D.T. Suzuki on the Zen Doctrine of No-Mind

I've had this book for a long time, probably since my college years (1966-71) when I first dived into the deep waters of Zen Buddhism. The copyright date is 1956. The cost is 95 cents. Ah, the days when paperback books with 294 pages cost under a dollar.

I'm not sure what led me to pull the book out of a Buddhism shelf a few days ago. I guess I needed a hit of classic Zen, since D.T. Suzuki, the author, is described on the back cover as "Zen's chief exponent in English." Of course, since the book was published there's been an explosion of interest in Zen.

For good reason. I consider Zen to be the best inspiration for people like me who fall into the spiritual but not religious camp. (I was religious for 35 years, of an Eastern religion variety, but now am not.)

I love how Zen is so completely this-worldly rather than other-worldly. I love that Zen has no need for God or any other supernatural entity. I love the quirky Zen tales and anecdotes, even when I have trouble grasping them. I love how even though "Zen" typically is paired with "Buddhism," Zen Buddhism doesn't take itself as seriously, nor does it pay much attention to esoteric Buddhist notions like karma and rebirth.

And I love how Zen is thoroughly non-dualistic, having no patience for typical religious preoccupations with virtue and vice. Or purification. This separates Zen, and Buddhism in general, from Hindu philosophy where the Atman/Soul is considered to be hidden under layers of mire that prevents us from realizing its connection with Brahman/God.

Below I've shared excerpts from the book's chapter, The Zen Doctrine of No-Mind. They provide a wonderful background for comprehending the unique methods of Zen. I didn't include any excerpts dealing with the rather difficult concepts of Prajna, true understanding of the nature of phenomena.

You'll find a mention of Hui-neng in the initial excerpts. He was a Chinese dude of the seventh century who famously wrote a short poem that according to Suzuki, started Zen as an offshoot of Buddhism. I wrote about him in a 2012 post, "No-self" isn't a spiritual goal, it's what we already are.

I don't claim to fully grasp the following classic Buddhist verses. However, in the past I found the first much more reasonable. Now, the second resonates with me. Here's an excerpt from Mark Epstein's book, "Thoughts Without a Thinker," where he describes some Buddhist seventh-century happenings.

The foremost disciple, Shen-hsiu, who was expecting to assume the role of the master, presented the following.

The body is the Bodhi tree,
The mind is like a clear mirror standing.
Take care to wipe it all the time,
Allow no grain of dust to cling.

A perfectly acceptable resonse, Shen-hsiu's verse made a virtue of the empty and reflecting mind, a recurrent motif in Buddhist literature. But the clear mirror, like the true self, too easily becomes an object of veneration. Such a view merely replaces the concrete self with a more rarefied version that is then thought to be even more real than the original.

An illiterate kitchen boy, Hui-neng, grasped the imperfection of Shen-hsiu's response and presented the following alternative:

The Bodhi is not a tree,
The clear mirror is nowhere standing,
Fundamentally not one thing exists,
Where then is a grain of dust to cling? 

...Hui-neng avoided the common misconception of liberation as a mind emptied of its contents or a body emptied of its emotions. The mind, or self, that we conceive of does not exist in the way we imagine, said Hui-neng; if all things are empty, to what can we cling? If the mind itself is already empty, why should it have to be cleansed? If the emotions are empty, why do they have to be eliminated?

Again, spiritual seekers are faced with some clear (though not always easy to discern) alternatives. Having been a "wipe the mirror" meditation-guy for many, many years, I realize how difficult it is for people who've embraced a self-realization path to recognize the validity of another way.

I urge you, though, to open yourself to the notion that you are not a self. Nor a soul. Nor a drop of the divine ocean. You're as empty of intrinsic being as anything or anyone else in this vast, mysterious cosmos.

Here's some of the passages that I especially resonated with in D.T. Suzuki's The Zen Doctrine of No-Mind chapter. Dhyana basically means meditation.

The dominant idea prevailing up to the time of Hui-neng was that the Buddha-nature with which all beings are endowed is thoroughly pure and undefiled as to its self-being. The business of the Yogin is therefore to bring out his self-nature, which is the Buddha-nature, in its original purity.

