The Zennist

The self in the biological machine

It is not too difficult for people to understand that every phenomenal thing is momentary but never permanent for if things were permanent then how could they cease to exist?  We accept that our conditioned world is momentary and in time, all of us will die having no power to stop our death.

Yet many people seem to believe that their self is really to be found in what the Buddhist call the five aggregates, i.e., the psychophysical organism, even though the teachings of the Buddha say that this corporeal aggregation is not the real self even though many believe otherwise.

What has happened to us is that we have wrongly identified with something like a biological robot in the belief that we are this robot which is the cause of our suffering.  It’s like the Buddha is telling us that we are not this biological robot, even though we inhabit it.  It is not our real and eternal self so we have to stop desiring it as if it is who we are.

But can we kick the habit of desiring it and see the real self?  That is  difficult to answer given the Western world appears to deny a ghost (G., Geist) in the machine which is not unlike the invisible radio signal in the radio which amplifies the signal.  Many of us seem to believe there is no ghost—only an evolved biological machine that will one day die and be the end of us. Some, to put it another way, believe the biological machine makes the ghost and when the machine falls apart, we are no more.

At least for Buddhism the machine is not a problem because the idea of matter or biological matter as we understand it doesn’t exist in Buddhism.  The biological machine, in other words, is a construct of Mind and its powers of discrimination.  All phenomena, in fact, are a phenomenalization of Mind (G., Geist)—there is only Mind (cittamatra). Take Mind away and there is nothing there.  Our real self stands, independently, above this for it has found itself, not through the study of phenomena, including the biological machine, but through meditation that reveals self to itself like the sun that reveals itself and everything else.

 

 

A huge part of us is a demon

We are inhabiting a system of conditioned being called the five skandhas or in Pali the five khandhas. (They consist of physical form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness.)  As presented in the cannon, they belong to the demon Māra which the Bodhisattva (Siddhartha) fought and defeated and later became enlightened after going through the four meditations (dhyānas). 

As a matter of spiritual discovery, this really boils down to overcoming the powerful influence of our conditioned organism that we took birth in which is called ‘former karma’ (we made the bed, now we can lie in it). The pressing work before us, is to escape our predicament so we don't end up reborn in another body under the same conditions or something even worse.

A huge part of us is a demon—yes, it’s true.  Let’s put it this way: we are immediate with Māra.  The Tibetan Lamas say this demon is rooted in our primordial ignorance (avidya) which I hasten to add is always conditioned—never unconditioned.  Because of avidya we live in a world of confusion.  We can’t distinguish the conditioned (samsara) from the unconditioned (nirvana) which is our goal.

And who is helping us to stay confused and remain a demon?  Why it’s our close buddy Māra who is very good at overriding our conscience, so that lying and hypocrisy seems like a natural way of life, even though it is not natural, and needs to be corrected—which is what Buddhist training is all about!

Very good Buddhist teachers are good at showing us our demon nature; who make it obvious to us that we are not the good and holy person we imagined that we were.  And this is troubling for a lot of beginners who don't like to be admonished, who are frankly too immature at this point in their lives to be serious Buddhists.  About all they can do is seated meditation, take their meds to calm the demon down, and maybe join a Buddhist chat room.

 

Real meditation, the kind the Buddha taught

There is nothing unique about meditation in Zen Buddhism (P., jhāna; S., dhāyna).  In fact, it is taught in all Buddhist traditions and has been that way for a very long time.  Perhaps the only new twist, it is being taught to lay people who haven’t a clue as to what it really entails.  The meditation they practice has only a remedial purpose.  It’s deeper purpose, seldom taught to lay people, is simply to discover who the “breather is” (this would be the practice of breath meditation) or to discover the source and substance of mentation (this can only occur with the sudden cessation of mentation or 無念).

This is where meditation usually ends up these days—not advanced at all.  A kind of lay person’s Zen practice that goes no further.  It even applies these days to monks and nuns who are more serious than a lay person.   

For those who wish to venture deeper into the heart of Zen Buddhism—certainly not with a lay person’s shallowness—without the requisite awakening or kenshō, they are entering a world which cannot be fully unpacked by the intellect which can extend all the way to a philosophical understanding of Zen diving, intellectually, into the world of metaphysics. 

This is good for a while.  Hopefully, not too long.  At some point, the adept realizes that ‘talking the talk’ is not enough.  It’s too superficial.  One also has to ‘walk the walk’ which means actually having kenshō (we westerners love to ‘talk the talk’—entering into the world of metaphysics without ever awakening). 

