Nice simple description of Zen

I've read lots of books about Buddhism and Zen. Often the core teachings get submerged under a bunch of confusing verbiage.

So it was refreshing to pick up "The Zen Teachings of Master Lin-chi" and find a wonderfully clear introduction by the translator, Burton Watson.

Of all the world's "spiritual" faiths (using that term loosely), Zen Buddhism and it's iconoclastic cousin, Taoism, strike me as being the least religious'y. Burton makes this clear.

I'm not endorsing what he says as the gospel truth -- that'd be opposed to what he says, even if I heartily believed in it. I just wanted to share some passages from Watson's introduction because they seemed to describe Buddhism/Zen/nonduality so well.

(headings in italics are mine; rest of the words are Watson's)

---------------------------------

The highest truth of Buddhism, emptiness

When Mahayana texts designate the absolute, or highest truth, as emptiness, they mean that it is empty of any characteristics by which we might describe it. This is because it is a single, undifferentiated whole, and the moment we begin applying terms to it, we create dualisms that immediately do violence to that unity. Hence, even the term emptiness itself must in the end be rejected, since it implies that there is something outside of emptiness that is not empty.

---------------------------------

The phenomenal world and the absolute

If reality is a single, all-embracing oneness, with nothing whatsoever outside it, then the entire phenomenal world as we know and perceive it, all time and all space, must be included within that unity. In the end, then, the absolute must be synonymous with the relative or phenomenal world; or, as the Heart Sutra puts it, "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form."

---------------------------------

How the mind "creates" the phenomenal world

Buddhism declares that the mind in a sense creates the whole phenomenal world, as a painter creates a painting with lines and colors. ...The mind, in its unenlightened state, when it perceives the phenomenal world through the senses, inevitably identifies certain phenomena as desirable and others as hateful or frightening, and this gives rise to the craving and repulsion that are the source of all our sufferings. The mind thus "creates" the world in the sense that it invests the phenomenal world with value.

---------------------------------

A remedy for our problems

The remedy to this situation, according to Buddhism, is to still the mind, to stop it from making discriminations and nurturing attachments toward certain phenomena and feelings of aversion toward others. When this state of calmness of mind is achieved, the darkness of ignorance and passion will be dispelled and the mind can perceive the underlying unity of the absolute.

---------------------------------

Which doesn't mean stopping the mind completely

This is the state of understanding or awakening to which Lin-chi in his sermons is attempting to lead his listeners. He talks constantly about stilling the thoughts or of preventing thoughts from arising. He of course does not mean that one should attempt to halt the activity of the mind entirely -- such a state would be attainable only in profound sleep or death. What he means is that one should try to stop the mind from making the kinds of discrimination that lead to craving or attachment.

---------------------------------

Where traditional Buddhism goes wrong

Mahayana, basing itself on the doctrine of emptiness, or nondualism, argued that, since all beings are part of a single underlying unity, they must interpenetrate one another and share each other's identity. Thus all beings must partake of the Buddha-nature and contain within themselves the "seeds" or potential for full enlightenment.

But the Mahayana sutras tended to take over much of the language of earlier Buddhism and to imply that most individuals will require great effort and many lifetimes of dedication to the religious life before they can hope to reach the highest goal. A person who pursues the religious life, we are led to understand, advances by gradual stages, and though the final breakthrough to enlightenment may be sudden, it requires vast years of preparation.

---------------------------------

Antidote: look to yourself! Not to others.

The message of Lin-chi's sermons, reiterated with almost wearisome persistence, is that his followers are allowing all this talk of goals and striving, of buddhas and patriarchs, to cloud their outlook and to block the path of understanding. All such words and concepts are external and extraneous postulations, attachment to which is just as much a delusion and impediment as attachment to any crasser objective, such as sensual gratification or material gain. Again and again he exhorts them to put aside all such external concerns and to turn their gaze within, where the Buddha-nature inherent in all beings is to be found.

---------------------------------

No goal, no place to reach, no one to become

What he is saying, and what the Ch'an [Zen] masters all say in the end, is that one should not become unduly preoccupied with the scriptures and tenets of Buddhism, nor with the rules of conduct and devotional practices that are believed to lead one step by step along the path of spiritual advancement.

Nor, for that matter, is one to become preoccupied with the teachings of the Ch'an sect itself, with the words that Lin-chi is speaking at the moment... All such "words and phrases" are to be put aside, and the student is to look within and to understand, once and for all, that there is no goal to be striven for because it has been won already, no place to be journeyed to because one is there right now.

---------------------------------

We're all the "True Man without rank"

It ["True Man with no rank"] designates a person with genuine understanding of the Tao, or the Way, and here stands for the Buddha-nature inherent in all...who is within reach of them right now. Once they have done that, once they have experienced true enlightenment and broken through the barrier of ignorance into the undifferentiated realm of Emptiness, then nothing more will be required of them.

They will be persons with "nothing to do," not idle, of course, since daily activities never cease, but pursuing no purposive goal, reaching out for no distant ideal, accepting all experience as it comes to them and no longer being pushed around or led astray by their surroundings.

---------------------------------

Religion is the problem

Lin-chi seems to imply that the only thing preventing his students from attaining immediate enlightenment is their own lack of faith in their ability to do so, and their mistaken preoccupation with the externals of their religion.

