Hi, I’m Zen of Bass 👋
That's bass, not bass?oldformat=true). I’m a musician, but I do lots of other things too.
I’ve studied Zen for about 6 years—since I was 24. I’ve never been to a temple or any type of Buddhist service, but I like to read and talk about Zen.
I’ve seen some here on r/zen wondering how to give newcomers a friendly welcome, and it’s always been a topic of discussion which books to recommend to new readers. My first choice is Instant Zen by Foyan for all my friends that ask me. So, I’ve decided to start this series, where I’ll be going through the book chapter by chapter and giving an overview in an as direct and simple way as I can.
Most Zen books are collections of “koans”, translated as “cases”. There’re misconceptions about what a koan is, usually with one saying they’re “thought puzzles”. A Zennist will tell you this is an inaccurate statement. Articulating why is sadly outside the scope of this series, yet koans can certainly be puzzling. Instant Zen isn’t a collection of koans, however. Foyan just comes out and talks to you, like I want to do. Therefore, I think it’s the perfect start.
Foyan also came late in the lineage and draws references to his predecessors with gusto. So, I’ll be citing koans in kind, but I’m only going to use them to make some connections. When I quote a book, I’ll include the title and passage in bold, followed by the quote. I’ll be using passages that can be found on zenmarrow.com whenever possible, and if I do, I’ll include a link to the full passage.
Quoting Foyan will always appear in this format.
Quoting anything else will look like this.
Sometimes you see Zen masters referred to by a Japanese name or a Chinese name, but I’ll be using their Chinese names exclusively to avoid confusion, even if a passage didn’t originally.
Now then, let’s get to the text.
Instant Zen, Freedom and Independence: 🔗
“One who is not a companion of myriad things has departed the toils of materialism. The mind does not recognize the mind, the eye does not see the eye; since there is no opposition, when you see forms there are no forms there to be seen, and when you hear sounds there are no sounds there to be heard. Is this not departing the toils of materialism? . . .”
What does Foyan mean by, “mind does not recognize the mind”? A great place to start is, conveniently, what I think most would consider the start of our tradition, the transmission from Bodhidharma to Huike.
The Blue Cliff Record #96, commentary:
That year on the night of the ninth of December there was a great snow. The Second Patriarch stood by the wall; by dawn the snow had piled up past his knees. Bodhidharma took pity on him and said, "You, standing in the snow there; what do you seek?" The Second Patriarch sighed sadly and said, "I only beg your compassion, to open up the gate of ambrosia, and save all creatures." Bodhidharma said, "The wondrous path of all the Buddhas requires zealous work over vast aeons, practicing that which is difficult to practice, enduring the unendurable; with little virtue and petty knowledge, a shallow heart and arrogant mind, how can you hope to seek the true vehicle? There is no way." The Second Patriarch, hearing this admonition, was even more earnest towards the Path; he secretly took a sharp knife and cut off his own left forearm, and placed it before Bodhidharma. Bodhidharma knew he was a vessel of Dharma, so he asked him, "You stand in the snow and cut off your arm; what for?" The Second Patriarch said, "My mind is not yet at ease. Please, Master, ease my mind." Bodhidharma said, "Bring forth your mind, and I will ease it for you." The Second Patriarch said, "When I search for my mind, ultimately I can't find it." Bodhidharma said, "I have put your mind at ease for you."
Bodhidharma solved the problem by pointing out one can’t use the mind to understand, to ease, or even to find one’s own mind, like you can’t use your unaided eye to see your own eye. This understanding is one of the cornerstones of Zen.
To continue, the phrase “when you see forms there are no forms there to be seen, and when you hear sounds there are no sounds there to be heard” is probably even more confusing than the last. If you hear a sound, wouldn’t that mean there’s a sound there?
Treasury of the Eye of True Teaching #456: 🔗
Master Gaoan Benren said to an assembly, "Ordinarily I don't want to stir up people's sons and daughters before sound or after expression. Why? Sound isn't sound, form isn't form." At that time a monk asked, "How is it that sound isn't sound?"
