Tl;dr: Everything is equally "Zen". Really nothing is "Zen". "Zen" is an illusory mental construct. The message prominent Zen icons try communicating can't be condensed into words at all. Zen masters didn't intend for their sayings to be interpreted as absolute, indisputable mandates.
I know this discussion pops up a lot, but I've never seen someone post a comprehensive explanation of the entire issue. I'm about to try giving such an explanation, so this is really long. Sorry if reading isn't your thing
Before I start, I wanna give a Linchi quote so there's no confusion in regard to my opinions on what is or isn't "Zen":
- “Say something about it and you are already off the mark. You will just have to see it for yourselves.”
The fundamental reality Zen teachers attempt to impress upon people can't be put into words.
That being said, I'm gonna try anyway because I'm a rebel who can't be told what to do. Okay, let's do the damn thing...
So I've noticed a lot of people saying things like "What you said isn't Zen", "Buddhism isn't Zen", "Meditation isn't Zen", and so on. To a certain degree they're right, but that's irrelevant because in truth everything is "Zen" and nothing is "Zen".
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying all doctrinal exposition is useless. Zen sayings have a kernel of truth when you interpret them in context, otherwise they wouldn't resonate a thousand years after the fact. Huangbo said it best though:
- "Above all it is essential not to select some particular teaching suited to a certain occasion, and, being impressed by its forming part of the written canon, regard it as an immutable concept. Why so? Because in truth there is no unalterable Dharma which the Tathāgata could have preached."
In other words, even the most profound sayings from Zen's wisest teachers have limitations which make them susceptible to misinterpretations and subject to disputes.
People often glance at the following quotes and other similar sayings without considering them fully:
-
"The canonical teachings of the Three Vehicles (re: "Buddhism") are just remedies for temporary needs."
-
"Though you perform the six pāramitās for as many aeons as there are grains of sand in the Ganges, adding also all the other sorts of activities for gaining Enlightenment, YOU WILL STILL FALL SHORT OF THE GOAL."
-
"Virtuous monks, when I state that there are no dharmas outside, the student does not comprehend and immediately tries to find understanding within. He sits down cross-legged with his back against a wall, his tongue glued to the roof of his mouth, completely still and motionless. This he takes to be the buddhadharma of the patriarchal school. That’s all wrong."
Because readers ignore, misunderstand, or just don't know the full context of quotes like these, they conclude seminal Zen masters rejected Buddhist sutras, meditation, and various other teachings/practices.
Usually though, Zen's disagreements with other schools of Buddhism were about how to much emphasis canonical scriptures deserve, how to interpret those scriptures, and how people should apply those teachings to their thinking/behavior. The emphasis historic Zen masters placed on meditation defines Zen as a school. They didn't reject the practice of at all.
Linchi summed up the real intent behind the supposed rejections pretty well:
- “Those who study the Dharma these days should approach it with a true and proper understanding. This is what is known as a Right View.”
In order to understand Zen teachings, you need to understand the mindset of Zen sages.
For starters, Zen is a school of Mahyana Buddhism. Period.
Ancient Zen masters were Buddhist monks first and foremost. That's why all Zen literature is written about the doctrine of Mahyana Buddhism using terminology from the Buddhist lexicon. The teachings of early Zen pathfinders were aimed at their fellow Buddhist monks with the intention of solving the type of problems that Buddhist monks face. These teachings don't translate outside that monastic settings in a direct 1-to-1 manner 100% of the time.
All Zen paragons gave up career, social, and family ambitions to live in monasteries with dozens (possibly hundreds) of other dudes who did nothing but meditate, study the Buddha's teachings, and discuss their ideas about those topics. Even the chores were considered a form of meditation.
When people are discussing quotes from Bodhidarma, Huineng, Linchi, Huangbo, Zhaozhou and so on, they tend to overlook the fact that those men all renounced the sort of worldly life most us lead as laypeople.
Understanding and accepting that fact is crucial when interpretting Zen literature.
At it's root though, the category of often misinterpretted quotes I'm discussing is made up from attempts to communicate a handful of concepts. Because these ideas were frequently recycled as tools to spark personal realizations, they became running themes throughout all Zen doctrine.
