The Zennist

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.

Christianity and Buddhism, a comparison

A comparison between Christianity (Protestantism) and Mahayana Buddhism would be a comparison between two metaphors for mankind’s unfortunate situation.  The Christian can be likened to dung covered in white snow (attributed to Martin Luther, though questionable) while for the Buddhist, man would be like the gold not free from its impurities or a dirty unwashed garment that just needs to be cleaned to reveal its intrinsic purity. 

The Buddha is telling us, using various similes and metaphors, that our self or Buddha-nature (this being most intrinsic in us) can be realized by us through various disciplines and practices that are effective in removing the adventitious defilements which make our Buddha-nature seem non-existent. 

For the Christian, during judgment, God will not see the sinner (the dung) but look at the righteousness of Christ (the snow) and declare the sinner righteous.  This is suggesting that God is somehow blind who only sees the snow and knows nothing or maybe doesn’t care about the dung-like human beings under the cloak of snow. 

From the above, it would seem that if good Christians, although intrinsically filthy, defiled and sinful, can cloak themselves in the image of Christ they will be judged righteous by God.  But in this respect, they are little more than self-righteous hypocrites; wearing the mask of righteousness but corrupt underneath (still dung).

If Buddhism were to teach Christianity a better path, it would say that all creatures potentially have the Christ-nature except that as humans we cling, tenaciously, to the flesh so that the Christ-nature which indwells within us seems absent; covered over by what is inimical to its realization, depriving humans of their spiritual nature and life.  Furthermore, it is by our own efforts and preference for God—the absolute and most intrinsic—that Christ is revealed to us, personally, in the form of a spiritual annoiting.

I realize that what I have said thus far might seem almost outrageous to a good Christian.  And for a western Buddhist, I am in error since I am not following their nihilist view of Buddhism which denies intrinsic purity in the form of an ātman or Buddha-nature (even though the Buddha said:  beings possess a Buddha Nature: this is what the ātman is). 

On a final note, the creature we call ‘man’ is really absolute but is playing a simulation game in which he has become embodied in his character having forgotten about his Buddha-nature.  This would apply to Christians as well who as Gods are caught up in a simulation game and are unable to turn the game off thereby discovering who they really are and have always been.

Artificial Intelligence's big problem

Artificial Intelligence (hereafter AI) cannot solve many problems or answer the question, “What is ultimate reality?”  Nor can AI mend a broken love affair or solve a Zen koan.  AI is not empathic nor can it see the big picture.  In fact, it is delusional to maintain that there is no adversity over which, eventually, AI cannot triumph which the AI fundamentalists believe. 

AI is a kind of updated medieval alchemy in which machines, it is hoped, will possess AI; which will be superior to the human mind, but more importantly, be capable of running our world, unerringly.  Mankind for the first time will create a paradise on earth—mythology will become our reality.  But this is really little more than science fiction. It will be Allen Newell's "land of Faerie” who is one of the pioneers of AI.

The greatest adversity we face, of which AI is of no real help, lies within us which includes among other things our closed-mindedness.  But more, we do not really know that much about the brain or how our reality is created and perceived by us although we would like to believe otherwise still adhering to variations of naive realism. 

I would argue that research into AI is only an attempt to duplicate the left hemisphere of the brain which is really its major problem.  All the blind optimism of the researchers left hemispheres will not save the AI project.  They haven't posed, seriously, if at all, the research question as to why there are two hemispheres of the brain which are almost separate and independent halves. 

Only recently have we found out what the right hemisphere of the brain does.  According to Iain McGilchrist from his book, The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World: 

“The right hemisphere’s particular strength is in understanding meaning as a whole and in context. It is with the right hemisphere that we understand the moral of the story, as well as the point of the  joke. It is able to construe intelligently what other’s mean. . . .”

To speak about these two hemispheres of the brain in a Christian way, the left hemisphere is about the world of the flesh and all the flesh entails, while the right hemisphere is about the spirit.  From a Zen perspective, it is the right hemisphere that answers the koan, not the left.  It is the right hemisphere that connects with the Buddha Mind.  As far as the left is concerned, it can only attempt to describe, through language, the epiphany of Paul or the enlightenment of Siddhartha.  Still, the left hemisphere is incapable of realizing the transcendent.  McGilchrist puts it beautifully:

“The left hemisphere, isolating itself from the ways of the right hemisphere, has lost access to the world beyond words, the world ‘beyond’ our selves.”