But, as I said before, in practice this is apt to lead the Yogin to the conception of something separate which retains its purity behind all the darkness enveloping his individual mind... But serenely reflecting or contemplating on the purity of the Mind has a suicidal effect on life, and Hui-neng vehemently protested against this type of meditation. (p. 159)

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

There are as many types of binding as there are types of clinging. When we cling to purity we thereby make a form of it, and we are purity-bound. For the same reason, when we cling to or abide with emptiness, we are emptiness-bound; when we abide with Dhyana or tranquilization, we are Dhyana-bound. 

However excellent are the merits of these spiritual exercises, they inevitably lead us to a state of bondage in one way or another. In this there is no emancipation. The whole system of Zen discipline may thus be said to be nothing but a series of attempts to set us absolutely free from all forms of bondage.

Even when we talk of "seeing into one's self-nature," this seeing has also a binding effect on us if it is construed as having something in it specifically set up; that is, if the seeing is a specific state of consciousness. For this is the "binding." (p. 161)

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

That Dhyana has nothing to do with mere sitting cross-legged in meditation, as is generally supposed by outsiders, or as has been maintained by Shen-hsiu and his school ever since the days of Hui-neng, is here asserted in a most unmistakable manner.

Dhyana is not quietism, not is it tranquilization; it is rather acting, moving, performing deeds, seeing, hearing, thinking, remembering. Dhyana is attained where there is, so to speak, no Dhyana practiced. (p. 181)

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

Hui-neng's school thus objects to Shen-hsiu's on the ground that those who spend their time in sitting cross-legged in meditation, trying to realize the state of tranquility, are seekers after some tangible attainment; they are upholders of the doctrine of original purity, which they consider to be something intellectually demonstrable; they are gazers at a special object which can be picked up among other relative objects and shown to others as one points at the moon; they cling to this special object as something most precious, forgetting that this clinging degrades the value of their cherished object because it is thereby brought down to the same order of being as themselves; because of this clinging and abiding in it, they cherish a certain definite state of consciousness as the ultimate point they should attain; therefore they are never truly emancipated, they have not cut the last string which keeps them still on this side of existence. (p.195)

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

A monk asked Ching-t'sen, of Chang-sha: "What is meant by 'one's everyday thought is the Tao'?"
CHING-T'SEN: "When I feel sleepy, I sleep; when I want to sit, I sit."
MONK: "I fail to follow you."
CHING-T'SEN: "In summer we seek a cool place; when cold we sit by a fire." (p. 207)

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

A Vinaya master called Yuan came to Tai-chu Hui-hai, and asked, "When disciplining oneself in the Tao, is there any special way of doing it?"
HUI-HAI: "Yes, there is."
YUAN: "What is that?"
HUI-HAI: "When hungry one eats; when tired, one sleeps."
YUAN: "That is what other people do; is their way the same as yours?"
HUI-HAI: "Not the same."
YUAN: "Why not?"
HUI-HAI: "When they eat, they do not just eat, they conjure up all kinds of imagination; when they sleep, they do not just sleep, they are given up to varieties of idle thoughts. That is why theirs is not my way." (p. 207)

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

Both in Te-shan and Huang-po, Zen is taught to be something in direct contact with our daily life; there are no speculations soaring heavenward, no abstractions making one's head reel, and no sentimental sweetness which turns religion into a love-drama. Facts of daily experience are taken as they come to us, and from them a state of no-mind-ness is extracted. (p. 219)

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

A monk asked Hsiang-nien: "What is your eye that does not deceive others?" This is a literal translation; the question really demands the expression of the master's genuine, undeceiving attitude of mind which controls all his experiences. 

Our eye is generally found covered with all kinds of dust, and the refraction of light thereby caused fails to give us the correct view of things. The master responded right away, saying: "Look, look, winter is approaching."

Probably this mondo took place in a mountain monastery surrounded with trees, now bare and trembling in the wind, and both were looking at the snow-bearing clouds. The approach of the winter was quite certain; there was no deception about it.

But the monk wondered if there was not something more than that and said: "What is the ultimate meaning of it?" The master was perfectly natural and his answer was: "And then we have the gentle spring breeze."

In this there is no allusion to deep metaphysical concepts, but a plain fact of observation is told in the most ordinary language. 

The monk's question may elicit in the hands of the philosopher or theologian quite a different form of treatment, but the Zen master's eye is always on facts of experience accessible to everybody, and verifiable by him whenever he wants.

