The Zennist

More light on duality

A term widely used in pop circles of Buddhism and Zen is duality. I hope to shed a little more light on it.  One could say that duality or dvaya (two-fold, double, of two kinds or sorts) is at the heart of vijñāna (often translated by 'consciousness') which really means, in two-parts knowing since the prefix vi- can mean “in two parts” whereas jñāna just means “knowing.” This would apply, for example, to subject and object knowing, observer and observed knowing, and so on. What did the Buddha say about consciousness? 

Whatever suffering arises in the world, all is caused by consciousness. With the cessation of consciousness, there is no arising of suffering. Knowing this danger, that suffering is caused by consciousness, with the stilling of consciousness, one is wishless, quenched (Sutta Nipata, Dvayatānupassanā sutta).

The Buddha also said:

At Sāvatthī. Mendicants, what you intend or plan, and what you have underlying tendencies for become a support for the continuation of consciousness.  When this support exists, consciousness becomes established (SN 12:38).

The cessation of consciousness is really the cessation of dvaya which reveals advaya this being ultimate reality.  This would also be the One Mind or Mind-only in which the dualizing  nature of consciousness has not come forth to dominate.

When in Zen we attain kenshō we have transcended duality and with it consciousness. This is the stilling of consciousness.  But more importantly, we have put an end to transmigration because it is consciousness which is the transmigrant.  This is something very seldom touched upon.  Pop Buddhists believe there is no transmigrant since the Buddha denied the Ātman.  They are wrong on both counts.

The context of Buddhism

I am indebted to Pande's book Studies in the Origins of Buddhism which made possible the following observations about Buddhism if not its context or frame that surrounds it and its various schools.

1. According to Pande reality revealed itself to Buddha in two aspects, namely, dependent origination (P., paticcasamuppado; S., pratityasamutpada) and nibbana (nirvana).
   
2. To perceive dependent origination is to perceive the world of becoming which is suffering and rebirth into more states suffering.  Such a world is impermanent and therefore contingent (i.e., conditioned by something else).  It is neither absolute nor final.
   
3. Nirvana is the logical counterpart to dependent origination. It should be interpreted as the Absolute (the most essential and necessary)—the eternal and infinite principle.
   
4. In simpler terms dependent origination is our conditioned world whereas nirvana is the unconditioned this being the essence of reality rather than things which are never other than conditioned.
   

Buddhism is not just a teaching about dependent origination.  This is only half the teaching describing our finite world and our suffering in it.  Rather, Buddhism teaches nirvana as the way by which we can escape from the world of dependent origination.  The Buddha’s teaching, in addition, understands that nirvana is intuitively accessible by us even though it is an unconditioned reality.  The teaching of nirvana is proper to authentic Buddhism.

The curious and the student

People who are curious about Zen and Buddhism are not without a lot of assumptions about both.  In my way of looking at what it means to be curious, it is about and individual searching out information about Zen that agrees with their particular ideas which contain a lot of starry-eyed assumptions about Zen that are thoroughly unrealistic and don’t really chime with Zen.  The same goes with Buddhism.

The minute the curious find out that their assumptions are wrong this is when their anger beings to well up, this is also when they ask probing questions which are really disguised assertions.  Questions, for example, about rebirth mean that the questioner, most likely, does not accept it, and will never accept it no matter how eloquent the teacher’s answer.  The curious want to believe what they want to believe.

The curious shouldn’t be treated like students.  Students are willing to be corrected who also safeguard the truth in the sense of having an open and faithful mind to truth although they have not yet personally realized it yet.  Zen is not an easy subject.  There is more failure in Zen than success.

But being a student is the only way one is going to come close to mastering Zen, even if they don’t have a teacher.  It’s the attitude that matters.  Especially in Zen or Tibetan Buddhism one has to psychically link with their teacher.  This is first done by observing them closely and listening to them.  It is heart to heart you could say but not because you want it, but because the teacher also likes you and senses that you are willing to take a long journey to win enlightenment and can take the ups and downs that come with such a journey.