Specifically, the concepts I'm referring to are signlessness (aka "nonconceptual thinking"), aimlessness (aka "not seeking anything"), nondiscrimination, and sunyata (usually translated as "emptiness").
All those concepts are inextricably intertwined in a number of ways, but they can all be summarized as logical extensions of sunyata/emptiness. For those who don't know, that's a Buddhist principle with some far-reaching implications.
Simply put, all things are empty of independent self-nature, meaning, and value when examined on their own isolated from the big picture.
(Yes that includes all Buddhist practices/teachings, even Zen)
That's not intended to be a nihilistic assertion about existence lacking significance or anything of that nature. Ultimately, sunyata a statement of nondualism.
The main takeaway is that all things are mutually interdependent with all other things. All things inherently lack meaning and value when examined on their own because they have no self-nature. Only through their interaction with the rest of existence do phenomena develop recognizable self-nature.
"You can't have hot without cold."
Concepts which appear separate and contradictory are in fact complimentary and dependent on each other. Polar opposites mutually bring one another into existence. At their root, there's really no difference between heads and tails. They're just superficially distinct aspects of the same hunk of metal. Really, it's all one coin.
As it's writen in the Heart Sutra "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form."
That means no dualistic concepts apply to the essence of existence when viewed through the lens of Zen. Not emptiness. Not form. Not both. Not neither. Not even existence and nonexistence are functional. Dualistic terminology just doesn't fit with reality's true nature in any way.
Not even the concepts I'm explaining are useful as anything more than expedient means. These concepts are only intended to point others in the direction of personal realization. Even these principles must be abandoned as foundations of thought.
To quote Huangbo:
- "In reality, there is nothing to be grasped (perceived, attained, conceived, etc.)—even not-grasping cannot be grasped"
Every word in humanity's collective vocabulary is mapped to a mental concept. Each word's definition acts as a distinct border which encapsulates the underlying concept. These concepts then form dualistic, mutually exclusive dichotomies that boil down to a thing being distinguished from everything which isn't that thing.
Because all concepts are empty and all things are mutually interdependent, Zen scholars consider the act of discriminating between polarized dichotomies such as good/evil, positive/negative, existence/nonexistence, reality/illusion, and so on to be delusional thinking. This is why Zen teachers tell their disciples to approach reality with an attitude of nondiscrimination.
Because the nondiscriminatory noverything discussed in Zen is transcendent without limits, attempting to communicate its essence using discriminatory human language can only produce distortions of the fundamental "thing in itself".
Like in the description I just gave, for example, "transcendent" incorrectly implies the ultimate reality alluded to with terms like "Buddha-Mind" is something other than the mundane "thisness" we're presently experiencing. It really is just "this" and nothing else though, so "transcendent" doesn't quite fit the worldly essence either. It's both mundane and transcendent at the same time.
Just by making that statement and using a descriptor like "without limits", I've started to generate a reified concept that can't properly represent the ineffable nonexistability that's always existed fornever.
Zen truth simply cannot be communicated using the inherently dualistic paradigm required by human language. Really, it's all the same.
(I can't stress that enough...)
I'm gonna keep using Huangbo quotes for personal convenience since I have "On The Transmission Of Mind" open already, but these themes are found running through all Zen teachings:
-
"Those who are vowed to become Bodhisattvas and who are already within the Bodhi of the Three Worlds, neither reject nor grasp at anything."
-
"The way of the Buddhas flourishes in a mind utterly freed from conceptual thought processes, while discrimination between this and that gives birth to a legion of demons!"
-
"You must get away from the doctrines of existence and non-existence, for Mind is like the sun, forever in the void, shining spontaneously, shining without intending to shine. This is not something which you can accomplish without effort, but when you reach the point of clinging to nothing whatever, you will be acting as the Buddhas act. This will indeed be acting in accordance with the saying: ‘Develop a mind which rests on no thing whatever.'"
