Emptiness is the key to understanding Buddha nature

A few days ago, in a blog post about Shunryu Suzuki's book, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, I said:

If you're unsure what Buddha nature consists of, join the club, because I feel the same way. But I have some ideas gained from re-reading Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind. I'll share them in an upcoming post.

This is that post. Of course, before launching into what I consider Buddha nature is all about, it bears saying that like so many other subjects in Zen, Buddha nature supposedly is beyond words and concepts.

OK, no argument there.

But so is love, and we humans write and say copious amounts about love, which remains a subjective sensation, not anything that can be dissected or analyzed in an objective fashion. So I have no problem with trying to describe Buddha-nature. 

After all, while I embrace much of Buddhism, as long as it is stripped of its religious and supernatural aspects, I'm not a Buddhist. I'm just a guy who is trying to understand life and reality, and Buddhism has supplied some of the puzzle pieces that I've been able to put together so far in that quest.

After I'd published the post where I said I'd discuss Buddha nature in a succeeding post, I started to think about the most likely place Buddha nature would reside. It quickly dawned on me that an obvious place to look (really obvious) was in the core notion of Buddhism: emptiness. 

OK, some would say that emptiness isn't the core notion, but a core notion. They can make that argument, but since they're not writing this post, and I am, I'm sticking with the core notion. I say that because emptiness is what distinguishes Buddhism from religions that assume there's an unchanging essence at the root of reality: God, Brahman, Spirit, whatever you want to call it. Or of us, an enduring soul or self.

Buddhism says, no, there isn't. Everything is marked by emptiness. Which includes emptiness. (I once had a book called The Emptiness of Emptiness, which Amazon tells me I bought in 1998; I loved the title but must have given it away, since I can't find it.)

However, I do have a pleasingly readable book about emptiness by Guy Newland, Introduction to Emptiness: Tsong-Kha-Pa's great treatise on the stages of the path.

I just saw that in the Amazon description of the book, it's noted that "Readers are hard-pressed to find books that can help them understand the central concept in Mahayana Buddhism—the idea that ultimate reality is emptiness." So this buttresses my contention that emptiness is the core notion of Buddhism.

Here's how Newland talks about emptiness in the first few pages of his book.

We suffer unnecessarily because we do not know ourselves. Like addicts fiercely clinging to a drug, we cannot let go of the sense that we are substantial, solid, independent, and autonomous.

...Of course, we do exist. We are living beings. We make choices and our choices make a difference, for ourselves and others. But at some level, for all of us, we cannot leave it at that. To be real, to be alive, we feel that we must deep down somehow exist in a solid and independent way.

Death tells us a very different story, but for that very reason we find a million ways to avoid hearing the message of death. The message is that we are impermanent. Our bodies are disintegrating moment by moment, right now. 

And though we desperately want to believe otherwise, the truth is that beneath our ever-changing minds and aging bodies there is no eternal and essential self. We have no natural existence, no independent way of existing.

We exist contingently, interdependently. We exist, but only in dependence on our ancestors, our body parts, our food, air, and water, and the other members of our society. We could not and do not exist otherwise. Devoid of any independent or substantial nature, our existence is possible only because it is far less rigid, less concrete, than what we imagine it to be.

Rather than seeing things as they are, we superimpose upon ourselves -- and on things around us -- a false existence, a self-existence or essential reality that actually does not exist at all. In the Buddhist philosophy explained here, the ultimate truth is the sheer absence, the lack, of any such essence.

This is emptiness (stong pa nyid, shunyata). 

While this may sound bleak, disappointing, or frightening, it is the very nature of reality. And it is reality -- not fantasy -- that is our final hope and our refuge. The path to freedom from needless misery, for ourselves and others, is through profound realization of this fundamental reality.

Thus Buddhism teaches that every human without exception lacks inherent existence or self-existence. Ditto for every other living thing. Ditto for every other non-living thing. Ditto for the Buddha. Ditto for Buddhism. All is marked by emptiness -- interdependence, impermanence, reliance on causes and conditions. Including emptiness itself.

This means that whatever Buddha nature is, it isn't something separate from the universal principle of emptiness. In other words, Buddha nature is marked by the sheer nonexistence of intrinsic nature, which is how Newland pithily describes emptiness in his glossary. 

With this in mind, here's an excerpt from the "Nothing Special" chapter in Suzuki's Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind.

If something exists, it has its own true nature, its Buddha nature. In the Pari-nirvana Sutra, Buddha says, "Everything has Buddha nature," but Dogen reads it this way: "Everything is Buddha nature." There is a difference.

If you say, "Everything has Buddha nature," it means Buddha nature is in each existence, so Buddha nature and each existence are different. But when you say, "Everything is Buddha nature," it means everything is Buddha nature itself.

When there is no Buddha nature, there is nothing at all. Something apart from Buddha nature is just a delusion. It may exist in your mind, but such things actually do not exist. So to be a human being is to be a Buddha. Buddha nature is just another name for human nature, our true human nature.

So Buddha nature is the same as true human nature. And we've seen that Buddhism teaches that this nature is emptiness. Meaning, an ever-changing nature, a nature that has no inherent existence, a nature that alters as the causes and conditions that cause us to act, think, and feel change.

Yet just as some people, or more accurately, most people, fail to understand that emptiness is the heart of reality, most people don't understand that Buddha nature is what they truly are. So something is preventing that realization. 

What that something is, that's a big question for Buddhists. Different schools of Buddhism, and different schools of Zen, have a varying approach on how to achieve a realization of Buddha nature. This is how Suzuki describes his Soto Zen approach in the "Limiting Your Activity" chapter.

In our practice we have no particular purpose or goal, or any special object of worship. In this respect our practice is somewhat different from the usual religious practices. Joshu, a great Chinese Zen master, said, "A clay Buddha cannot cross water; a bronze Buddha cannot get through a furnace; a wooden Buddha cannot get through fire."