There are far more who are curious than students.  Most Zen centers are filled with the curious many of whom and been there for many years.  One good indication that you are a student if Zen find you quite by accident which prompts you to learn more and more about it.  In my case, that is exactly what happened.  Zen found me and what an adventure it has been.

Did the Buddha exactly deny the ātman?

The question of what way did the Buddha exactly deny the ātman, often translated by ‘self’ is always a contentious issue and a baffling one.  Often, the answer to this question requires a sudden shift over to the Upaniṣadic ātman which is intended to make the reader assume that the Buddha was not a fan of the Upaniṣads and that he debated against the notion of an Upaniṣadic ātman.  But none of this has been proven.  It’s all speculation. 

To be sure, early Buddhism is silent about the Upaniṣads which is odd if the Buddha teaches a No-self (anātman) doctrine that that is supposed to go against the Upaniṣadic ātman.  Where in the Nikayas is the battle between Buddha, representing No-self (anātman), and the Upaniṣads representing Ātman, taking place?  According to I. B. Horner president of the Pali Text Society (1959–1981), “The Self (attā) as both divine and human was no more repudiated by the early Sākya than were either the Ātman as Brahman, or ātman as the self of man by the Upaniṣads” (The Early Buddhist Theory of Man Perfected, p. 41).  If the theory of No-self is such a major part of Buddhism, where is it clearly and unambiguously stated? 

And what about the fact that a doctrine of No-self belongs to the doctrine of annihilationism (ucchedavādā)?  In the Ananda Sutta (Ānandasutta, SN 44:10) the Buddha tells Ananda:

When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not exist absolutely (natthattā), if I had answered that ‘the self does not exist absolutely’ (natthattā) I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists (ucchedavādā).

The Buddha is telling us that he does not reject the self or ātman.  Nor do the Nikayas say that the self is any of the five grasping aggregates which make up our human life to which we are attached, all of which are conditioned and corrupt being equated with Mara, the Buddhist devil.  The Buddha also tells us several times to abandon desire for what is not the self and elsewhere abandon desire for whatever does not belong to the self (anattaniya) (S. iii. 78).

Of all the greatest religious blunders, I think Buddhism takes the cake in turning itself upside down; totally distorting what the Buddha taught.  Since it is evident that the Buddha realized and taught the transcendent (the unconditioned), how much different is it from Vedanta?  Not much.

Sowing the seeds of dharma

A Buddha has compassion for all creatures.  But his compassion, which is great compassion (mahā-karuṇā), is different from ordinary compassion (karuṇā).  For one thing it is free from delusion whereas ordinary compassion is not. 

So where does compassion come in as a matter of teaching Dharma to the unawakened?  What does the discourse titled, The Simile of the Field (Khettūpamasutta 42:7) have to say on this matter?

We learn from it that the Buddha is like a farmer who wishes to sow seed (the Dharma). Where first should he first sow it?  Should he sow it in the excellent field, or in the field of middling quality, or in the field that is inferior which is rough, salty, with bad ground?

Most, I would assume, picked the first field and they would be right.  But today with egalitarianism playing somewhat of a dominant role in our society, I envision that the Buddha, like the farmer, would be asked to sow his precious Dharma seed on inferior minds.  But this is really kind of stupid.  For one thing, nothing will grow from this effort.  It is a waste of time and precious energy.  I have seen it first hand.  It doesn’t work.  It leads to a break up of the Buddhist community.

What the discourse really tells us is that the Dharma, which is like seed, should be given first to the monastics, followed by the laypeople and lastly, those whose beliefs and values run contrary to the Buddha's Dharma.  

 

Vicarious Zen

I have been around a few Buddhist chat rooms since the advent of Netscape (boy, that was a few years ago!).  It took me a long time to connect all the stars and see the constellation of what was happening.  Let’s call it the constellation Vicarious.  Vicariously, one may experience in their imagination, all the richness of ancient Chinese Zen just by reading books. 