It is the right hemisphere which has access to the transcendent and the divine—not the left.  Here it seems that the Buddha is speaking for the right hemisphere when he says:

“And because there is indeed a world beyond, the view of anyone that there is not a world beyond, it is a false conception of his” (M. i. 402).

The Buddha further says that those who convince others that there is no world beyond, that convincing of his goes against the true dharma.  Only those attached to the left hemisphere would believe that there is no world beyond, going against true dharma.

I would further argue that Chinese civilization, in its own unique way, had harmonized both hemispheres although they knew nothing about them.  We know, historically, Chinese civilization was not antagonistic towards the esoteric nor the transcendent the way modern culture is today in which the left hemisphere dominates trying to suppress, if not eliminate the right.  If it continues, all the pitfalls of the left hemisphere will become apparent such as a lack of empathy which is necessary for morality, and a marked inability to see the whole being fixated, instead, on the parts.  But also a power struggle will emerge in which the right hemisphere will try and instantiate harmony, eventually, taking the throne, since it is the natural and perfect leader.

A most ancient grand narrative

If I were to seek out the best example of a “grand narrative” or the same, the best “metanarrative” (a term popularized by Jean-François Lyotard in 1979),  I would have to look towards India as offering the best example of what constitutes a true grand narrative of which Buddhism is not only a part of, but helps to extend and validate this ancient narrative which goes back to the beginning of the Vedas. 

The core of this grand narrative is in each of us.  Buddhists recognize it as the Buddha-nature which is in all creatures.  We can imagine it as being somewhat like a lodestone which gives direction.  Although this lodestone-like nature is in each of us it remains hidden from us by layers upon layers of navigation errors which painfully speak to our inability to spiritually navigate, accurately. 

But more, the core of this grand narrative is our ultimate vocation, an ever present call from the absolute which we sense in some indefinite way through our conscience.  Our dissatisfaction with life, this being our suffering, is really our ultimate vocation calling us and, at the same time, our rejection of it.  This is an inner battle that goes on in each of us between the forces of good and evil.  One part wants to look within for the Buddha-nature, the other wants to wallow in sense pleasure.  

I need to add that this grand narrative also works through the whole of humanity not just a single race.  The great Rishis and Buddhas of the past brought the eternal teachings into a temporal world for the sake of the many, not just the few.  By their teachings, we sense the need to awaken from the sleep of finitude which is never other than suffering, and by this awakening take our rightful place in the universe fully awake.

The Buddha never denied the Ātman

Most Buddhist scholars—not all—I dare say can’t answer this simple and important question which goes something like this: Why isn’t the self or attā (in Sanskrit, ātman) equated with Mara, the Buddhist devil? 

This is an important question because in the typical Buddhist literature fed to the general public it is said of the Buddha that he denied the Ātman.  But where, exactly, does the Buddha categorically declare that there is no self (P., natthattā) which, by the way, would make the Buddha an annihilationist!

Nowhere in the Buddhist canon is the self or attā denied by the Buddha.  Instead, what we find is that what is not the self or in Pali anattā are the five aggregates. Here is an example:

"Bhikkhus, form is anattā.  What is anattā should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus:  ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’  Feeling is anattā... Perception is anattā...Volitional formations are anattā...Consciousness is anattā.  What is anattā should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom:  ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’" (S. iii. 22–23).

What we learn is that these five aggregates are not our self or attā which means that prior to this, in ignorance, we believed they were our self—we identified with them in the sense of, this is mine, this I am, this is my self.  Now we don’t.  None of these aggregates are my self or ātman. 

Next, we learn that these same five aggregates are to be equated with Mara, the Buddhist devil.  Here is the proof:

"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).

Logically, what is not the self or anattā is also Mara!  Do the Buddhist scholars tell us this?  No, they just publish more lies and distortions which is  part of an overarching anti-religious agenda coming from postmodernism.

What was the Buddha's compassion?

Maybe a good question to ask ourselves is what was the Buddha’s compassion or in Sanskrit, karuṇā?  I don’t think the standard definition of compassion does the Buddha’s karuṇā  justice.