...Sitting in meditation is of course one of the most important practices of Ch'an school, and in the Lin-chi lu we catch glimpses of Lin-chi and other figures in the narrative thus engaged. Indeed, the Chinese name of the school, Ch'an, is a transcription of dhyana, the Sanskrit word for meditation.

It should be noted, however, that Lin-chi at one point implies that meditation as well, if too earnestly pursued with an objective in mind, can become as much an impediment as inordinate attention to any of the other external trappings of the religion.

Comments

[Grace]

And this blog is about criticizing religion and silly beliefs? I'm confused. I've found much more profound wisdom in the books of Jane Roberts, even though she would be catagorized as 'new age' and I am an atheist and have abandoned new age philosophies. She's brilliant and insightful and I think if we could get past the supernatural part of her books, the teachings would really revolutionize society. Buddhist/Tao teachings are so ubelievably patronizing and childish in comparison. But she's not Ancient and Eastern, which seem to really dazzle the dudes in the West. Also, she's a chick.

It seems like Buddhism advocates non-surgical lobotomy in order to end suffering. Having no brain would stop 'bad' thoughts and 'attachment', but you'd also have no brain. Zombie-hood just doesn't appeal to me. Is that my selfish ego talking?

But, it's old and Eastern, so it must be really, really wise...

[Roger]

Grace,

"Having no brain would stop 'bad' thoughts and 'attachment', but you'd also have no brain."

---You can keep your brain. I have kept mine, seems to help with living. That said, there could be something to the term....no mind.

This Zombie-hood sounds interesting. I may need to look into that.

[Brian Hines]

Grace, I don't know much about Jane Roberts, other than that she was the first, and main, channeler of a disembodied entity known as Seth. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Roberts

How do you think we could "get past the supernatural part of her books," as you suggested, given that her books are based on what a supernatural being revealed to her? I'm confused on that point.

I can understand your attitude toward Buddhism, as sometimes Buddhists do speak as if complete detachment from the joys and sorrows of this world is the way to go. Like you said, that sounds a lot like a lobotomy.

However, in the Zen literature there is much criticism of those who try to stop their minds and become actionless, thoughtless, and emotionless.

Likewise, Taoism (which I'm attracted to more than Buddhism) is much more about flowing with life than controlling life. Be angry. Be happy. Be lustful. Be sad. Be whatever. Then move on to the next "be'ing."

I agree that "old and Eastern" doesn't equate to "really, really wise."

Regarding what this blog is about, I'm more into criticizing religion than silly beliefs. Meaning, we all have beliefs that appear silly to other people.

I believe that "24" is (and sadly, soon will be "was) a terrific TV series. My wife sees my belief as colossally misguided and can't stand the show.

Well, I don't force my beliefs onto other people. I'll tell someone that I like "24" but don't expect them to do the same. Likewise, it's great if you enjoy Jane Roberts and Seth. What I'd object to is considering them as pointing to objective reality, rather than just a like, without evidence to this effect.

Reading Wikipedia, I see that some people feel that Roberts echoes findings of quantum mechanics. OK, if that's the case, why not study quantum theory directly, rather than an echo of it, since quantum mechanics has much evidence to back it up?

[zac]

Brain and mind are not the same, please. The brain is a body part. The mind is content, and is conditioned by all that you have been told or taught from outside yourself. "Lobotomy" is a poor descriptor- I think Lin Chi is just suggesting that one leave the conditioning behind. And leaving all the conditioning behind is probably the opposite of zombiehood... perhaps it is clean, efficient, unfettered

[Callistacat]

Hi! This is Grace (for some reason it would let me post normally so I used my twitter account). I know I posted my comment quite a while ago, I finally got around to see if anyone responded. I thought I was rather harsh so I was a little afraid to see if I might possibly be ripped to shreds by the Church of The Churchless folks (especially considering I was giving praises to a so-called channeller!) It actually wasn't as bad as I thought on re-reading it. :)

Blogger Brian: When I said getting past the supernatural aspects of Jane Robert's writings, Jane herself never fully accepted that "Seth" was a supernatural entity and her books are full of skepticism on who and what 'he' is (is he a part of my subconscious, am I having a schizophrenic episode, is this just an aspect of my own creative self?) I meant to take her ideas more as philosophy or mysticism much like the way nonreligious people take the writings of Lao Tzu or Buddha. Again, what makes Lao Tzu any different, wasn't the Tao Te Ching considered "the mystical source and ideal of all existence." Jane certainly never made any such grand claims. Even "Seth" never such claims, and stressed trusting yourself over anything he or any guru, priest or authority figure said. And Jane wrote books as herself that delved into philosophy, religion and psychic phenomena in a way that has no parallel in any literature on the subject that I have ever come across.

And again, how is Lao Tzu not a 'channeler' himself? My ex-fiancee was a Taoist, I've taken classes where I had to learn about all things Taoist. It was all presented to me as divinely inspired wisdom, facts about objective reality.

I agree about quantum physics, if you're interested in it, study quantum physics, not any new age take on it. The fact that other writers use writers like Roberts to try to get QP to fit new age ideas doesn't take away from her work. She never invoked quantum physics in her writings.

I definitely don't consider Roberts to point to objective reality, I read her books now in a playful way, testing the ideas (and to be honest I have had some interesting results). And the ideas have been incredibly mind expanding for me (kind of like LSD but without any possible bad trips ;)

Peace,
Penelope Grace