This nondiscrimination means abandoning the dualistic distinction between enlightenment and ignorance. Ignorance is enlightenment and enlightenment is ignorance. The only difference between the two is the ignorant haven't quite realized they're inherently enlightened just yet while the enlightened are cognizant of their inherent ignorance.
Don't take my word for it though:
- "In the teaching of the Three Vehicles it is clearly explained that the ordinary and Enlightened minds are illusions. You don’t understand. All this clinging to the idea of things existing is to mistake vacuity for the truth. How can such conceptions not be illusory? Being illusory, they hide Mind from you. If you would only rid yourselves of the concepts of ordinary and Enlightened, you would find that there is no other Buddha than the Buddha in your own Mind."
Seeking enlightenment can only act as a barrier to personal realization because it makes seekers try moving away from their true essential nature (called "Buddha Nature") in pursuit of something that only exists in their imaginations.
"The Way can only be found by not looking" as the old cliches go.
Instead, Zen's alternative proposal is just doing whatever seems proper based on one's present circumstances without focusing on matters of right/wrong or concerning oneself with the final outcomes. Someone shouldn't need a reason to do anything. The fact that their present circumstances call for someone doing whatever they do should be more than reason enough.
Here's more Huangbo quotes:
-
"If you practise MEANS of attaining Enlightenment for three myriad aeons but without losing your belief in something really attainable, you will still be as many aeons from your goal as there are grains of sand in the Ganges."
-
"When everything inside and outside, bodily and mental, has been relinquished; when, as in the Void, no attachments are left; when all action is dictated purely by place and circumstance; when subjectivity and objectivity are forgotten—that is the highest form of relinquishment."
-
"'If they seek from within themselves, they will find nothing tangible; how much less can they find a Dharma worthy of their attention elsewhere! Do not look to what is called the Dharma by preachers, for what sort of Dharma could that be?'
- Q: If that is so, should we not seek for anything at all?
- A: By conceding this, you would save yourself a lot of mental effort.
This notion of not seeking anything is usually referred to as "aimlessness".
So that covers most of the misconceptions people seem to have about the outlook driving premiere Zen founders philosophy. To sum it up, Zen masters were warning against confusing forms that are used as expedient means for the essence that forms are intended to reveal.
Keep in mind I'm not denying that many Zen trailblazers were critical of certain approaches, expectations, and preconceived notions about the study and practice of Zen. I'm only saying those criticisms weren't outright rejections.
Zen doctrine rejects everything and nothing all the same.
It's not just misconceptions about the outlook of Zen masters creating the inaccurate conclusions I've encountered though.
Some people incorrectly believe meditation is an outdated religious tradition or that it's compartmentalized exclusively to sitting sessions thus it has no practical purpose. They tend to see Buddhism as a whole like it'a irrational and dogmatic, usually due to impressions about religion left by Christianity.
Those types of false preconceived notions regarding meditation are another thing people should be aware of before concluding Zen masters were outright denouncing that aspect of the practice.
Some schools of Buddhism can be dogmatic, but pound-for-pound the Buddha's teachings are far more logically sound and tend to include fewer overtly magical propositions.
Quoting Gautama the Buddha himself:
- " "Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'This monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them." (Kalama Sutta, verse 10)
The idea that Buddhism and Christianity are identical in this regard is ludicrous. Now, some schools of Buddhism believe some hella woo~ish things in relation to Samsara doctrine. Over time Zen masters gradually reinterpretted all the mysticism out of rebirth, karma, devas/asuras ruling over different ranked heavens/hells and so on.
The belief that meditation occurs in a block of time cordoned off from the rest of life is also categorically false. Zen mindfulness practice actually includes actively maintaining mindfulness at all times, effectively turning all daily activities into a form of meditation.
Zen doesn't attach any intrinsic importance to studying sacred sutras or mirroring the practices of Zen masters simply for the sake it. Those exercises have a designed purpose that goes beyond dogmatic tradition.
If someone approaches those things with Right View without letting themselves be deluded by erroneous preconceptions, those efforts can act as phenomenal catalysts for a firsthand realizations.
That type of personal experience seeing the true nature of reality is more enlightening than all the profound quips from every Zen master combined.