Whatever mysticism enveloped the master was not on his side, but on the side of him who looks for it because of his own blindness. (p. 222)

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

We always seek something beyond or behind our experience, and forget that this seeking is an endless regression either way, inward or outward, upward or downward. The Zen master is well aware of this, and avoids the complications. (p. 224)

Comments

[Spence Tepper]

mind and consciousness, chapters you have read; the book is the body
The soul the chapters you have not
That book, dusty and stained, binding separating
the contents are unaffected,
and anyone connected can read them online, or use their library card at their local branch

[Appreciative Reader]

Wow, this blog post's cool, Brian, not so much food for a thought as a whole feast. I'll need to read it a few times, later on, and hopefully I'll get to understand it better than I do now with just a quick read.

Basis that only partly digested quick read, a couple of knee jerk comments/questions:

"Fundamentally not one thing exists,
Where then is a grain of dust to cling?"

..........I don't get this. Sure, "fundamentally" the self doesn't exist. But fundamentally a great many things don't exist, given a long enough time frame even stars don't exist but are only processes. Less fundamentally, though, less tangibly, and as mental construct, the self does exist. It won't not exist, not until we die. So that is what there is for the grain of dust to cling on.

What am I missing?

---

"I urge you, though, to open yourself to the notion that you are not a self. Nor a soul. Nor a drop of the divine ocean. You're as empty of intrinsic being as anything or anyone else in this vast, mysterious cosmos."

..........Again, I don't get this. Sure, I'm "empty of INTRINSIC being", agreed. But for all that I exist, no matter how un-intrinscially, don't I?

How can I possibly not be a self? I get that the self has no abiding existence, that it's merely an emergent property of the brain, all of that, sure. But that's by way of recognizing the ephemeral nature of the self, that's by way of understanding what the self is; that is not to say the self doesn't exist.

To the extent I am, the self is what I am. How can I not be a self?

[Brian Hines]

Spence, Buddhism doesn't believe in a soul. And Zen REALLY doesn't believe in a soul. Maybe you do. Just wanted to point out that D.T. Suzuki, along with every other writer about Zen that I've come across, and I've read many of them, doesn't mention soul -- except maybe to note that soul has no place in Buddhism. Check out:

https://www.lionsroar.com/do-buddhists-believe-in-a-soul/
-----------------------------
"The short answer is no. In fact, this is the defining premise of Buddhism and one of the main things that differentiates it from other religions. In ancient Hinduism, the soul was called the atman and the basic Buddhist view was described as anatman—no soul.

A soul is considered to be something at our core that is single, independent, and unchanging. This isn’t just a religious belief; deep down, we all believe we have a soul. When I feel hurt, I must believe there is a separate “me” that is being hurt. In that sense, soul, self, and ego all refer to the same thing—our belief in a single, independent, and unchanging “me,” whether mundane or transcendent.

The Buddha said that all phenomena—including us—are conditioned, and all conditioned phenomena are impermanent. Far from being single, independent, and unchanging, we are made up of many parts, a product of causes and conditions, and constantly changing.

Yet Buddhism does say we have an essential nature that transcends conditioned or material existence. In the Mahayana, this is called buddhanature, the open expanse of awakeness in which all good qualities reside.

Is this just another version of a soul? Well, it is if you think of it that way—if you try to identify yourself with it. But in reality, buddhanature is said to be empty of all concepts of self and identity, as well as birth, death, time, space, etc. To be anatman, if you will."

[Brian Hines]

Appreciative Reader, you are a person, not a self. Of course, this depends on defining "self." The way it is usually described in Buddhism, and also most of neuroscience, involves an enduring aspect of ourself. That very word, "ourself," points to something real or unchanging about us that is hidden under our changing aspects.

So people say things like "I haven't been true to my self," "I need to discover my genuine self," and such. That's what I was thinking of when I wrote what I did in the 2012 post -- that the search for one's self is misguided because we don't have or are a self. Yes, we have enduring memories, but if those go away, as in Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia, so does our sense of who we are. If we had or were an enduring self, that wouldn't happen.

I'm sure you realize this, so I'm preaching to the choir. I'm just arguing that "self" isn't the best word to describe you, or anyone. "Person" is more accurate. You are a unique person. So am I. So is everybody. No two people are exactly alike, even identical twins.

No two trees are exactly alike either. But we don't say that a tree has a self. We just call it a tree. Or to be more specific, an oak tree that is a certain height, in a certain place, with certain characteristics. But we don't add "self" to a description of a tree. So I'm wondering why you think you are a self in addition to being a unique person. A short answer to why Buddhism doesn't believe in a soul that I just shared in another comment is appropriate here, since it mentions self.

https://www.lionsroar.com/do-buddhists-believe-in-a-soul/
----------------------------------
"The short answer is no. In fact, this is the defining premise of Buddhism and one of the main things that differentiates it from other religions. In ancient Hinduism, the soul was called the atman and the basic Buddhist view was described as anatman—no soul.