After his enlightenment while still at the foot of the Bodhi Tree in solitude, the Buddha knew that what he had realized was transcendent and profound; that it could not be communicated since it was beyond the senses and speech.  Still, by compassion the Buddha was able to teach what he had realized but not in the way ordinary beings imagine compassion to be which was more at empathy for others.

What seems logical to me is that after the Buddha’s awakening what was not known, now becomes known, and that is the animative principle or just Mind with a capital M which you could say is absolute spirit. This means that the Buddha's compassion is experienced as subtle light to those open to receiving it (not all have enough good karma to receive it but many do).  In other words, as a result of this enlightenment a Buddha, naturally, radiates this subtle light to help make beings awaken.  This is the wordless, transcendent teaching.

We read in the Itivuttaka (III, iv, v) that the “Light-bringers, dhamma-speakers, open the door of the deathless [to nirvana], setting free the many folk from bondage [of sense desire].” 

This is rather a fitting way to describe the compassion of a Buddha.  I mean who else might be able to bring spiritual light except a Buddha?  According to the Avatamsaka Sutra, "the Buddha emanates light for them [the unawakened]." This light or radiance can't be turned on or off.  With the first day of awakening this light naturally grows.  The new Buddha becomes like a mini-sun. 

I am also strongly inclined to believe that the followers of the Buddha who could experience the light he emanated were enlightened as a result of experiencing this divine light.  This was the real teaching out of compassion for the many.

 

Meeting the Buddha for the first time

Let’s imagine that today you are meeting the real Buddha for the first time in some temple in the mountains.  You are looking at your notes one last time; you have your questions rehearsed.  It’s time to get into the car.  Several hours later you make it to the temple.  It’s still morning.  Everything is beautiful outside of the temple.  You’re quite nervous but still manage to relax.

The moment has arrived when you get to meet this Buddha.  Finally, all your questions will be answered to your satisfaction.  This is a dream come true for you.  But all that transpires is seeing the Buddha sit looking at you.  Pleasantries are exchanged, of course, but that is all.  The Buddha just sits there and now you begin to feel awkward.  Then you interrupt the silence to ask your first question, “What is enlightenment?”  Still the Buddha doesn’t say a word.  He just sits there.

So what is really going on?  It’s simple.  The Buddha is radiating what could be described as the light of Mahayana mentioned in the Lankavatara Sutra or if you prefer he is radiating clear light Mind.  But here is the rub.  You sense absolutely nothing, zero, zip, zilch, nada. Why?  Because you are spiritually blind that’s why.  You are only connected with your conditioned psychophysical body and the temporal order—that’s it.  Your questions and what you believe Buddhism to be have nothing to do with what the Buddha is radiating (which you don’t sense).  But more importantly,  what he is radiating is the teaching!  He can’t help but radiate this mysterious light.  He is like the sun in the sky shining on all things.

After you’ve seen the Buddha, the head monk says to you, “When I first met the Buddha I was so blissed out I could only bow.  It was amazing.  It is still that way every time I come near him.  More and more I am learning about it.”  You don’t know what to say to the head monk because you sensed nothing.  The head monk could be pulling your leg for all you know.

Everything in the teachings of the Buddha is designed to get you to understand this light from its own side which you converge with during awakening — the Mind to Mind transmission which is spoken about in Zen.  In fact, when the Buddha held up a flower and blinked whereupon Kashyapa smiled, both their actions were only a manifestation of this light in the same way that smoke tells us there is fire somewhere.  Both were fully one with the light.  According to the Avatamsaka Sutra:  Manifesting spiritual power while among the masses, he [the Buddha] radiates light to make them wake up, revealing the realm of the enlightened.

 

Buddhism's Relation to Christianity

An interesting read is D.M. Murdock's book review of Michael Lockwood's book, Buddhism's Relation to Christianity.  I would recommend it to anyone interested in the subject.  They should read her review before they purchase Lockwood's book which doesn't include an index. 

Christianity is a difficult subject in its own right.  I have always looked at it with a mind to simplify it; to see what the text is really saying and how we should read it.  That said, I have tentatively concluded that Christianity stems from Buddhism.  