The master said, "Can you call it form?" The monk said, "How is it that form isn't form?" The master said, "Can you call it sound?" The monk bowed.
This story also appears in The Measuring Tap as #43, where “form” is translated as “color”. Saying sound isn’t color, and color isn’t sound seems obvious, but let's break it down.
Intellectually we can agree that something is blue, but our experience of that blue is uniquely our own. The sounds you hear, the colors you see, and the forms you perceive are your experience. Your experience of the thing is the first sense you have, it’s before your thoughts about it. Benren uses relabeling to dissolve the monk's view of his experience, which Foyan points to as well. This is a good segway to the example I’ll use next.
“. . . There is no particular pathway into it, no gap through which to see it: Buddhism has no East or West, South or North . . .”
Why is there no pathway, and why does Buddhism not have cardinal directions? What would that even mean?
The Gateless Gate #19: 🔗
[Zhaozhou] asked [Nanquan], "What is the Way?" [Nanquan] answered, "Your ordinary mind, that is the Way."
[Zhaozhou] said, "Does it go in any particular direction?’’ [Nanquan] replied, "The more you seek after it, the more it runs away."
[Zhaozhou]: "Then how can you know it is the Way?" [Nanquan]: "The Way does not belong to knowing or not knowing. Knowing is illusion. Not knowing is lack of discrimination. When you get to this unperplexed Way, it is like the vastness of space, an unfathomable void, so how can it be this or that, yes or no?"
Upon this [Zhaozhou] came to a sudden realization.
The “Way” or the “Path” is what’s often translated from the Chinese “Tao” or “Dao”, which comes up often in Zen. Nanquan says the “pathway” of Zen is to have an “ordinary mind”. This is just what it sounds like; again, when you hear a sound or see a color, you aren’t thinking about it on some higher philosophical level, you just see and hear.
Zhaozhou wants more clarification, so he presses further, and tries to ask for “directions”. Nanquan tells him the “pathway” of Zen doesn’t work like that. You can’t grasp your mind with your mind. When you try to think about hearing or seeing on some higher philosophical level, this overcomplicates the whole process, getting you further from the seeing and hearing you want to understand in the first place.
Zhaozhou is basically asking, “How do you know what direction Zen/Buddhism goes in?” Nanquan says, “What would that even mean?” It doesn't make any sense if you think about it as any ordinary person would.
. . . one does not say, "You are the disciple, I am the teacher." If your own self is clear and everything is It, when you visit a teacher you do not see that there is a teacher; when you inquire of yourself, you do not see that you have a self. When you read scripture, you do not see that there is scripture there. When you eat, you do not see that there is a meal there. When you sit and meditate, you do not see that there is any sitting. You do not slip up in your everyday tasks, yet you cannot lay hold of anything at all.
When you see in this way, are you not independent and free?
That capitalized “It” is a bit ominous, but let’s take Nanquan’s advice for now and not overthink it.
When you go about your day, getting out of bed, eating breakfast, drinking tea, without complicating things, and not worrying about high-minded concepts like any ordinary person, aren’t you unperplexed, independent, and free?
I’ll summarize what I’ve gone over so far.
- Broached the topic of “mind” in the context of Zen.
- What the “Path” of Zen is, and how “ordinary mind” is important to it.
- How these apply to everyday life, and how that’s related to “independence and freedom”.
I’ll always include suggested topics for discussion in bullet form as below, but of course, as I think any ordinary mind would guess, whatever you want to talk about related to Zen is welcome.
- How do you interpret the phrase, “the toils of materialism”?
- Why if you can’t understand your mind, you can know it should be “ordinary”?
- What is, “It”?
And if you don’t already, I hope you do soon come to see that Zen is in fact quite instant indeed.
Submitted May 29, 2022 at 01:42AM by ZenOfBass https://ift.tt/Qz3PXKj
No comments:
Post a Comment