A soul is considered to be something at our core that is single, independent, and unchanging. This isn’t just a religious belief; deep down, we all believe we have a soul. When I feel hurt, I must believe there is a separate “me” that is being hurt. In that sense, soul, self, and ego all refer to the same thing—our belief in a single, independent, and unchanging “me,” whether mundane or transcendent.

The Buddha said that all phenomena—including us—are conditioned, and all conditioned phenomena are impermanent. Far from being single, independent, and unchanging, we are made up of many parts, a product of causes and conditions, and constantly changing.

Yet Buddhism does say we have an essential nature that transcends conditioned or material existence. In the Mahayana, this is called buddhanature, the open expanse of awakeness in which all good qualities reside.

Is this just another version of a soul? Well, it is if you think of it that way—if you try to identify yourself with it. But in reality, buddhanature is said to be empty of all concepts of self and identity, as well as birth, death, time, space, etc. To be anatman, if you will."

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Brian Ji!
Yes, Buddhism doesn't mention a soul. But Buddha does mention liberation from transmigration, the coming and going into this world of suffering. What do you think he is talking about?

So whatever else that is, which I labelled soul, it's in the chapters you and I haven't seen yet...It's unseen and indescribable...You can say we have know soul in terms of someone's concept. But not necessarily empty...unless you agree that even empty is just a concept.

But if there is a soul that in liberation takes us from this world of suffering, perhaps it must be contained within the book that is the body, right?

And yet the contents of that book can be read elsewhere, even when the book is old and gone.

It's a Koan, buddie.

Whatever you think makes you an individual doesn't. It can be found somewhere else.

And while the physical body exists, the person we call Brian, the collection of memories and behaviors that actually change moment by moment, refer to something that doesn't, but which is unknowable.

As unknowable as the empty space in the vase, whose whole purpose is that empty space.

You can't call that anything. But it is something.

[Ron E.]

What I appreciate about the Zen or Chan way is that it does not depend on conventional Buddhist scriptures which having been amassed from 2,600 years ago and then subjected to writing and rewriting with various translations and interpretations, much of what the scriptures illustrate as what the Buddha was supposed to have said is uncertain.

If the history is correct about the origins of Zen Buddhism, then it was introduced from India to China where, influenced by Taoism it became Chan. It was later that in Japan it became translated and practised as Zen.

My understanding of the chief principle of Chan/Zen is simply to investigate the basic causes of human suffering. This is what distinguishes it from the monotheistic religions. To that end, Chan and Zen masters like Hui-Neng devised various ways to address the human condition which basically was to understand the mind/self phenomenon being the primary cause of suffering or Dukkha. Dukkha I believe, is better translated as ‘being out of kilter’, or ‘being off balance’ – perhaps with ourselves or our lives?

As to no-mind and no-self – it is not too difficult to understand that the mind and self are simply mental structures, conventions that have passed into common usage for ease of communication. No-mind points to the fact that the end product of the brain’s networking being thoughts, opinions, beliefs etc., that arrive into awareness are transient phenomenon, of course valuable for day-to-day living but having become an autonomous mental habit continually shackles us into, often unnecessary thought patterns.

No-mind is to be aware of this habit – not to be mindless – and through such awareness realise the other mental habit of assuming we have (or are) a separate self. To study Chan/Zen, is to study (be aware of) the mind which incorporates being aware of the self. Realising the impermanent and fleeting nature of the mind/self is said to reveal a clearer understanding of who/what one is and one’s relationship with nature and the world at large.

No-self and emptiness go hand in hand. We naturally imply that things have essences. We believe we have a ‘me’, a separate ‘self’ or soul somewhere within us. We assume a tree is a ‘tree’, perhaps identifying it as an oak or hazel, investing it with an identity, whereas trees like us, are interdependent natural processes in a constant state of interacting and being with the environment we exist in.

[Ron E.]

