analogy to describe these kind of people since I practiced Dharma in the Motherlode area of California.

"There is man who owns a large tract of land. It is said that this land contains much gold. But this man has done nothing to actually obtain this gold. Still, he tells everyone that his land is gold. He sees it everywhere. People laugh at him and say behind his back, "This fool does not know what real gold is even though underneath his land there is an abundance of gold."

The Buddha-nature is altogether different from the nature of conditioned things found in this conditioned world.  It has nothing to do with the conditioned five skandhas of physical form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness, yet it is not apart from these aggregates insofar as they are empty configurations of it having no unique nature of their own other than name and form.

I have met people who are of the opinion that Buddhism is just a matter of reading a few books and can be mastered in a couple of months.  These same people get either irritated or hostile when I tell them their opinions about Buddhism, especially, Buddha-nature, are wrong.

I hate to say this, but these days it is difficult to find a good teacher or a good student.