Whatever it is, if your practice is directed toward some particular object, such as a clay, a bronze, or a wooden Buddha, it will not always work. So as long as you have some particular goal in your practice, that practice will not help you completely. It may help as long as you are directed towards that goal, but when you resume your everyday life, it will not work.

You may think that if there no purpose or no goal in our practice, we will not know what to do. But there is a way.

The way to practice without having any goal is to limit your activity, or to be concentrated on what you are doing in this moment. Instead of having some particular object in mind, you should limit your activity.

When your mind is wandering about elsewhere you have no chance to express yourself. But if you limit your activity to what you can do just now, in this moment, then you can express fully your true nature, which is the universal Buddha nature. This is our way.

When we practice zazen [meditation] we limit our activity to the smallest extent. Just keeping the right posture and being concentrated on sitting is how we express the universal nature. Then we become Buddha, and we express Buddha nature. So instead of having some object of worship, we just concentrate on the activity which we do in each moment.

When you bow, you should just bow; when you sit, you should just sit; when you eat, you should just eat. If you do this, the universal nature is there.

If what Suzuki said above about Buddha nature doesn't make a lot of sense to you, here's some possibly easier-to-grasp excerpts from what Barry Magid said in "What is Buddha nature," which echoes my perspective about emptiness and Buddha nature.

What exactly is Buddha Nature? While we can talk about it many ways, it's probably best to start by saying there's no such thing as Buddha Nature. And the important word in there, of course, is thing. Because we don't want to use the word Buddha Nature to intentionally or unintentionally denote some kind of subtle, mysterious, esoteric essence that lies behind or inside who or what we otherwise seem to be.

Buddha Nature is not a seed or potential or latent capacity that we uncover and develop. It's not a separate true self that we uncover. So what is it? What's a way to talk about Buddha Nature that doesn't lead us down one of these confusing byways?

...To say that all things have Buddha Nature is in a way to simply re-describe or re-perceive what we and things in the world are actually like, as opposed to the description that we or our language can fall into when we talk about selves or chairs or objects as fixed, unchanging things.

Buddha Nature is saying that everything, as it is, rather than being permanent and solid, is actually impermanent and changing. And any permanence is a permanence that we conceptually or linguistically ascribe to it, more or less for our functional or emotional convenience.

That everything by its nature is in a constant state of interdependent flux. Everything is subject to being in relationship to something else, everything is changing over time, and that it is all empty of some fixed essence that is immutable while things around it change.

So to say that something possesses Buddha Nature is not to identify any separate inner quality to that thing, it's just to describe the thing as it already is, from a particular point of view. Or to describe it maybe more strictly from the absence of a usual point of view, that ascribes a certain permanence to it.

And if you're totally confused by everything said in this post, a cartoon provides maybe the best understanding of all about emptiness and Buddha nature.

 

Comments

[Enlightenment 101]

Emptiness, OMG the emptiness!!!

It simply means that which is without [physical] form.

It implies that there is a “nature” beyond what we perceive to be physical.

[Enlightenment 101]

God bless the Buddhists.

God bless the Christians.

God bless the Hindus.

God bless the Muslims.

God bless the Atheists.

God bless the Jews.

God bless the Scientologists, the Mormons, the Christian Scientists, the Bahá'í Faith, the Baptists, the Catholics, the Jehovah Witnesses, the Agnostics, the Rosicrucians, the Rastafarians…

God bless the Scientists.

God bless us, everyone.

Because we are all Spiritual Beings having a Physical Experience.

[um]

@ Enlightment

Sounds good but why would an spiritual being having any interest in being this or that??
and ...
Why would God, if there is such athing, bless what he has created.

I do not bless my coffee, just drink it.

[Enlightenment 101]

Ahh… a blessed is simply appreciation.

Don’t you appreciate that cup of coffee?

It’s simply Gratitude—however great or small it might be.

To love yourself is to be grateful for ALL of your parts.

[E101]

@um,

BTW, what time zone are you living in??

[um]

@ E 101

During my life I have learned so many words, understood its conceptual content but in the end I experienced only a few ... love is a word I never use, it even never crosses my mind. It only pops up when others use it.

Where I live must be MEZ

[Ron E.]

Brian, an interesting rendition of emptiness and Buddha nature which is a difficult concept for the western mind to fathom. We are habituated to naming and labelling (necessary for navigating our world) making objects into distinct separate things effectively endowing them with an identity a separate, enduring self, as though they really possessed such an enduring essence. The Chan/Zen way is to intuitively understand (or realise) this and in so doing realise ourselves and all things as Buddha Nature.

In Chan/Zen Buddhism a rendition of emptiness is found in the Heart Sutra – the whole sutra is worth a read, this is part of it: -
“Here, O Sariputra,
Form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form;
Emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form,
The same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness.
Here, O Sariputra,
All dharmas [things] are marked with emptiness”

The cartoon you put at the end of this blog depicts this: - The student’s nose is shown to be form, but it is also emptiness – no ‘nose’ as a separate, named thing, but just this.
Also, they say in Zen: - ‘Not a Single Thing Exists,’ but Therein Lies an Inexhaustible Treasury”

[Spence Tepper]

"Thus Buddhism teaches that every human without exception lacks inherent existence or self-existence."

D. T. Suzuki wrote about this misunderstanding.

""Emptiness which is conceptually liable to be mistaken for sheer nothingness is in fact the reservoir of infinite possibilities."

DT Suzuki spoke of Satori, the transcendant experience, and in Buddhism we also find "Kensho" the smaller aha moments of heightened awareness.

He also wrote
"" In Zen there must be satori; there must be a general mental upheaval which destroys the old accumulations of intellection and lays down the foundation for a new life; there must be the awakening of a new sense which will review the old things from a hitherto undreamed-of angle of observation."

