Inspired by this wonderfully honest and, I think, creative post.
There's a kind of understanding that I've come to about what 'wisdom' means in Zen. I see it in the way Zen masters turn things upside down for their listeners.
There's the example of the patriarch's lecture on impermanence. There's calling their own words 'ass slime' (sorry, that's pretty gross) or calling Buddha a shit-stick. From all the other writings it's quite clear that most Zen masters did a lot of reading, and got a lot out of the sutras and the words of other masters... Then why do they say things like that?
Lots of people have a concept of Zen, or even reality, that is about simplicity. Occam's razor. It's not just a holdover from some Japanese aesthetic. It's also because Zen masters quite often talk about how simple and easy Zen really is - "Buddhism [Zen] is a most economical affair", etc... But there is a level of complexity, maybe only in our (my) delusion, that comes from being a self-aware conscious being. We have an image of ourselves in our minds - even an image of our mind in our minds. As a computer programmer, I use the word 'recursion' to talk about things like that - which probably makes it sound complicated and 'not very Zen'... but I think that's really where "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler," comes into play.
Zen masters talk about noumenon and phenomenon - about the five aggregates, about the 18 realms... I mean, there's complexity there if you look for it.
The reason for that diversion is to qualify this explanation of 'wisdom' - I think it's relatively easy to understand from a perspective of balance. I'm not talking about new-agey 'balance your chakra' type stuff - I mean that a Zen masters calls Buddha a shit-stick because he's faced with people idolising the Buddha, thinking of the Buddha as an unapproachable divine entity - people thinking that they are doing the right thing by investing a massive amount of respect in some idea of Buddha, when in fact they are putting obstacles in their own way.
And people will say Zen is not about balance - in a way, that is balancing what I'm saying. In a way I completely agree - and in a way I go for that 'complex' reasoning, that even balance and imbalance can be balanced. Here, what I'm talking about dissolves - so I'm putting it aside for a moment.
There's two great examples of this working out in our very own r/zen forum. Meditation, and precepts.
We do see zazen practitioners saying that zazen is Zen practice. And we have a wiki page about how Zen masters disparage meditation. I think there are wise people on both sides of that debate, both balancing what they see is something tipping too far to one side.
Similarly, we see people pushing precepts and other people disagreeing with that. Personally I haven't noticed Zen masters go on much about precepts in what I've read. I think they mention precepts less often than they talk about meditation, but I haven't counted. I see wisdom in the sum of both sides of that debate also. Of course lying and killing don't improve the world, but neither does the arrogant and authoritarian thinking that one person is in a position to decide right and wrong for another.
My point is that when the two opposing sides are understood, deeply understood, then there aren't any words left.. There are no words about the two sides because there aren't two sides any more. That is what I think is wisdom. I don't think it's possible to get to that by reason - reason doesn't deal with contradiction.
I feel like charity and compassion is all too rare in a world where wealth is equated with power, where we are constantly barraged with advertising, sucked into the machine where there's no option but to work yourself to death just to have somewhere to live... But throughout history there have been examples of intensely charitable people, people who love to give.. And I think we have fantastic records that show how Zen masters were these kinds of people. How does one go from 'collecting stuff' to loving generosity?
Buddha said he "attained nothing when he attained complete, unexcelled enlightenment." But Zen masters call enlightenment the "wish fulfilling jewel". They talk about how people fear falling through the void with nothing to hold on to - but talk about not holding on to anything, about being independent. They talk about certainty, and about 'not knowing'.
So how does a person go from feeling like they are falling without anything to hold on to, to someone who considers themselves independent and not in need of support? To seeing the 'bright void' as reality and concepts as illusion? To seeing what people fear and discard and ignore as the most valuable treasure? What exactly is the difference between confusion and wonder?
I think it comes down to turning things around.
If you have not yet attained such freedom, you are said to be practicing on the basis of a formula. Whatever exists must be equally refuted; then not a single thing remains, and you will know for sure - of what use are all the verbal formulas you have learned hitherto, crammed into your chest?
Haven't you read the saying, 'Set aside views, set aside formulas - don't let anything outside in, don't let anything inside out'? Cut off both, and you will be spontaneously illumined, not being a partner to anything at all. This is absorption in non-contention.
If you want to attain understanding easily, just clarify the fundamental. When you couldn't leave it even if you wanted to, then you should turn around and bite through in one snap; afterwards don't pursue that which goes and stays - far or near, just go and be naturally unveiled.
Happy Monday!
Submitted June 06, 2022 at 11:12PM by sje397 https://ift.tt/2r71bxW
No comments:
Post a Comment