Being content with reification is not Zen's way

The tendency to reify our concepts runs deep in our modern culture.  We do it automatically without realizing it.  The noun “reification” comes from the the Latin res, thing.  When we reify our concepts we are trying to imbue them with realness — thingify them, in other words. 

If someone asks what Zen is they learn that it is seeing one’s true nature.  But this really says nothing about our true nature.  It might be thought provoking but this nature is still a mystery.  We have yet to intuit it directly.  That could take a lifetime. 

Those who are content with a reification of Zen will walk away believing that they fully understand it.  They might add that this true nature is simple sensory awareness or “just sitting”.  But they are just beating the cart and not the ox.  The cart doesn’t move.

Polishing a brick to make a mirror is a waste of effort.
So how can practicing Zen meditation to become a Buddha ever succeed?
Beat the ox or beat the cart—which should one do?
Using the false or using the true—which one will bring the dragon?
The mind-ground holds the seeds, but they need irrigation.
Our nature is like an untainted sky—clear for ten thousand miles.
The precious flower of samadhi is apart from all marks:
The wonder of its response, creation, and transformation is unfathomable.

Those who are content with a reification of Zen will walk away believing that they fully understand it.  This is using the conditioned to find the unconditioned.  Relying on concepts words evoke as if the concept is the intended reality is a grievous error.  Just as bad, is sitting in the body of birth and death imagining this to be the Buddha’s body.

Comments

[marx slayer]

jung- i wont offer any opinions on the political or other such things you refer to clearly the author you linked isnt a fan, nor you - i am not even interested in learning who they may be or what their own ideologies are, or axes to grind. I only posted link in relation to his comments on the Buddha , i found them very reasonable , worthy of consideration respecting the path he walked to enlightenment.

[Jung]

@Marx

Before you run off and buy anything further from this Indian new age frog (and I am not conferring to his origin) has to sell, I would read this revealing article by a known Indian Journalist.

https://scroll.in/article/927625/opinion-the-disturbing-irrationalism-of-jaggi-vasudev

He used to come to a dime a dozen in the 60s and 70s. Today, the internet is full of a new generation of highly prosperous spiritual imposters. All of them standing on the shoulders of past spiritual giants offering the [ad]dharma in so many mixed flavors , with a well-rehersed approach towards a mass of "hungry believers", what is nothing but a bleak useless copy of what is already freely available within your true mind, at any given moment, in an astounding imageless light of pure absolute and completely self-verifying reality.

[marx slayer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8Bb2xvasxM

[DANIEL J PAVLOVSKY]

TheZennist:

Thanks for the reply.
Seems like Zen is for the more advanced practitioners.

By "differences", I guess I meant how does Zen's approach differ to Buddhism in reaching Nirvana? I was thinking that if there's no difference, then why call it Zen? There seems to be a singular focus on the Lankavatara. (I think I just answered my own question.)

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

I look forward to reading more of your work.

[TheZennist]

DJP: Mundane? I read "mundane" as belonging to the world and having no concern for the transcendent. Zen is ultramundane. It aims to see what Siddhartha saw (the unconditioned). But in my 2836 posts I am unable to show even a tiny portion of it. I only lead the faithful to Mumon's barrier (関). Some bang on it. Some kick it. It won't let anyone pass through (anyone's thoughts) — and certainly not this bestial body. When you intuit the watō (話頭) which is unconditioned, before thoughts arise, you will see Siddhartha face-to-face.