" Is satori something that is not at all capable of intellectual analysis? Yes, it is an experience which no amount of explanation or argument can make communicable to others unless the latter themselves had it previously. If satori is amenable to analysis in the sense that by so doing it becomes perfectly clear to another who has never had it, that satori will be no satori. For a satori turned into a concept ceases to be itself; and there will no more be a Zen experience."

Yet Shunryu Suzuki admitted he had not yet experienced Satori nor Kensho.

He was the perfect teacher for the beginner.

But do not confuse the empty cup with nothing.

Empty of your concepts is not nothing.

It is preparation.

The center of Zen, as DT Suzuki teaches, it's Satori, transcendant experience. That is something.

To try to reduce that to concepts is a mistake. And unable to do that, too claim Satori is non-existent is mistaken.

" Is satori something that is not at all capable of intellectual analysis? Yes, it is an experience which no amount of explanation or argument can make communicable to others unless the latter themselves had it previously. If satori is amenable to analysis in the sense that by so doing it becomes perfectly clear to another who has never had it, that satori will be no satori. For a satori turned into a concept ceases to be itself; and there will no more be a Zen experience."

[Spence Tepper]

Shunryu writes
"The way to practice without having any goal is to limit your activity, or to be concentrated on what you are doing in this moment. Instead of having some particular object in mind, you should limit your activity."

Just doing that doesn't mean infinite possibility doesn't exist.

It means that opening yourself to it requires a natural and unattached focus. To clean the mind, us it, occupy it in a way that leaves your consciousness free to observe.

Buddhism is not a statement about God, religion, soul or Atheism.

It is far simpler than that. It is growing your awareness in part by accepting your limited place in space and time. But that shouldn't become your religion. That's just a way to liberate your thinking so you can experience reality directly.

Satori is the point of Buddhism, and that is a transcendant experience, a higher experience that includes the mundane and the infinite.

To attempt to explain what cannot be explained is to kill it, to once again break our connection to reality with yet another worthless mental intellection.

[Spence Tepper]

Remember that Zen always presents conflicting concepts that are together, illogical, in order to open up perception and awareness by putting side the interruption of abstract thinking.

Two Zen students approached their Master and asked..
"Master. We were watching a flag waving in the wind. He says it's the wind that we can't see that moves. I say it is the flag that we see that moves. What is the truth."

And the Zen Master replied, "there is no flag and there is no wind. It is the mind that is moving. Get back to your practice."
Paraphrased from story in Zen Flesh Zen Bones.

All things are moving. Do they have a cause? Did some stable thing cause life when all wet can see are the moving parts?

In this single moment, cause means nothing. Cause was, in concept, something before, outside of this moment, which is the only reality that actually exists.

All that exists, what we can see, are objects in motion.

We do not see their connections.

But they are all connected, and every movement has its cause.

How to get beyond those concepts of cause and connection?

How to actually see and know that?

Heightened awareness. Accepting what we see, practicing seeing better, dissipationately, objectively. And what is it that sees? Who or what is the observer?

Become the observer by observing better.

That is the only way to understand who and what is observing. Not your body, not your emotions, not your mind. Each intervention intervenes, but you are the empty space, the hub in the center of all that, not the pot, not the clay. You are nothing, and yet you are the only one actually seeing and hearing and feeling and thinking what your brain and body and mind report : the observer.

Just practice observation and learn to withdraw into that emptiness. Be empty.

Not nothing, just not actually part of this self. Not connected. But actually one with everything.

Become a better observer. Still the distressed and distracted mind, see more understand more.

Then in each moving thing you will see the cause and the effect all Instantaneously, Part the whole. The Satori moment.

[Spence Tepper]

Here is where the concept of anatta is generally misunderstood. Not this, and not this is not the same as nothing. By reductionism, by eliminating what self is not, Buddha eliminates attachment to these false notions and opens awareness to the true self, liberation to the self without ever having to define the true self.

And rust is the very first thing Buddha teaches is NOT who we really are?

The body.

Sorry Atheists. You got that wrong when you chose to label it Atheism.

The second discourse of Buddha explains it best:

"or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

" Any kind of feeling at all …

"Any kind of perception at all …

" Any kind of choices at all …

"You should truly see any kind of consciousness at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all consciousness—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

" Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. Being disillusioned, desire fades away. When desire fades away they’re freed. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed.

" They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’”

" That is what the Buddha said. Satisfied, the group of five mendicants were happy with what the Buddha said. And while this discourse was being spoken, the minds of the group of five mendicants were freed from defilements by not grasping."
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.59/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

Second discourse of Buddha

[um]

@ Spence

hahaha .. you see here are you at your best.

Remember .. you were not allowed to leave the diner table at young age without a discourse/debate.

Your parents must be proud of you.

As the twig is bent the tree is inclined
we say
Taught young, later done

Managers, CEO's etc are not made in schools, universities ... but .. at home.

I use to say .. to be a "boss" you must be raised in a family of bosses.

[Spence Tepper]

Um
Must you always show my nakedness?

Buddha said
"“But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”

“No, sir.”

He is teaching, through reductionism, that the self IS permanent, not suffering, not perishible. But it isn't anything we can conceive of.

What we really are isn't fit for our small thinking and perception. It's beyond this body, this experience, this existence. It IS.

[um]

@ Spence

If I could show that "nakedness" I might consider to do so.

All your efforts have born fruit.
You have mastered this art.
You use it to urn a living.

Now there is no more to gain, no where to go.
and after a while "winning" becomes a bore.

Until then rejoice the fruits of your labor.

The question opens now ... did those that came in contact with you benefited from that communion, that association?! Did thet came to fruition as well?!

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um
You asked
"The question opens now ... did those that came in contact with you benefited from that communion, that association?! Did thet came to fruition as well?!"

We helped each other, And the most painful experiences generally the most helpful. When help came then, whether I was on the giving end or the receiving end, it was most appreciated and most helpful.

In all other cases, seeds were planted in me, and I planted them in others.

Come back next year, after the harvest, and we will be able to answer your question better.