At some point we have to discover that Buddhism, as far as meditation goes, demands of us that we achieve gnosis of the absolute, i.e., asaṃskṛta (the unconditioned) which is the very substance of things (dharmā) which are mere constructs of the absolute, itself.  This is what Zen is demanding too, but through the world of Chinese culture.

It is here that the lay person’s idea of meditation proves awkward and inadequate.  Real meditation, the kind the Buddha taught consists of setting aside all conditionality (saṃskṛta) so that only the unconditioned remains—which is what we really are.  All along, the conditioned world was never other than antithetical to us, i.e., marked by direct opposition to us in the form of suffering and disharmony.  Even our human body proved antithetical (old age and death).  To overcome this is where the real meditation is required—not the zendo type.

 

So what is so unique about Zen?

Zen Buddhism is coming to the where Yoga is right now, which is not the teachings of the sage Patanjali but really Hatha Yoga.  Haṭha in Sanskrit means, violence or force so Hatha Yoga is really about holding, by force, difficult and painful postures.  This doesn’t have anything to do with the Yoga of Patanjali. 

Likewise, today’s Zen seems to be putting an end to itself by its insistence on seated meditation which is taught in all schools of Buddhism going back to the time of the Buddha.  This only helps to erase the uniqueness of Zen.

So what is so unique about Zen as compared with other Buddhist traditions?

From what I can see it is a simpler overview of Buddhism, cutting to the chase, so to speak.  It holds out Siddhartha’s awakening as its ultimate aim.  According to the Lalitavistara Sutra, at the moment of dawn when the morning star arose, the Bodhisattva (Siddhartha) became a Buddha, teacher of gods and men.

Zen understands that awakening is sudden and direct; there is no gradual awakening.  More precisely, awakening occurs when our thoughts suddenly stop which then reveals Mind from which our thoughts arise. 

For Zen, Mind, as such, is a luminous vitality (prabhāsvara) which goes beyond the reach of subject and object knowing or vijñāna (consciousness).  All conditioned things originate from Mind including vijñāna, but Mind is increate and unconditioned.

Zen is always driving its students to awakening for only by awakening can one really understand the meaning of Buddhist subjects like the four noble truths, dependent origination, emptiness, and the noble eight-fold path and much more.  Without awakening we are just making educated guesses almost deluding ourselves into believing we understand what the Buddha understood.

Zen also understands that the thought producing intellect gets in our way so that we cannot enter the Dharma gate or the same, the no-gate 無門.  Thought in any form such as Mu 無 becomes a barrier 関 preventing us from entering the Dharma gate.  It is only by no-thought 無念, that is, the sudden stopping of thought (all mentation in other words) that we finally behold Mind by entering the Dharma gate, seeing what Siddhartha saw under the Bodhi-tree.

To go by way of the intellect

According to Zen master Dahui, the Buddha said,

"The Tathagata uses all sorts of similes to explain all kinds of things, but there is no simile that can explain this Dharma. Why? Because the road of intellectual knowledge is cut off: (the Dharma) is inconceivable."

To go by way of the intellect in trying to see our true nature or the same, to achieve kenshō, won’t work.  The intellect can, with some difficulty, help us to turn in the right direction—but getting there?  It is not the proper means.  Only intuition is. 

Most students, I dare say, don’t know when they are using the intellect and that it actually obstructs the Path insofar as the Path is beyond thoughts and concepts which are the tools of the intellect.  In other words, how can students hope to arrive at the state of inconceivable great liberation, which is unconditioned, by looking for it through the prism of the conditioned such as thoughts and concepts?  They can’t!

This is why the Buddha and the patriarchs were always admonishing their students for going the intellectual route, seemingly, unaware that they were doing this.  When I began Zen I had no idea of how intellectual I was, never failing to have some idea or concept of what Zen was about but then finding out later I was all wrong.

Today things are much worse.  Zen centers have turned more or less into out-patient clinics which means people with mental issues cannot take the Path until they get normalized. Another problem, is the over reliance on seated meditation which is often trying to compensate for not understanding that seeing our true nature (inconceivable great liberation) is an intuition—very sudden—but very, very profound.  The demands of intuition are different than for sitting or using the intellect.