I should add that many conventions that can be confusing in Chan and Zen are just that – conventions – and ideas such as reincarnation or rebirth (being derived from Hindu thought and belief) may be used to point to an emergence or rebirth from the suffering (Dukkha), that is a feature of a mind steeped in opinions, thoughts and beliefs that keep it from experiencing the moment-to-moment realities of life. As there is no actual ‘self’, there is nothing to be re-born.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Ron E:
You wrote:
"conventions – and ideas such as reincarnation or rebirth (being derived from Hindu thought and belief) may be used to point to an emergence or rebirth from the suffering (Dukkha), that is a feature of a mind steeped in opinions, thoughts and beliefs that keep it from experiencing the moment-to-moment realities of life. As there is no actual ‘self’, there is nothing to be re-born."

To end rebirth, Dukka, according to Buddhism, requires liberation. From what? From desire, and the thoughts and actions that lead to it. But more, from all thinking and identity. That takes work. The idea is easy to understand. The reality is something else.

You can look at rebirth as physical rebirth, transmigration, which is my personal belief. But it isn't necessary. Buddhism says that nothing else exists outside of this moment. There is a truth to that statement, a very powerful truth that Neuroscience confirms.

Modern Zen Buddhists take a subtler approach that is, in its own way, grounded in a deeper truth...rebirth into attachment, rebirth into this illusory identity, rebirth into a blind sense of permanence when the reality of change even within us is happening with and without our awareness. That rebirth can happen in an instant. We aren't even aware of it. And then we must find our way once again to Moksha from that identity that has been reborn, regenerated. But if we aren't aware of that rebirth, how can we move to liberate ourselves from it?

We are in this instant merely a clone of who we were moments ago. Our entire identity is memory-based and that is a fluid and recursive process. Memory is nothing more than a process within the brain. And that process degrades over time, and is reconstructed moment by moment. Memory isn't even a record of fact, so much as a smattering of related points of visual and auditory memory pieced together by reconstruction that happens whenever we try to remember.

So the Ron of now, is just a memory clone and reconstruction of the Ron twenty seconds ago. That Ron, of twenty seconds ago, is gone and will never return. This clone right now, this Ron in this instant is actually a rebirth.

It doesn't really matter whether your mind is occupied on thoughts, or feels to you calm and centered. Has nothing to do with it.

The problem is our unconscious mind, which peeks through. And our brain that is cloning us over and over again, and with each clone, the old "me" dies and is replaced, all without our permission. The ideal of Moksha is easily stated. But to achieve, the mind must become absolutely still. Or, more accurately, your conscious awareness must grow beyond the awareness of that constantly interacting, reacting cloned identity. We must see with different eyes. Because the ripples upon that memory-based identity lead to desire, reaction and that all grounds us in that mental clone, and leads to more action and reaction which results in suffering.

Your sense that you are the same Ron you were is just a biochemical persistence of memory that is actually a copy of a copy of a copy.

The Ron of ten minutes ago was at least thirty clones ago.

When the mind is still we can experience something outside of that cloning process. The "me" that I don't really know all that well, that is simply observing, can observe other stuff unrelated to the cloning process, unrelated to this functioning within those areas of the brain.

Direct perception may just be experience of a different portion of the brain's reports. Outside of birth and death, suffering and pleasure.

Maybe love can also take us there. Maybe pure joy is there, unattached to anything, permanent, not fleeting, not reproducing itself.

Moksha!

And if you experience that, it is also outside of time. It is in that instant, eternal.

The brain reports time to us also. The brain keeps time. But perhaps we can experience the part of the brain outside of that function?

Perhaps we can go there for an eternity.

[Appreciative Reader]

Brian, I agree fully with these parts of what you say in your recent comment, obviously: “(Y)ou are a person, not a self.” And “ ‘Self’ isn’t the best word to describe you, or anyone. “Person” is more accurate.” And so on.

However, there’s two things where I’m not sure I agree. One of those is about some stuff you yourself say here. And the other is about that Zen thing you’ve quoted in your blog post, and off of that about Zen in general.

----------

First, about what you’d said in your comment. The part where you say this: “No two trees are exactly alike either. But we don't say that a tree has a self. We just call it a tree. Or to be more specific, an oak tree that is a certain height, in a certain place, with certain characteristics. But we don't add "self" to a description of a tree. So I'm wondering why you think you are a self in addition to being a unique person.”

Well, trees don’t, in fact, have a self, right? At least as far as we know? While we most certainly do!

Why do I think I am a self in addition to being a unique person? Well, because I experience it! As do you, as does everyone else. I think Descartes summed it up --- sorry, terrible pun! --- pithily enough, with his “Cogito, ergo sum.” We may disagree with him over the implications of that observation of his, but we can hardly argue with the observation itself.

