Zen requires an intuitionist

When we go in search of a teacher we make a lot of assumptions about ourself that we are unaware of.  One such assumption is that we are smart enough to understand Zen Buddhism.  But the question we should ask ourself, is it true that we are smart enough?  What if we are not?  What if Zen works only for those who have an intuitive mind and doesn’t work for those with analytical minds?

Let’s be honest.  Zen requires an intuitionist, that is, a person who can see the forest for the trees, so to speak; who also understands the context of what is said and done rather than to straightaway abstract and deconstruct what is before it, blind as to the inherent context being deconstructed. 

The belief  that we can read and understand Zen Buddhism by, first, blindly wresting it out of its ancient hidden context so as to deconstruct it; then reconstruct it in a way that we would like to understand it, is an absurd methodology to say the least.  But I dare say, this is where we are today.

To put it bluntly, the analyzers—not the intuitionists—have hijacked Zen and may have ruined it.  They fail to see that Zen calls for intuitional problem solving skills not analytical problem solving skills which begin by a process of fracturing and fragmenting the text before it, which then becomes textual rubble.  But by doing this, the analyzers have not advance one inch closer to the mysterious context of Zen. 

This is just the opposite of the intuitive approach which first has to get the adept out of their analyzer mentality.  The intuitive approach of Zen first tackles the koan by getting the adept to first intuit, directly, their true nature which underpins the mysterious context of Zen that every beginner faces.  The beginner first encounters this when they read different koans.  While every koan seems different, they are essentially the same.  In successfully intuiting the koan, the adept intuits what the Buddha and the Zen masters intuited.  This is not the end of Zen but the beginning.  It is sudden enlightenment 頓悟 followed by “long cultivation of the sacred embryo” (shōtai chōyō 聖胎長養).

 The target of the intuiting process, that every koan contains, is known by the term huatou 話頭 which is the adept’s mind before a single thought arises.  Other names for the huatou  are “the real substance of the universe” or the “first principle.”  Speaking of intuitional problem solving skills which are non-analytical, Zen master Dahui said:

"If you want to take the direct-and-quick path to comprehension, you must obtain the explosive shattering of this single thought—then you will bring samsara to an end. That’s called “awakening.” But you absolutely must not maintain your mind in a state of waiting for this shattering. If you maintain your mind in the state of [waiting for] shattering, then the time of shattering will never come in an eternity of aeons. Just take the mind of false thought and upside-down viewpoints, the mind of reflection and discrimination, the mind that loves living and hates death, the mind of knowing-seeing and understanding, the mind that takes joy in stillness and loathes noisiness— and all-at-once lay them aside! Precisely in the state where you have laid them aside, keep an eye on the huatou: A monk asked Zhaozhou: “Does even a dog have buddha-nature?” Zhou said: “Wu 無.” This one word [Wu 無] is a weapon to dampen down a lot of bad knowing and bad awareness" (The Letters of Chan Master Dahui Pujue by Jeffrey Broughton).

What is being shattered is the adept’s use of their analytical problem solving skills which has pinned its hopes on deciphering the single thought/word of Wu (J., Mu).  What the adept does not realize is this, if this single thought/word is shattered the awakening occurs.  As a result of this shattering, the adept sees face-to-face their true nature which is also the state of nirvana and the huatou.  Again, this relies on intuitive skills not analytical skills.

 

Comments

[smith]

yeti; i appreciate your consideration. I never intended nor do now to use this forum to discuss in any thorough sense Christianity. I was only responding a comment made on Christianity in relation to Buddhism which I think clearly was a gnostic view. Because Christianity has from its beginning rejected gnosticism as heresy (false in its claims, etc.), I wanted only to point this out.

Most people are actually little versed in Christianity; taking for granted the cultural background shallow understanding as deeper knowledge than it in fact is. Incidentally within asian buddhist societies the same applies to buddhism there.

Finally, regarding Christianity, IT is absolutely exclusionary. Which is why IT offends many non-Christians. Generally people want to agree with and not be against Jesus. But usually that is done by misrepresenting the full person of Christ- embracing just the part that suits and satisfies. For example, Jesus spoke more about judgement, and hell, then he did heaven. Jesus has been appropriated by the world and re-made in versions that serve it accordingly. Actual Christianity excludes, and because it excludes uncompromisingly , it offends deeply. Clearly this can be understood and felt negatively, I agree with you. But I didn't create it, I only reiterated what Christianity has said regarding Itself.

Thanks.

[smith]

For those wishing to reflect on Christianity in relation to buddhism, i suggest watching the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgKzsZUmeBk

[n. yeti]

Smith:
I don’t think you will find many sympathetic to your views here. It’s not that your discourse is informed by Christian thought, which most Buddhists and certainly Western Buddhists are both familiar with and generally respect. Personally I see it this way, if a path of spiritual practice guides you, leads you, inspires you, and encourages to greater happiness, then this is a worthy practice. But if it does not guide you, lead you, inspire you, and encourage you to greater happiness then it is not a worthy practice. Merely wallowing in negative sentiment about the state of the world, whether it be hatred of others, offense over doctrine, disdain for diverse views, political contempt, cultural contempt, fear of eternal damnation, external justification for one’s hateful attitudes, pride or belief in innate superiority based on a supposed mandate of righteousness, and any number of other dangers inherent to following a religion, in my view such things do not lead to happiness, neither in this lifetime nor the next.