A number of years ago when I entered into the mystical side of Buddhism in 1976 (which I have touched on in this blog) I was given a simple picture of Christianity which also allowed me to connect it with Buddhism.  If you put your feet together and outstretch your arms you have a cross.  In other words, our carnal body is the cross and our soul is nailed to it which is yet to become spiritualized.  Flesh, which is evil and not spirit, is not unlike the five skandhas which belong to Mara the Evil one, which are not the ātman or spirit. 

We Buddhists wrongly through our spiritual ignorance latch on to the skandhas as being who we are—our pleasure toy of the flesh.  But our spirit or ātman  is not any of the skandhas according to the Buddha.  We still have to separate our self or ātman  from the skandhas spiritually which is what dhyāna is all about! 

In a way, like the Christian we bear the cross, also, crucifying the flesh with its passions and desires (Galatians 5:24).  And for those Buddhists who have spiritually separated from the skandhas by dhyāna we read that they are: "reborn in companionship with the devas of the pure abodes. This is a rebirth not shared with worldlings" (A. ii. 128).

But let me stop here.  We learn from Murdock's review that Indians have long been in the Mediterranean, for example. 

Indian envoys sent to Rome and other parts of the Roman empire;

Stories of Indian saints immolating themselves in the West;

Presence of thousands of Indian slaves at Rome and elsewhere in the Mediterranean;

Numerous substance traded between the two worlds. . .;

Caches of thousands of Roman coins found in...in India;

Testimony in Josephus that the Jews were descendants of Indian philosophers.

Anyway there is much more. Please check out Murdock's book review.  

 

 

 

The overcoming of metaphysics

We might speculate how to bring non-being and being into unity which seem to be contrary to each other.  The same goes with non-existence and existence.  By taking up this problem we have taken the bait, that is, we have fallen into the trap of metaphysics (i.e., beyond the physical).  However, to be honest, we are not really beyond the physical.  Only in a theoretical or speculative unproven sense, both terms being fictions, as if real. 

Here is what is really going on.  Our consciousness (S., vijñāna: lit. in two parts knowing), this being our familiar human mind which only perceives illusion, has ensnared itself in metaphysics which is an attempt to get beyond illusion, but always fails. 

Furthermore,  consciousness is the illusory subject in relation to the illusory object.  This relationship explains why the goal of Buddhist meditation is the total overcoming of consciousness in which the two parts return to the original one or ultimate ground from which they first emerged appearing to become opposed (but never actually opposed since the mysterious relation between the two sides held them together). 

There is nothing in metaphysics that is capable of overcoming consciousness.  It is a fictional enterprise.  Returning the two parts back to the original one can only be accomplished through meditation or dhyana.

It is important to always keep in mind that the role of consciousness, which is saṃsāric consciousness, often gets overlooked in Buddhism and, especially, Zen.  The Buddha says:

“When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of future renewed existence. When there is the production of future renewed existence, future birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering” (S. ii. 65).

We can read this passage all that we desire.  That is a good thing to do.  Still, it will not grant us a state of oneness or return.  Right meditation which ends in gnosis of the one is the only route we have (a route that is intuitive).  All else is fiction.  By the way, this is Zen’s sudden enlightenment.

Closer to being a true religion

Westerners tend to identify religion with having a belief in God.  Rites and rituals also play an important part.  Nevertheless, rites and rituals do not make a religion religious.  To be religious means personally relating to or contemplating the nature of ultimate reality. 

The modern definition of religion, in general, is too limiting and too restrictive.  I would go so far as to say that most modern day religions are not all that religious.

A truer understanding of what real religion means for us begins with existential questioning.  Existential questioning always concerns the first-person, for example, Who am I (essentially)? Or it can be something like, What is my purpose in life? or What is my true self, or What happens when I die?

At first these questions seem to get nowhere beyond the question, itself, until the individual turns to religion which then becomes, God knows the answer to my questions — believe in God.  But this is still far too superficial.  Serious and deep existential questioning is lacking.   

But Buddhism and more specifically, Zen Buddhism, are closer to being a true religion.  First, they acknowledge the great value of existential questioning.  Such questioning finds both meaning and answers in personal enlightenment.  This means that a person realizes nirvana in their innermost self after going through a difficult process that strips away the self-limiting fictions and beliefs that make personal enlightenment seem impossible.  As for what they personally realize it is deathless, peace, truth, the ultimate goal, endless, etc.  These are all epithets for nirvana.