[um]

@ Spence

These are all personal questions and matters and can and should be answered by that same person.

I wonder if I will still be around here in this blog next year; it has already been gone on for a [to] long time.

We will see.

I found out that much of what is near and dear to me, is related to being around with certain people and that it didn't matter if they spoke or what they said. I came over time to understand that what matters was their presence.
I am not gratefull to them but rejoice in been offered their compagnie .. that is my gratititude ... they were great souls

[Roger]

The term worry relates to when the mind is not at peace with itself, others, and the world around it.
Worrying is found in this thing we call mind.

It is where all our problems are processed and troubling thoughts arise. This in turn causes us and others harm, when we talk or do things based on that worrying mind.

The potential for worry is inherent in all human experience because of impermanence and insubstantiality, but worrying about it is not compulsory.

The confused and conditioned self-referential mind worries because it does not meet experiences as they are, but how it believes them to be.

It searches for permanence in that which is impermanent. It attempts to cling to that which has no substantiality in or if itself. The human brain evolved to have the ability of conscious choice, but thoughts appear in a linear and abstract way, so how they appear is not as important as what we do with them when they do appear.

If the thought is an unhelpful one, in that it is motivated by anything that might cause physical, emotional, or psychological harm to you, others and the world around you, it will be helpful not to act it out and allow it to pass or transform it into a help thought by reflecting on kindness and generosity.

To alleviate or to eradicate worry, the most helpful method is to maintain peace of mind.

To maintain peace of mind it is helpful to meet experiences as they are and to respond as is appropriate to the experience without creating the worry within your thought process.

The on-going quality of your mind state is your responsibility as it is this that will define the quality of your next experience.

[Spence Tepper]

"there is no "Doctrine of anatta/anatman" mentioned anywhere in the sutras, rather anatta is used only to refer to impermanent things as other than the Soul, to be anatta."

" The Pali term and noun for "no soul" is natthatta (literally "there is not/no[nattha]+atta'[Soul]), not the term anatta, and is mentioned at Samyutta Nikaya 4.400, where when Gotama was asked if there "was no soul (natthatta)", equated this question to be equivalent to Nihilism (ucchedavada). Common throughout Buddhist sutra is the denial of psycho-physical attributes of the mere empirical self to be the Soul, or confused with same. The Buddhist paradigm as regards phenomena is "Na me so atta" (this/these are not my soul), nearly so the most common utterance of Gotama Buddha in the Nikayas, where "na me so atta" = Anatta/Anatman. In sutra, to hold the view that there is "no-Soul" (natthatta) is = to ucchedavada (SN 4.400) [Annihilationism] = natthika (nihilist).

Logically so, according to the philosophical premise of Gotama, the initiate to Buddhism who is to be "shown the way to Immortality (amata)" [MN 2.265, SN 5.9], wherein liberation of the mind (cittavimutta) is effectuated thru the expansion of wisdom and the meditative practices of sati and samadhi, must first be educated away from his former ignorance-based (avijja) materialistic proclivities in that he "saw any of these forms, feelings, or this body, to be my Self, to be that which I am by nature". Teaching the subject of anatta in sutra pertains solely to things phenomenal, which were: "subject to perpetual change; therefore unfit to declare of such things `these are mine, these are what I am, that these are my Soul'" [MN 1.232]

"The one scriptural passage where Gotama is asked by a layperson what the meaning of anatta is as follows: [Samyutta Nikaya 3.196] At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord Buddha: "Anatta, anatta I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Anatta mean?" "Just this Radha, form is not the Soul (anatta), sensations are not the Soul (anatta), perceptions are not the Soul (anatta), assemblages are not the Soul (anatta), consciousness is not the Soul (anatta). Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done."

" The anatta taught in the Nikayas has merely relative value; it is not an absolute one. It does not say simply that the Soul (atta, Atman) has no reality at all, but that certain things (5 aggregates), with which the unlearned man identifies himself, are not the Soul (anatta) and that is why one should grow disgusted with them, become detached from them and be liberated. Since this kind of anatta does not negate the Soul as such, but denies Selfhood to those things that constitute the non-self (anatta), showing them thereby to be empty of any ultimate value and to be repudiated, instead of nullifying the Atman (Soul) doctrine, it in fact compliments it."

"What has Buddhism to say of the Self? "That's not my Self" (na me so atta); this, and the term "non Self-ishness" (anatta) predicated of the world and all "things" (sabbe dhamma anatta; Identical with the Brahmanical "of those who are mortal, there is no Self/Soul", (anatma hi martyah, [SB., II. 2. 2. 3]). [KN J-1441] "The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto". For anatta is not said of the Self/Soul but what it is not. There is never a `doctrine of no-Soul', but a doctrine of what the Soul is not (form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.)."

"It is of course true that the Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical "self" in the very meaning of "my-self" (this person so-and-so, namo-rupa, an-atta), one might say in accordance with the command `denegat seipsum, [Mark VII.34]; but this is not what modern writers mean to say, or are understood by their readers to say; what they mean to say is that the Buddha denied the immortal(amata), the unborn (ajata) and Supreme-Self (mahatta') of the Upanishads. And that is palpably false, for he frequently speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha), and nowhere more clearly than in the too often repeated formula 'na me so atta', "This/these are not my Soul" (na me so atta'= anatta/anatman), excluding body (rupa) and the components of empirical consciousness (vinnana/ nama), a statement to which the words of Sankhara are peculiarly apposite, "Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something real"[Br. Sutra III.2.22]. It was not for the Buddha but for the nihilist (natthika)to deny the Soul."
https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=2891

Short version. Everything in this creation is self-less. Be self-less. Find liberation.

[Spence Tepper]

Or, in modern parlance anatta is, "that's not my name."

https://youtu.be/v1c2OfAzDTI

[Brian Hines]

Spence Tepper, and others who try to cram the supernatural, God, self, soul, or such into Zen, you may try to do this, but your efforts are bound to fail. While Buddhism has religious and supernatural aspects, Zen Buddhism denies them, being thoroughly of this world.