What we’ve discovered since, thanks to science, is the exact nature of this consciousness, of this sense of self. We’ve understood it to be no more than an emergent property of our mind and nervous system etc, and we’ve understood it to be simply a process, and an ephemeral one at that. But to take that further into saying that we don’t have that sense of self at all, that makes no sense at all!

I don’t know, perhaps an analogy might clarify what I find off about this line of thinking. We’ve always known solids to be these hard things, and liquids to be flowing, and gases to be …well, airy. Today we know a great deal more about these states of matter, and we know that solids aren’t actually “solid” at all, if you look at the atomic structure of matter. And it is good that we know this, and update our view of the world accordingly. But it makes no sense to therefore conclude that solids don’t exist at all, or that there’s no difference between solids and liquids and gases.

Likewise, we’ve updated our knowledge of what the consciousness is, and what our sense of self is. We know a lot more about these than we did before, which is good. We’ve thrown away the absurd superstitions about soul etc that we in our ignorance used to harbor in times past, which also is very good. But to conclude from all of this that our sense of self does not exist all, or that there’s no difference between trees and us humans when it comes to consciousness and/or self, that seems to be an unwarranted conclusion. Just like it is wrong to conclude, basis what we’ve understood about matter, that solids don’t exist, or that there’s no difference between solids and liquids, or solids and gases.

I think we’re agreed, aren’t we, that our consciousness, and our sense of self as well, are a function of the sheer complexity of our brain-nervous-system-gut-biome-etc (or maybe just the brain, either way). Well, in as much trees lack that complexity, they also lack the process that we refer to as being conscious, which is to say they lack consciousness; and they also, likewise, lack a sense of self. At least as far as we know.

It isn’t as if we don’t have a sense of self. We do. It’s just very different than what in times past we’d imagined it to be. But that understanding of what the sense of self is, doesn’t mean that the sense of self doesn’t exist, or that there’s no difference as far as this between us who do have a sense of self and trees which, as far as we know, don’t have this sense of self.

----------

As far as Zen, two things I find off.

First, that specific verse that you’ve quoted, and that I’d commented on yesterday. In context of what I’ve just now said above, maybe you might agree with what I’d said there:

"Fundamentally not one thing exists,
Where then is a grain of dust to cling?"

..........I don't get this. Sure, "fundamentally" the self doesn't exist. But fundamentally a great many things don't exist, given a long enough time frame even stars don't exist but are only processes. Less fundamentally, though, less tangibly, and as mental construct, the self does exist. It won't not exist, not until we die. So that is what there is for the grain of dust to cling on.

What am I missing?

---

And my second thing with Zen is this. They’re so damned cryptic, that you never know what they’re talking about. No, seriously, that obscrurantism, that’s bull shit. None of this is that difficult to put down in words, you know. The “realizations” of Zen, they can be very easily expressed in clear terms. It isn’t, at all, as if these are some deep truths that our language cannot convey, or any of that faux-wise nonsense.

It’s ironic, the obscurantism that Zen types invariably resort to, given the example of Buddha himself. One-and-a-half to two full MILLENNIA before these Zen guys came into the picture, the Buddha himself was remarkable as far as the crystal clarity with which he conveyed his ideas. Which is not to say the Buddha was always correct. He did stick in some weird superstitions in his Sutras, and of course much more got added on to derivative analyses including, as you rightly point out, the Mahayana stuff. But the Buddha did make sure to make his ideas perfectly clear. When you express your ideas clearly, others can assess those ideas, and figure out if you’re right or wrong. But when all you do is speak in riddles, then people imagine a depth there that is beyond their understanding --- and I suspect that’s exactly the effect these humbugs were going in for. That’s Deepak Chopra territory, right there.

Take this verse that you’ve quoted in your article. Where Hui Neng the kitchen boy composes that verse, and then gets made the head monk or whatever. Now I realize this is probably all apocryphal, simply fiction; but still, if we might analyze that situation, if only as one might analyze a piece of fiction:

First of all, why’s this “master” assessing his disciples basis some weird cryptic verse they’re asked to compose? It’s like the master has his head so deep inside his ass, and he’s spent so much of his life speaking in faux-wise riddles, that he’s forgotten that clearly expressing oneself is even a thing. He could simply have assessed his disciples’ knowledge and understanding in some straightforward manner, by simply speaking with them clearly. Had he done that, then the kitchen boy’s error might have become obvious. The kitchen boy’s saying there’s no self, which is nonsense. There is indeed a self, except the self is intangible, a process, and ephemeral, and changing, all of that --- and because it is there, that intangible self is what might “collect dust”, and what needs to be kept clean, so that one might clearly understand its insubstantiality.