Our thoughts suddenly coming to a halt

All the everyday thoughts we have are not a substance or essence. Thought is a mode of Mind, Mind being unthinkable but, nevertheless, the source and substance of thoughts. For Zen, thought then cannot know Mind. Yes, it can point to Mind, and does so in Zen literature, but thought cannot go there. To arrive at Mind (satori = Zen gnosis), we must go to where there is no arising of thought insofar as Mind is non-arising and totally invisible.

Sound weird?  It’s not if you begin with the One Mind, the primary source which is unconditioned and non-arising. 

Now, don’t try to imagine the One Mind.  It won’t work no matter how much you try.  What you’ve imagined is not the One Mind.  At best it is a copy or a simulacrum which is purely guesswork on your part—you could be way off and most likely are.

The practice that works in Zen to realize Mind (also the One Mind) depends upon whether or not we, as practitioners, are successful with our thoughts, suddenly, coming to a halt thus to reveal Mind.  But this cannot be forced either.  The will doesn’t work here.  Satori comes through direct intuition which is different than using the will.

When we, personally, behold Mind, this is called the transmission of the light denglu/燈錄.  It is a spiritual baptism.  From our thoughts to every part of our body, the blissful light now dominates us.  It is protector and lord (nātha).

The real crown jewel of Buddhism

Do most Buddhists and for that matter Zen Buddhists, if at all, discuss or even mention the fact that Mara is the five aggregates (P., khandha; S., skandha), who is the equivalent of the Buddhist devil?  Let me also say that Mara is an important part of Buddhism.  We can learn a lot about what Buddhism is and is not by studying Mara. 

Rarely, in Buddhist publications have I seen Mara and what he is all about mentioned.  In Walpola Rahula’s book, What the Buddha Taught there are a lot of references to the five aggregates but not a single one, from what I can see, telling the reader that these five aggregates are also Mara. 

"At Sāvatthī. Seated to one side, Venerable Rādha said to the Buddha: “Sir, they speak of this thing called ‘Māra’. How is Māra defined?” “Rādha, form is Māra, feeling is Māra, perception is Māra, choices are Māra, consciousness is Māra. Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. Being disillusioned, desire fades away. When desire fades away they’re freed. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed. They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence’” (Mārasutta, S. iii. 195).

On the part of Walpola Rahula, is this just a mere scholarly oversight — an accident?  No, not if you are writing a serious book that is to have any credibility. 

However, if you can manage to sneak it by, i.e., not mention that Mara is the five aggregates for what reason might someone like Rahula do this?  I have one likely answer.  It is to maintain the false belief that not-self is the crown jewel of Buddhism and that self or ātman was rejected by the Buddha. 

However, simple logic should tell us that if, in fact, the aggregates are Mara—which they are—and these aggregates are also not the self—which they are—which in Pali and Sanskrit would be, respectively, anattā and anātman, then we have a major problem with the crown jewel.  It’s a fake.  Not only does the not-self belong to the five aggregates but by implication it belongs to Mara. Yes, the not-self is Mara!

Let’s be honest, the Buddha never taught a not-self or no-self doctrine.  He only taught us to reject it, that is, abandon desire for whatever is not the self (S. iii. 178).  But don't you think it strange or at least odd that so many people who are curious about Buddhism may have learned a false doctrine?  Was this just a coincidence in which there is no apparent concerted effort to distort the Buddha's teaching? And when we get to the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra which states, clearly, a Buddhist Ātman doctrine, why has it been such a stumbling block for many Westerners?

The simplest answer for now is that there has been a gross misinterpretation by Buddhist monks who sold their misinterpretation to western scholars but really have no leg to stand on when you plug Mara into the equation and the fact that the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness are Mara, which by implication means that Mara is also not [the] self or anātman.  This surely cannot be Buddhism's crown jewel.  So what is the real crown jewel?  It is the attainment of the unconditioned or nirvana by the very self (P., paccatta; S., pratyātman).

 

On knowing your true mind

Thomas Cleary has included a number of useful teachings in his book Teachings of Zen.  The tendency with any book is to read it then forget a lot of its contents.  When reading about Zen Buddhism we miss a lot even if we go through the book or a discourse a number of times.

For the last week I have been wondering to myself that if I were asked to recommend one teaching from a Zen master, which one would it be?  Based on my own enlightening experience it would have to be this teaching by Yuan-hsien (1618–1697).

There are not many arts to Zen study; it just requires knowing your own true mind. Now observe that within this body the physical elements combine temporarily, daily heading to extinction: where is the true mind?

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?"