The notion that Zen is antithetical to atheism is absurd, since Zen is thoroughly godless. I've been reading and studying Zen literature for over 50 years. God and soul are almost completely absent from Zen writings, with a few exceptions, mostly when someone notes how Zen has no need for God or soul -- an attitude which Buddhism as a whole largely shares.

I realize that's it can be uncomfortable for religious believers to be exposed to a well-known philosophy that ignores God and the supernatural. Of course, that's why I've been attracted to Zen since my college years. I like how Zen boldly calls out religious bullshit, reminding us that THIS world, THIS physical reality, THIS nature that surrounds and sustains us -- that's all we need to be concerned about.

[um]

>> ...... Zen boldly calls out religious bullshit, reminding us that THIS world, THIS physical reality, THIS nature that surrounds and sustains us -- that's all we need to be concerned about.<<

Its my understanding that they have [1] nothing to say about other paths, nothing to say about [2] the divine and nowhere say [3] that this world of the senses is the only thing that matters.

It is my understanding that they USE this world as a vehicle to focus the attention in such a way that the associative movements stop and by doing so all that can be reached presents it self naturalu and no words are longer needed.

That waht they find there can be easily called by names and that calling names can be an obstacle to avoid.

In the end, whatever practice is used, whaytever narrative is used, it is all manipulation of the mind/body and that can only result in just one and the same outcome. The mountain has just one top.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Brian!
I appreciate that you have allowed the actual citations from the writings of D.T. Suzuki and those of the Buddhist scriptures to remain so everyone can make their own choices and have their own interpretation.

If you know of citations from D.T. Suzuki, or those attributed to Buddha, which conflict with my interpretation, by all means, I'm an avid reader and I'd love to read it.

Take a closer look from Buddha's second discource:

"“But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”

“No, sir.”

He claims that associating the self with anything impernanent, suffering and perishable is not fit to be regarded as the true self.

Now, from an Atheist perspective, all we are, all we identify with and know is this conscious mind which is a product of brain and chemistry. That's the true "self" according to Atheists.

But Buddha says the exact opposite. The true self is beyond those things. Those things aren't fit to be considered as the "self".

That's not a proof of spirit, in that you are correct. This is a reductionist argument. Carve away all that isn't the elephant and you have the elephant. But that's not a proof there is no elephant.

Both Buddha and D.T. Suzuki deny materialism directly. And the Buddha of ths scriptures does this five separate times in his second discourse.

As for D. T. Suzuki, what is Satori? How does he define it? I think he makes clear it can't be defined. If you can define it by brain or body or chemistry or emotion, you no longer have Satori.

It's that damned Zen of not knowing, Brian.

So, it can't be reduced to knowing when Buddha (as attributed to him...) and D.T. Suzuki both write that it is beyond even consciousness.

This isn't a proof of Spirit, but you can't close the door on it in Zen or the original Buddhist teachings, at least according to what is attributed to Buddha or D.T. Suzuki.

I love what Shunryu Suzuki writes about practice and simplicity grounded in our reality. But he admitted he never attained Satori or Kensho, according to the statement by his wife as told to Huston Smith, Professor of Philosophy at MIT who writes this in the forward to Zen Mind, Beginner's MInd written in 1972.

So that is why he never mentions Satori or Kensho in his writings, even though D.T. Suzuki says there is no Zen without them.

You see? Conflict, contradiction. That's Zen. When you think you've got it, along comes some irritating personality to show you don't.

The door is open. Seeking is part of living. That applies to all of us in this place.
'
Again, however, if you new information from your vast study, not derivative, not a western author's take, but actual quotations from the source material, that I'm most interested to learn from. Help me move forward in my journey, on a foundation of fact.

[um]

Could Zen have orginated elsewhere then in China and Japan?
I do not think so.

The honorable Dalai Lama, stated a while ago, that Tibetan Buddhism cannot exist outside Tibet

Scrape away the regional, cultural face of any teaching and practice, what is that remains?

Scrape the regional cultural aspect in terms of "cuisine" away from what people eat, than what remains? Food, and that must be the same for all human beings.

If we have the same body, the same brain, the same mind, the same consciousness,
what can be done with it must be the same.

[Spence Tepper]

OK, More of the eariest teachings from Buddha...
The Majjhima Nikaya, or middle-length discourses (we reviewed the second discourse above, here is some of the first discourse)...translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
© 1998

Note that Buddha has no problem acknowledging all the worlds, natural and supernatural, those the learned see and those they don't see...They are all the same to Buddha...And to think about them, distinguish them one from the other, to say one exists but not the other, in any way is in fact to be attached to concepts, and not a direct understanding...

"There he addressed the monks, "Monks!"

"Yes, lord," the monks responded.

"The Blessed One said, "Monks, I will teach you the sequence of the root of all phenomena [or: the root sequence of all phenomena]. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, sir," they responded.

...
“The Tathāgata—a worthy one, rightly self-awakened—directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he doesn’t suppose things about earth, doesn’t suppose things in earth, doesn’t suppose things coming out of earth, doesn’t suppose earth as ‘mine,’ doesn’t delight in earth. Why is that? Because the Tathāgata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you.

“He directly knows water as water… fire as fire… wind as wind… beings as beings… devas as devas… Pajāpati as Pajāpati… Brahmā as Brahmā… the Radiant devas as Radiant devas… the Beautiful Black devas as Beautiful Black devas… the Sky-fruit devas as Sky-fruit devas… the Conqueror as the Conqueror… the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space… the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness… the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness… the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception as the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception… the seen as the seen… the heard as the heard… the sensed as the sensed… the cognized as the cognized… singleness as singleness… multiplicity as multiplicity… the All as the All…

“He directly knows unbinding as unbinding. Directly knowing unbinding as unbinding, he doesn’t suppose things about unbinding, doesn’t suppose things in unbinding, doesn’t suppose things coming out of unbinding, doesn’t suppose unbinding as ‘mine,’ doesn’t delight in unbinding. Why is that? Because the Tathāgata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you.