That’s my thing with all things Zen. I’m not saying there’s no worth to it, obviously there is. But they’re so given to obscurantism, that whole tradition, that one doesn’t know what makes sense and what doesn’t --- and I suspect the proponents of Zen don’t, either.

In fact --- and continuing to analyze that verse as one might a piece of fiction --- that kitchen boy story reminds me of this from, Thich Nhat Hanh it was I think although I’m not 100% sure. There was this novice/apprentice who everyone admired as the doyen of that particular monastery. He had a rare talent for meditation, never ever had any difficulty. Every time the novices were asked to sit in meditation, he’d sit still with spine erect, eyes closed, and never move a muscle or an eyelid until gently roused again. …So well, the punchline is, it turns out this novice would simply go to sleep, and had taught himself to do that without snoring or falling over or flailing around.

Likewise, I think the most straightforward explanation of this Zen story is that the kitchen hand saw these weird kids sitting around spouting cryptic verses rather than speaking clearly, and in he walks himself and spouts some nonsense of his own. And the master has his head so deep up his backside that he imagines something very wise has been said, and makes this illiterate but sharp-witted boy his successor.

……….The weird cryptic things in Zen, I think that’s simply nonsense, nothing more than obscurantism. Nothing in there that might not be very easily translated into normal-human-speak. Except it sounds so much less profound that way.

Which is not to say there’s no profundity there at all. As with the Theravadin teachings that preceded Zen by nearly two millennia, the epheramality and insubstantialness of self and consciousness are very wise insights, and for those times very remarkable indeed. But their weird cryptic “teachings”? I think that’s bull shit, the crypticism part of it, the obscurantism of it all.

[Appreciative Reader]

Just re-read the comment I posted just now. Let me clarify, I haven’t actually read much of Zen. It is entirely possible that not all Zen masters always spoke in riddles. It is entirely possible that some of them did write down about Zen in very clear terms. And in any case very likely there are scholars who’ve studied every bit of the cryptic words of Zen “masters”, and analyzed them to death. So yeah, although obscurantism in Zen leaves *me* befuddled, but that’s no reason to imagine that it leaves everyone similarly befuddled.

So, while I stand by my general criticism of the unnecessary obscurantism in Zen, but that criticism might have been made more plausibly by someone with a better grasp of Zen than I do myself! To that extent, I may have shot my mouth off about what I don’t really know about or fully understand. That broad generalization may have been uncalled for, at least pending some deeper study of the subject.

[Roger]

"........... Zen is taught to be something in direct contact with our daily life; there are no speculations soaring heavenward, no abstractions making one's head reel, and no sentimental sweetness which turns religion into a love-drama. Facts of daily experience are taken as they come to us, and from them a state of no-mind-ness is extracted."

--- Beware of one "word salad" being replaced with another. Nothing particularly wrong with word salads. They are what they are. Begin with a simple and understandable definition of what direct contact or direct perception is. Then proceed with the words, sentences and paragraphs.

[Ron E.]

Ah Spence! Just a brief response. Much of what you said re cloned identity is more or less common knowledge and true. In fact, that all fits in okay with the concepts of no-self, no-mind and emptiness. But, with the belief you seem to hold about transmigration then you can only but follow that.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Ron:

You wrote:
" But, with the belief you seem to hold about transmigration then you can only but follow that."
Hm. Not exactly.

I am trained in experimental psychology, so the working of the brain is one source of information.
Belief in God and Spirit are not actually different. These trigger and use parts of the brain. Lot's of different notions use the same brain chemistry and mechanisms to help a person achieve a transcendent state of experience.

So I can certainly hold the view that our persona, our identity is just a mental construction that is fleeting and moving here and there, though our conscious mind tends to think of it as lasting and unchanging. If that helps me withdraw my thinking from the day's concerns, problems and distractions, so that I can have the joy of internal focus, and communion with a Truth within me, then it serves a useful purpose.

And I can hold the faith in Spirit, as well as what I experience of that, as a transcendent experience. To participate in observing things more directly than sensory and memory construction. Then, in that raised state of consciousness, I am more sensitive to everything going on around me. But it starts with a greater sensitivity to what is going on within me. And that happens using a mechanism to focus that puts aside conventional and distracting thoughts.