Whether we are in a Zen chat room on the Internet or participate in a number of Reddit Zen subs, basically, a vicarious Zen life is being experienced. 

When a participant in a chat room posts a paragraph from Blofeld’s translation of Huang Po (Huangbo) this participant is essentially saying this paragraph speaks for me and all that it implies.  But this is a fallacy insofar as it misleads others into unconsciously associating the poster with the wise words of Huang Po—a poster who never once went through the Buddhist training  that Huang Po went through.

When someone comes home from a hard day’s work and decides to read Huang Po just before going to bed, they are deceiving themselves to a certain degree.  The kinship they feel with the words in the book does not mean they are getting enlightened.  It is only a sympathetic participation realized through their imagination.  It is the same as if someone were to read Einstein or a book on mountaineering.  Does reading Einstein make this person a mathematician or does reading a book on mountaineering make one a mountain climber?  Hardly.

Going to a Zen chat room or reading my favorite Zen master still falls under the definition of vicarious.  I would be inclined to argue that joining a Zen community and sitting in zazen with fellow members is still very much of a vicarious endeavor as if to say, “I hope to be like a Zen master someday,” without going through the actual difficult struggle of being challenged, then having to meet Zen master Dahui's 'great doubt' 大疑 face to face being totally empty and forlorn.

One day I predict nirvana will hardly ever be mentioned in Buddhism

One day I predict nirvana will not be mentioned in Buddhism if you become and monk or a nun.  And if it is mentioned (only slightly I suspect), it will be put on the back burner, so to speak, being of no real importance or even relativized, limited to particular conditions.  One monk recently said (I am paraphrasing):

Nirvana is liberation but it depends on what you want to be liberated from.  Nirvana is different for everyone.  Fearlessness can be a kind of Nirvana.  We are liberated if we don't have any fears.  Acceptance of the present moment and not seeking for anything can be Nirvana.  Meditation can be Nirvana if it liberates us from bad thoughts or your depression.

The late Zen master Joko Beck told us what nirvana was:

"Wisdom is to see that there is nothing to search for. If you live with a difficult person, that’s nirvana" (Everyday Zen, p. 151).

What I predict will be taught as Buddhism—an inferior Buddhism— is cause and effect (dependent origination which is all about samsara).  How accepting impermanence in our daily lives brings us peace.  And finally, that awareness or mindfulness of things around us leads to fulfillment.  But no nirvana will be taught, for example, "nirvana is the unconditioned reality. Nirvana is the unborn, un-extinct dharma; it is the ultimate reality, the supreme end." This extract is taken from the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra.

Dare I say that the power that is turning our colleges and universities, gradually, into indoctrination institutions for the propagation of postmodernism is somehow working on Buddhism, too?  Who is the mastermind behind this?  Why should Buddhism be allowed to teach so one-sidedly, focusing on the conditioned while ignoring the unconditioned, that is, nirvana?

What both have in common, there is no real education going on if by education we mean the process of providing individuals with knowledge and competence in a particular field and not just knowledge that has been ideologically shaped with little or no competency required of the student except obedience and participation.  In this regard, education is not education.  It's more like brainwashing and all this term implies.

A means to the unthinkable which is absolute

When we decide to get serious about Zen which is mainly about sitting in zazen which is seated meditation and reading books about Zen some of which are about koans or cases, it is difficult to leave our old habits behind.  But to get any place in Zen we have to break these old habits—that does not come easy.

Here is the problem.

In Zen to make any progress we, automatically, use our thoughts.  We assume that Zen is foremost an intellectual endeavor, or the same, involves discursive thinking.  We believe that Zen's mystery, especially in the example of the koans or cases, is solvable by means of thought, that is, there is a thinkable solution.  But therein lies the rub.  The answer to all koans has nothing to do with thought (as the answer).  The answer to koans transcends thought.