Ignoring a systematic study of the Buddha’s teaching

The danger that Zen faces is the over reliance on seated meditation ignoring a systematic study of the Buddha’s teaching.  On this blog, I have endeavored to show the reader over the years what the goal of Buddhism is and how it might be reached.  Making this difficult, there is a lot of literature in Zen and Buddhism just like with any religion, but the bulk of it is not systematic.  There are certainly a lot of parts in Buddhism but they are not brought into a system. 

To illustrate the problem, let us think of the human body as a complex system where everything is interrelated. But if we were to spend our time just looking at the heart, or just one aspect of it, this would not be looking at the body systematically.

Much that is necessary to understand the Buddha’s enlightenment is missed in modern Zen because of Zen’s unsystematic approach just relying mainly on seated meditation to save the day.  Some of this attitude is to be expected because authentic enlightenment is a rare event in Zen these days and all of Buddhism for that matter.  It is much easier and more practical to stick with basic seated meditation.

But in my own investigations of Buddhism I have found the elegant simple which means Buddhism is beautiful and easily understood.  It’s like looking at Mt. Ritter just outside Yosemite's southeast boundary (I remember this!). What is difficult is the climb—always the climb!  If we are to get to that moment whereby Siddhartha awakened and became a Buddha—we have to climb!  Buddhism is hard, subtle work.  It takes courage, also.  It’s not for people who just want to learn a few coping skills.

What the entire system of Buddhism rests upon is awakening to the unconditioned (asaṃskṛta) and the implications that follow and interrelate with this understanding. Nor is there any difficulty with understanding what the unconditioned is.  No arising is seen, no vanishing is seen, and no alteration while it persists is seen.  

What obstructs this awakening and is contrary to it is the conditioned (saṃskṛta). As for the conditioned, we are in it.  The psychophysical organism, i.e., the five aggregates are all conditioned and so is this world we live in because an arising is seen and a vanishing is seen and its alteration while it persists is seen.  We can infer from this that we have to set aside the conditioned by a kind  of via negativa process which is sudden in the example of a profound intuition. Here is Sirimā recalling his awakening.

“When I heard (of) the Deathless place, the unconditioned, the Teaching of the Tathagata, the Unrivalled One, I was well and highly restrained in precepts, firm in the Dhamma taught by the Buddha, the most excellent of men. When I know the dustless place, the unconditioned, taught by the Tathagata, the Unrivalled One, I right there reached the calm [supermundane]. That same highest assurance was mine" (trans. Peter Masefield Vimānavatthu 16).

There is a simplicity to Sirimā's awakening.  To be sure, it is unconditioned which transcends the conditioned.  But it took an amazing amount of effort on his part.  At the beginning when I brought up the term "systematic" it was not meant to exclude the elegant simple.  The only complexity in Buddhism is our deluded thinking which always wants to see the unconditioned under the artifical light of the conditioned.  And thus it follows that we never really transcend the conditioned, that is, samsara.

A higher non-discursive reality

Stupidity in Buddhism is adhering to an intellectual answer about enlightenment which suggests that the limitations of the intellect are not well understood if at all.  But even worse is adhering to the intellect convinced that there is no real enlightenment beyond intellectual knowledge.

To adhere to an intellectual answer concerning Buddhism or to use the intellect to gain wisdom (prajñā) is to adhere to a certain kind of intellectualism which is the belief that knowledge is derived from discursive reason.  But discursive reason is only open or identified with a certain level of reality which is relative to the empirical self which attends to sense-perception looking outward upon a conditioned world. 

However, there is a higher non-discursive reality, but owing to the imperfect operations of discursive reason, which is connected with the empirical self, this self has no interest or preference for such a higher reality.  It is like a child who could not care less about the words of the Buddha who, instead, takes great delight in playing with a toy it finds.

This present culture panders to the empirical self which employs discursive reason.  Those who use this kind of reason best are our anointed experts.  They pour out histories, elaborate philosophies, and ideologies, build logical edifices, etc., all of which are part of the intellectualism just mentioned.  But I dare say not one has managed to go deeper and look to the very sources of their thoughts and concepts which swirl around in their heads.  If they decide to, they are met with something like an impenetrable nothingness that they cannot enter.  All they actually know is what they observe continually arising from it which is never other than conditioned.

This is where I stop today’s blog.  It is also the place where Buddhism actually begins. It’s a journey in which we have to turn around and face this seemingly impenetrable void.