“The Tathāgata—a worthy one, rightly self-awakened—directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he doesn’t suppose things about earth, doesn’t suppose things in earth, doesn’t suppose things coming out of earth, doesn’t suppose earth as ‘mine,’ doesn’t delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathāgata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you.

“He directly knows water as water… the All as the All…

“He directly knows unbinding as unbinding. Directly knowing unbinding as unbinding, he doesn’t suppose things about unbinding, doesn’t suppose things in unbinding, doesn’t suppose things coming out of unbinding, doesn’t suppose unbinding as ‘mine,’ doesn’t delight in unbinding. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathāgata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you.”

"That is what the Blessed One said. Displeased, the monks did not delight in the Blessed One’s words."

[Brian Hines]

Spence, your commenting style often is akin to someone who absolutely loves dogs, and dislikes cats. When presented with a cat, he says, "That isn't a cat. It is a small dog. Look, it has whiskers, It has a tail. It has four legs. It's just like a dog."

No, a cat isn't a dog. They have some similarities, but they're different species. They're both house pets, and sometimes dogs and cats get along, but sometimes they fight.

Likewise, Zen Buddhism isn't Buddhism. Buddhism has much more of a supernatural leaning, though both Buddhism and Zen see no need for God and embrace the doctrine of emptiness in which everything is impermanent, lacking an inherent or self-nature. So that leaves out anything eternal and unchanging, like God or soul.

When I pointed this out to you, you could have simply said, "Brian, you're correct. Zen has nothing to do with God or a permanent soul/self. However, I believe in these things, so I enjoy reading some Buddhist scriptures that support my belief."

That'd be clear and honest. Instead, you shift gears and start talking about how DT Suzuki views the self, which I can virtually guarantee isn't the same as an enduring unchanging self or soul, because this isn't part of Buddhism or Zen.

The beatify of Zen is that mountains are allowed to be mountains, and rivers are allowed to be rivers. A mountain isn't a river. A dog isn't a cat. And Zen Buddhism isn't Buddhism. You seem to have a near-compulsion to try to make any subject into an avenue for your own religious beliefs.

A friendly suggestion: be strong enough in your own beliefs to admit that there are other ways of looking at the world. The Dalai Lama speaks of theistic and non-theistic religions. Buddhism, he says, is non-theistic. No God. No soul. So even regular Buddhism is atheistic, with Zen Buddhism much more so.

See dogs as dogs and cats as cats. To see your personal beliefs in every philosophical or spiritual "animal" is confusing to people you're trying to have a comment conversation with.

[um]

If Zen Buddhism is not Buddhism, why is the term Buddhism added to the word zen?

German bread
french bread

Tells only that it is bread but prepared in another way

Does not Zen Buddhism say the same?
Zen being another approach to Buddhism then the many other forms, all having the same outcome but different in approach.

It makes me think of what one of the advaita teachers said about the approach of the goal in the ants way and the quicker approach of that of a bird.

Zen sames an equivalent of the birds form of advaita, the direct way. The way for the brave, the short way.

Bread has to be bread to be labeled as bread
and
So must budhism

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Brian:
You wrote
"When I pointed this out to you, you could have simply said, "Brian, you're correct. Zen has nothing to do with God or a permanent soul/self. However, I believe in these things, so I enjoy reading some Buddhist scriptures that support my belief.""

As William F. Buckley once said "The world would be so much better if people would just do as I say"..

See, I can appreciate someone's humor who holds a diametrically opposed view to my own.

But, sadly, I can't say something is "True" or "Correct" unless I see it. I can't say "Brian, Zen has nothing to dowith God or permanent soul / self." I can't say that because as Buddha taught, it's all inclusive. Reality includes it all.

But can you say "Zen doesn't close the door to things that may be non-material, or are beyond our comprehension. But as that is so, Zen asks, why conjecture about them? Why not learn to be objective in focusing on just what is before us, dispassionately, not with attachment, not with identity?"

That would be truthful, and I would agree.

What I cited from the teachings attributed to Buddha is simply his acknowledgement that anything we perceive, impernanent, temporary, and a cause of both pleasure and pain, isn't the whole story. And that by seeing through out concepts, we actually don't see the whole.

In fact, letting those things go, understanding their transient nature, is part of arriving at a more objective, less fleeting understanding. Can that actually become, through Satori, direct perception, as Buddha says?

Let's just focus on our next step. But we can't say it ends there.

Again, no need to conjecture about what is beyond, even though Buddha mentions those things, but certainly no proof of Atheism.

Zen is not, actually, materialism. Back to Buddha, if you can conceive it, if it's connected to brain, chemistry, body and emotions, it ain't self. Or in D.T.'s words, it isn't Satori. And I hope you can at least agree to that much.

But if not, please provide some additional Buddhist Zen writings. They are all wonderful, actually.

This has just been an excuse to quote Buddha and D.T. Suzuki...

[Ron E.]

All the quotes, dialogues and opinions of what comprise Buddhist scriptures have for centuries been basically fodder for the academic’s ego. Fortunately, when Buddhism entered China and intermingled with Taoism it practically stripped away the need to depend on historic scriptures and went right to the heart of the matter – which is the human lot of suffering.

Although still retaining the core of classical Buddhism – “I teach one thing, there is suffering and the ending of suffering,” - in Chan/Zen suffering (dukkha) is looked upon, not so much as the suffering we experience from birth to death, but more understood as being ‘out of kilter’, or somewhat off balance. It is to regaining this balance that comprises Chan practice. Practice being to realise the self/ego as an impermanent and empty conceptual structure along with its self-maintaining habits that are largely responsible for much individual and world-wide conflict.