Zen, therefore, most strongly and persistently insists on an inner personal experience. None of the ideas communicated by Zen teachers are quite as significant to people who haven't intimately experienced some degree of realization for themselves.
Personal experience is prioritized over authority and objective revelation. Incorporating practices associated with meditation such as sati, vipassana, dhyana, and samadhi into daily life is considered the most practical catalyst for such experience.
The followers of Zen propose routine, focused sitting meditation (known as Zazen in Japanese) as a means of strengthening the mind in order to increase the practictioner's capacity for mindfulness and facilitate a more intuitive understanding of their own true nature.
The various forms of meditation aren't mindless religious customs with no tangible payoff. They aren't isolated activities disconnected from the rest of a meditator's existential experience.
Scientists have researched the effects of vipassana (insight) and sati (mindfulness) meditation. There are empirically verifiable benefits that come in the form of enhanced focus, cognitive function, and emotional well-being. Check it out:
Mindfulness Research Update: 2008
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1533210108329862
- "Both basic and clinical research indicate that cultivating a more mindful way of being is associated with less emotional distress, more positive states of mind, and better quality of life. In addition, mindfulness practice can influence the brain, the autonomic nervous system, stress hormones, the immune system, and health behaviors, including eating, sleeping, and substance use, in salutary ways."
Cognitive and Emotional Differences Between Short- and Long- Term Vipassana
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-03320-005
- "As compared with beginners, advanced practitioners reported greater self-awareness, positive mood, and acceptance. Greater stress lowered mood and self-acceptance in both groups, but the deleterious effect of stress on acceptance was more marked for the beginners. These findings validate in a naturalistic setting some of the effects described in traditional Buddhist texts on mindfulness."
And those are really just the tip of the iceberg:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_on_meditation
In case that doesn't convince you, here's some more Huangbo quotes that verify iconic Zen masters weren't opposed to meditation practice:
-
"Thus, Bodhidharma sat rapt in meditation before a wall; he did not seek to lead people into having opinions."
-
"Were you now to practise keeping your minds motionless at all times, whether walking, standing, sitting or lying; concentrating entirely upon the goal of no thought-creation, no duality, no reliance on others and no attachments; just allowing all things to take their course the whole day long, as though you were too ill to bother; unknown to the world; innocent of any urge to be known or unknown to others; with your minds like blocks of stone that mend no holes—then all the, Dharmas would penetrate your understanding through and through."
-
"If you would spend all your time—walking, standing, sitting or lying down—learning to halt the concept-forming activities of your own mind, you could be sure of ultimately attaining the goal."
-
"When you practise mind-control, sit in the proper position, stay perfectly tranquil, and do not permit the least movement of your minds to disturb you. This alone is what is called liberation. Ah, be diligent! Be diligent! Of a thousand or ten thousand attempting to enter by this Gate, only three or perhaps five pass through. If you are heedless of my warnings, calamity is sure to follow. Therefore is it written: 'Exert your strength in this life to attain! Or else incur long aeons of further gain!'"
Zen's most prominent figures may appear as if they're rejecting meditation, study and other forms of practice if you take their quotes piecemeal at face value.
However, when you dig deeper into the greater body of Zen works, consider the context of the times those works were produced, and begin connecting all those dots into a properly interwoven fabric, it becomes obvious those alleged "rejections" aren't that at all. Really they're admonitions directed at certain preconceptions, approaches, and expectations hidden behind those practices.
Zen masters went after people who mistook forms for essence. They went after people who relied on one teaching or practice too heavily. They went after people who failed to think critically for themselves. However, Zen masters rejected nothing solely on principle.
Like I keep saying, a Zen adept communicating their school's philosophy using only scathing one-liners just isn't possible, even though that philosophy tends towards simplicity at its core.
That's why Bodhidarma founded Ch'an on one straightforward declaration:
- “The ultimate Truth is beyond words. Doctrines are words. They’re not the Way.”
To anyone who stuck it out through all that, I wanna let you know I really appreciate your time.
Thanks for reading!
Submitted January 07, 2020 at 04:17AM by RottenCynicist https://ift.tt/2QtKw8P
No comments:
Post a Comment