Thought in Zen is secondary—never primary.  Zen is not something like metaphysics.  Thoughts are never other than conditioned while our fundamental nature or Buddha-nature, which we have not realized yet, is unconditioned.

While we are, fundamentally, primary (unconditioned) we only know our self by way of the secondary (always conditioned thoughts).  But to achieve liberation we must know our self or nature as unconditioned. 

Zen's first aid for this is 無念 (no-thought).  Don’t rely on thought—Zen is the sudden cessation of thought.  With the sudden disappearance of thought, only then do we discover who we really are.  What is left over is our Buddha-nature. 

The long tenure of Zen involves giving up thought as a means to the unthinkable which is absolute.

Getting through Zen's barrier

A person in meditation looks at their thoughts as they arise trying not to indulge in them too much.  Such thoughts can be thoughts of depression, hurt or anger.  Other thoughts might be thoughts of foreboding and hope, thoughts of desire and pleasure, and many more such thoughts.  Even the thought of trying not to have thoughts! 

As far as Zen koans go, which is really all about thoughts, if we are to answer the very first case in the Mumonkan which is Jōshū’s “Mu" 無 not a single thought can pass through Mu, which is the barrier/checkpoint 關.  It stands between the adept and the 大道無門 (the gateless great Dao).  Nevertheless, the barrier/checkpoint has to be overcome. 

Key to overcoming the barrier/checkpoint is the adept’s own self that is raising all of these thoughts, trying to figure out this koan.

What this self is, we only know by thoughts and thinking about it.  Who or what then is looking at all these thoughts and generating more thoughts? How does this person look at their self, directly, without thoughts? Is it by generating more such thoughts? Zen has the answer.  It is by way of no-thought 無念.  There is a wonderful and profound logic to this.

The self of the adept that works on this case really transcends thought.  But the adept has never met their self or ātman face to face.  They only know who they are through thoughts—never directly. 

When, suddenly, all thoughts are instantly gone what is left except the self.  We are now in the 大道無門 (the gateless great Dao)!  According to the Buddha in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra the self is the Buddha-nature.  He said:  All beings possess a Buddha Nature: this is what the ātman is.

The whole purpose of this case is to get the adept to see their Buddha-nature, directly, which is who they really are and that includes all beings.  It is only this nature which enters freely.  We create many barriers only when we are fixed on thought unable to see beyond it.  This conditioned world is only thought—we are much more.

Zen's way of looking at the four noble truths

There is another way we can look at the four noble truths (aryā-satyāni).  The first noble truth of suffering (S., duḥkha) refers to the five aggregates or skandhas subject to attachment (upādāna) (S. v. 425).  But more, the five aggregates which are suffering are also conditioned and not unconditioned (nirvana).  Conditionality, in other words, is synonymous with suffering.  Ordinary beings we can say, in the broadest sense, are attached/desire (upādāna) to the life of conditionality.  Few if any seek the unconditioned.

And what is the second noble truth?  It is the truth of the origin of suffering.  It is the desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding based on these five aggregates subject to attachment that is the origination of suffering (M. i. 191).  To put it more simply, the origin of suffering is our attachment to the conditioned life such as the five aggregates; not the unconditioned.

Logically, it follows that the cessation (nirodha) of suffering, the third noble truth, which is our attachment to the conditioned life, depends upon our attainment of the unconditioned which is also the overcoming or stoppage of the conditioned.  This ties in beautifully with Zen’s no-thought 無念, thought being never other than conditioned which means thought is suffering (e.g., angry thoughts, hopeless thoughts and so on). 

The nirodha of thought which is also no-thought, opens up the unconditioned for us.  Moreover, it depends further on a path or a means that brings us to nirodha whereby we intuit the unconditioned—realizing it for the first time.  This path is the noble eightfold path—the fourth noble truth. 

All the steps in the last noble truth have to be directed to the unconditioned whether it’s from right view (samyak-dṛṣṭi) to right absorption (samyak-samādhi) with the unconditioned which is a matter of intuition or dhyāna.