Chan has no interest in concepts of Gods, spirits, souls and the such like or promoting ‘spiritual’ experiences, focussing solely on helping the student to cut through mentally ingrained layers of self-imposed and indoctrinated thinking.

Chan has always been seen as a threat to some religious organisations and schools of traditional thinking, mainly because it cannot be fitted into their mental strait jackets and is felt as a challenge to their very lives – or rather their ‘self’.

Interestingly, much of what Chan points to widely complements findings from modern re-search into brain/mind/ body studies – and more, rather than complimenting religious ideology.

[Spence Tepper]

Is it possible, Brian that the finger pointing at me has three pointing back at you? That in fact the position you have adopted has been invented of late, and in coopting Zen and Buddhism actually misrepresents them?

Here is what I just found...an essay from Mandala Publications about Stephen Batchelor's efforts to re-write historical records attributed to Buddha (Notably the scriptures I cited earlyer, Buddha's first discourse in the Majjhima Nikaya, or middle-length discourses from the Pali scriptures).

"To get a clear picture of Batchelor’s agnostic-turned-atheist approach to Buddhism, there is no need to look further than his earlier work, Buddhism without Beliefs. Claiming to embrace Thomas Huxley’s definition of agnosticism as the method of following reason as far as it will take one, he admonishes his readers, “Do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”1 He then proceeds to explain who the Buddha really was and what he really taught, often in direct opposition to the teachings attributed to the Buddha by all schools of Buddhism. If in this he is following Huxley’s dictum, this would imply that Batchelor has achieved at least the ability to see directly into the past, if not complete omniscience itself.

"Some may believe that the liberties Batchelor takes in redefining the Buddha’s teachings are justified since no one knows what he really taught, so one person’s opinion is as good as another’s. This view ignores the fact that generations of traditional Buddhists, beginning with the first Buddhist council shortly following the Buddha’s death, have reverently taken the utmost care to accurately preserve his teachings. Moreover, modern secular Buddhist scholarship also has applied its formidable literary, historical, and archeological skills to trying to determine the teachings of the Buddha. Despite the many important differences among Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana schools of Buddhism, traditional Buddhists of all schools recognize the Pali suttas as being the most uncontested records of the Buddha’s teachings.

"In the face of such consensus by professional scholars and contemplatives throughout history, it is simply an expression of arrogance to override their conclusions simply due to one’s own preferences or “intuition” (which is often thinly disguised prejudice). To ignore the most compelling evidence of what the Buddha taught and to replace that by assertions that run counter to such evidence is indefensible. And when those secular, atheistic assertions just happen to correspond to the materialistic assumptions of modernity, it is simply ridiculous to attribute them to the historical Buddha.

"For example, contrary to all the historical evidence, Batchelor writes that the Buddha “did not claim to have had experience that granted him privileged, esoteric knowledge of how the universe ticks.” To cite just two of innumerable statements in the Pali canon pertaining to the scope of the Buddha’s knowledge: “Whatever in this world – with its devas, maras, and brahmas, its generations complete with contemplatives and priests, princes and men – is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect, that has been fully awakened to by the Tathagata. Thus he is called the Tathagata.”2 In a similar vein, we read, “the world and its arising are fully known by a Tathagata and he is released from both; he also knows the ending of it and the way thereto. He speaks as he does; he is unconquered in the world.”3

"Batchelor brings to his understanding of Buddhism a strong antipathy toward religion and religious institutions, and this bias pervades all his recent writings. Rather than simply rejecting elements of the Buddha’s teachings that strike him as religious – which would be perfectly legitimate – Batchelor takes the illegitimate step of denying that the Buddha ever taught anything that would be deemed religious by contemporary western standards, claiming, that “There is nothing particularly religious or spiritual about this path.” Rather, the Buddha’s teachings were a form of “existential, therapeutic, and liberating agnosticism” that was “refracted through the symbols, metaphors, and imagery of his world.”4 Being an agnostic himself, Batchelor overrides the massive amount of textual evidence that the Buddha was anything but an agnostic, and recreates the Buddha in his own image, promoting exactly what Batchelor himself believes in, namely, a form of existential, therapeutic, and liberating agnosticism.

"Since Batchelor dismisses all talk of rebirth as a waste of time, he projects this view onto his image of the Buddha, declaring that he regarded “speculation about future and past lives to be just another distraction.” This claim flies in the face of the countless times the Buddha spoke of the immense importance of rebirth and karma, which lie at the core of his teachings as they are recorded in Pali suttas. "
from Distorted Views of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist, by B. Allen Wallace
https://fpmt.org/mandala/archives/mandala-issues-for-2010/october/distorted-visions-of-buddhism-agnostic-and-atheist/

[SantMat64]

"You have an idea of emptiness and an idea of being, and you think that being and emptiness are opposites. But in Buddhism both of these are ideas of being. The emptiness we mean is not like the idea you may have. You cannot reach a full understanding of emptiness with your thinking mind or with your feeling. That is why we practice zazen." -- Suzuki Roshi

To conflate the concept of emptiness with atheism is to completely miss the point.

[Appreciative Reader]

Have only quickly read through this thread. And a subject like this, and Brian's carefully thought out post, as well as people's comments, deserve far more careful attention than that.

I'll get back to this thread again when I have time, but meantime, some kneejerk comments:

1). Loved how clearly you've discussed this, Brian.

2) Newland's exposition, that you quoted, that also I enjoyed.

3) Heh, I thought your comment about Spence's method of thinking and speaking, the dog and cat thing, was spot on, Brian. (Don't hate me for saying that, Spence! But Brian's comment made me smile, at how he's put it, as well as nod in complete agreement.)

4) I agree, Brian, basis my own limited reading and understanding, that Buddhism in general --- Theravad, Mahayana (sans Zen), certainly Tantra --- are mired in loads of woo. Maybe not God-woo, maybe less woo-woo than other religions, but still lots of unevidenced nonsense. Zen does seem to stand apart, in rejecting those.