And so much research has demonstrated that a strong faith, and an active participation in religion can lengthen your life by 5-7 years. So, this focus on something that is, for the Zen Master, the empty space in an empty pot, is very constructive, very healthy. The lover of Christ would call that focusing on Christ. The Zen Master would say the entire pot has only the purpose of that empty space within.

As far as mind is concerned, focusing mind, transcending sense perception, it's the identical mechanism. We translate it differently into different cultures and times. The mind is derivative of the real world, and very sensitive to culture, so it's not going to come up with the same description, even though the mechanism is the same.

But since the human body is the same in all cultures, times, then the human experience is going to be the same, even transcendent experience. It will just be explained differently.

What Saints and Zen monks describe as a different level of understanding and experience should inspire us to grow our awareness, in whatever approach we find appealing and can except, whether through the mind or the heart.

Just because I believe in dessert doesn't mean I don't enjoy the main course.

[Ron E.]

Spence. Your responses l'm sorry to say sound a little delusional. It is possible that one's beliefs can misinterprete science and research. You sound like you have it all sorted, so good luck.

[Appreciative Reader]

Read this article, the main blog post, twice more, to see if I could understand what a quick first read did not reveal.

Afraid not. Afraid I still don't grok how we're leaping on from "The self is insubstantial, the self is an emergent process, the self is an artifact of the complexity of our mind, that evolution has equipped us with", to "There is no self at all."

And the kitchen hand's verse continues to not make sense to me. And the whole idea of needlessly making cryptic and confusing verses, when a clearly constructed sentence or two might have so easily made for clarity, continues to irritate me, at the Zen tradition's willful and unnecessary obscurantism and --- as it appears to me, from my position of admitted ignorance of much of Zen literature --- humbug.

Sorry, I still don't get it.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Ron
You wrote
"Spence. Your responses l'm sorry to say sound a little delusional. It is possible that one's beliefs can misinterprete science and research. You sound like you have it all sorted, so good luck."

Ron, one can hold two conflicting thoughts. Even four or five. I would never consider your view as delusional simply because I didn't understand it.

Once you realize you yourself are subjective and can only refine your understanding, which is only a mental concept, a hand drawn copy of what you perceive, it is no problem to appreciate different versions of the same thing.

And when you see different people from the inside, it's just another morning.

"Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.'

" I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Alice In Wonderland, Lewis Carroll

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Appreciative
You wrote
"Afraid I still don't grok how we're leaping on from "The self is insubstantial, the self is an emergent process, the self is an artifact of the complexity of our mind, that evolution has equipped us with", to "There is no self at all."

Zen is all about seeing things from different perspectives at the same time.

Each of us is an island unto ourselves, and the world that we see is the only one that exists.

There is a physical world separate from that view, and the two aren't the same at all.

One is a mental construction, but the other, because we can only know it indirectly, from our view, is just another mental concept.

Does reality even exist? Maybe what exists is simply beyond comprehension.

You see? Not one perspective, but multiple.

Looking for one answer, that is going to be confusing, because there are more than one, and they are in beautiful conflict.

So it's a good thing to be confused. It means you are seeing more than one view and can't reduce the whole into a single concept.

That's real progress.

The logic changes when you change the premises.

[Appreciative Reader]

"There is a physical world separate from that view, and the two aren't the same at all.

One is a mental construction, but the other, because we can only know it indirectly, from our view, is just another mental concept.

Does reality even exist? Maybe what exists is simply beyond comprehension.

You see? Not one perspective, but multiple."

----------

Not to forget the recent news about astronomers having finally figured out the exact mechanism of the hitherto unexplained acceleration of Oumuamua.

In other words, cool non sequitur. And, per usual, nice waffling!

Sorry, no offense! But, having kept it zippered the last four or five times you presented your exquisite waffles to me, this one time I couldn't resist appreciating aloud their texture and taste.

Cheers, Spence. :---)

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"Not to forget the recent news about astronomers having finally figured out the exact mechanism of the hitherto unexplained acceleration of Oumuamua.

" In other words, cool non sequitur. And, per usual, nice waffling!"

Sorry AR but you misunderstand. I was referring to the James Webb telescope discovery of galexies that make no sense within the current model of the Big Bang...

"Nobody expected them. They were not supposed to be there. And now, nobody can explain how they had formed."

https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-giant-distant-galaxies-surprise