For wherever you are at this given moment in life I think that is an appropriate question, to think very clearly about what is one’s destination with the practice. Do you seek Heaven? Have you seen this place or only heard of it? Because if you have not seen this place then you are relying on conjecture and the persuasion of others, and are spending considerable effort and willpower toward accomplishing something which depends on the persuasion of others.

Therefore, in my view, first and foremost, I think it is important to ask, do you think it is possible to discover a way to free yourself from the limitations of existence? By this I mean without any condition or narrative or doctrine or treatise whatsoever, without any persuasion. Without any holy men, without sacred writings, without a belief or confidence in what anyone else is saying on the matter, and has said on the matter throughout history, but instead relying upon what you yourself can discover. By discovery, I mean find out for yourself, to know it for yourself, and not merely follow the opinions of others, or what the bulk of this or that culture or religious community insist is true, but what you yourself can discover and verify without any filter, qualification, or intermediary. If you think this is not possible there is ultimately nothing to discuss because you have already ended such a discussion.

But if you think it is possible, that there is a way you yourself can discover the way to spiritual perfection, unaffected by the terrors of this world, unattached to drugs or alcohol or sex or the bliss obtained by elaborate meditations, not driven, not desperate, not in despair, not burdened with guilt or shame or obsession or rage over what you have done, or others have done, unconcerned with the imperfections of body, household or occupation, accepting of death, of the limitations of sickness, decay, lamentation, not affected by the frustrations of not gaining what is desired, or the sorrow of losing what one cherishes, beyond the let-down by friends, family, or associates, or the cruelty of others, the pains of hunger and thirst, beyond injustice, beyond loneliness, beyond boredom, unmoved by the problems of poverty and sheer powerlessness in light of the greater powers that exist in the world, or any kind of misfortune or calamity that can befall you.

If you think this is possible, then it may be possible for us to have a meaningful and fruitful discussion about religion. I think it is only on this basis that anyone can have a truly meaningful discussion about spiritual truth at all.

[smith]

dbrainerd; suffice it to say you have articulated more gnosticism, mixing bits of christian and buddhist ideas. Are rocks evil? ARE animals ex-humans evil? are plants evil? stars? universe? etc. No the creation physical is NOT evil. The corruption, the evil stems from the spiritual. Satan is a fallen(corrupted) angel. The repudiation of gnosticism was and always will be the mixing of ideas religious and or philosophical by people who seek to understand or make sense of Christian doctrine so as to square it with other ideas they hold. The 'new age', the modern day interpretations, imaginations, reinventions to fit to suit, blending mixing, half demi bits pieces, creating summary ideas that look or feel good right , by the individuals own wise counsel , is both nothing new and still false. Treatises have been written, and knocking down straw-men is a fools errand. People want to create God in their own image ultimately.

[david brainerd]

"[John] wasn't rejecting the physical creation. By world in context he was referencing the world, aka worldiness, aka 'humanism', of humanity." (smith)

The false interpretation of the church, and notice how it is anti-human. No, John literally says "all that is in the world," and lists it as "the pride of life, lust of the eye, lust of the flesh." Lust of the eye is to see more of the world, is it not? Lust of the flesh is sensuality? Thus essentially physicality itself.

But what is the pride of life?!!!?????

Its procreation. It took me a long time to figure this one out. But then I noticed how everyone is so proud of their kids, grandkids, of themselves for being breeders rather than "virgin losers," "kissless virgins," "incels," "celibate weirdos." So much scorn is heaped on non-breeders; so much pride is had in bringing a life into this prison.

This is the pride of life, the pride of propigating life, the pride of trapping other souls in the cycle of reincarnation. John is making an anti-natalist statement here. Because to escape a cycle of reincarnation one must first cease viewing propagating it as a good thing and drop all pride in being a breeder.

This is why Dhammapada 283-285 says until one eradicates sexual lust conpletely from the mind their mind is not free. And this is why 1st Corinthians 7 and Reveleation 14:4 are in the NT. This is why Buddhism is a monastic religion. And this is why Christianity originally was before it was Judaized by the Catholics. This is why the Catholics could not conpletely eradicate monasticism, gave up, and corupted it with Mary worship instead. Celibacy and monasticism are such an integral part of Johanine theology they cannot be removed without deatroying Christianity. Protestants removed them and Christianity has become an antimoral joke that brought about the sexual revolution which brought us Tinder and the hookup culture, high divorce rates,the mainstreaming of literal cuckoldry, not to mention transgenderism, and a rise in militant atheism results.