5) That said, the Buddha nature business isn't unique to Zen. You find these in Theravadin texts, and in more profuse detail in much of Mahayana.

6) One thing I don't get. Everything exists interdependently, and in a flux, that is, as a process, agreed. Even effing stars. But why call that emptiness? That isn't emptiness, at all. If you mean flux, say flux; if you mean interdependent, ay interdependent; if you mean process, say process: don't say "empty" when you mean flux, process, interdependent. That redefinition serves no purpose, and causes unnecessary confusion.

(Unless of course, back in the Buddha's time --- which was ~2500 years ago, let's not forget --- these words and concepts did not exist. So that the Buddha had to make up new words. In that context it makes sense, and is not a "redefinition" at all, but a brand new word for a brand new idea. This makes sense, provided my unsupported conjecture, within these parentheses, is correct.)

7). A general question, that would apply both to this specific, as well as more generally to Buddhism overall, and all of the "realizations" of Buddhism, including even Anatta:

I've wondered more than once, and voiced this thought more than once: How the hell do these people arrive at these answers, these ideas, by gazing at their navels? What does Zazen, or Anapan, or Vipassana, have to do with any of this? What is the actual mechanism exactly, of their (the Zen dudes, as well as Nagarjuna and his crew, and before that the "Thera", and for that matter the Buddha himself) having arrived at these remarkable conclusions? While sure, thinking things through might involve sitting down and pondering, but what on earth do the structured meditations of Zen (as well as earlier stripes of Buddhism) have to do with arriving at these conclusions? HOW exactly have these guys come to understand these things, that there is no abiding self; that even apparently permanent fixtures like stars are simply processes, flux; and the rest of it?

[Appreciative Reader]

Spence, one suggestion. To Huxley's agnosticism, add Occam's Razor, and boom, problem solved.

So: following Huxley, there neither is nor isn't a fairy living in my (overgrown, is overdue a trim) garden. But, following Occam's Razor, there is no fairy, there is no dragon in my garage. Not until we find compelling evidence of such. The end, finito.

(By all means keep looking, if you've a mind to. That's how science expands, how knowledge grows. Sure, go look for fairies, dragons, whatever. But until such time you've found compelling evidence for them, don't claim a false equivalence between their existing and their non-existence. That's completely fallacious, completely misguided.)

[Appreciative Reader]

um: I agree, Zen is only a subset of Buddhism. While it is true that Buddhism got mired in loads of extraneous analyses on one hand, and superstitions on the other --- but to get rid of them, one need not reinvent the wheel, not necessarily. One can also return simply to pre-Mahayanic Theravad, Buddhism as the Buddha originally taught. That's all crystal clear, and has been a living tradition throughout, thriving, across many lineages and countries. Suzuki is completely mistaken in claiming that these traditions, the core practice, was dead.

On the other hand, while going back to the original is one way, but reinventing the wheel also is an option. Daoism does seem to have had a fascinating influence on Buddhism, to throw up this fascinating amalgam, Zen.

Me, I think Zen's same as Buddhism iin most ways, but unique in some ways. Just like Tantra is the same as Buddhism in most ways, but unique in some ways.

They are all subsets of Buddhism. Sure, they do have unique features, these subsets. They wouldn't have been separate subsets if they didn't.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Appreciative:
You wrote:
"So: following Huxley, there neither is nor isn't a fairy living in my (overgrown, is overdue a trim) garden. But, following Occam's Razor, there is no fairy, there is no dragon in my garage. Not until we find compelling evidence of such. The end, finito."

And there you have the difference between Zen and logic.
In Zen there is no fairy and there is a fairy. Not dualism. What you see, what you experience, that is all you can know. If you see the fairy, get closer to it, observe it. Why question if there is a fairy there when you can see it, if you can? Your Zen Master would call that foolish thinking. You learn what the fairy is by dispassionate observation. It's something. And it's in you if you see it, and aren't afraid.

If you don't see it, and are just conjecturing, you've just flown 1,000 miles away from Zen.

That's the difference.

Occam's razor is never used to initiate science, which is always hypothesizing about what might be there, like Fairies, and then proceeding to test for their presence.

Zen doesn't care if that meets with your thinking or not. Zen says toss your thinking and go with what's in front of you. Test it by observing more closely.

That's why I like Zen. It's experiential, not opinionated.

No body in Zen says "I don't see what you see, you are wrong." Not Zen.

The fact that your experience isn't mine isn't an issue for me, nor for Zen. And not even for Science.

BTW It's unscientific to claim no evidence means nothing exists. And no, that isn't actually what Occam's razor says. You haven't tested for it yet. But we've gone through this before...All of science disproves your interpretation of Occam's razor. The world is much more complex than we understood, and science proves that all the time. We know the world is more complex because of science, not simpler.

https://nesslabs.com/occams-razor#:~:text=The%20Occam's%20razor%20fallacy%3A%20the,not%20always%20the%20correct%20one&text=When%20faced%20with%20two%20equally,they're%20easier%20to%20execute.

AR, Zen isn't logical. It can't be parsed into dualistic thinking. When you dissect the frog you kill it:

Empty-handed go, and behold
the spade is
in my hands;
I walk on foot, and yet
on the back of an ox
I am riding;
When I pass over the bridge,
Lo, the water floweth not, but the
Bridge doth flow.
The Gatha of Jenye, as quoted by D.T. Suzuki in IAn Introduction to Zen Buddhism, Chapter 4, Illogical Zen

Note the contradictions here. It's not about trying to figure out which line is right. They all are. They are the author's experience, and that can include confounding, contradictory events that make no sense to you.

So trying to use logic with Zen makes no sense.

Suzuki writes:
"The critic will be inclined to call Zen absurd, confusing and beyond the ken of ordinary reasoning. But Zen is inflexible and would protest that the so-called common -sense way of looking at things is not final, and that the reason why we cannot attain to a thorough-going comprehension of the truth is due to our unreasonable adherence to "logical" interpretation of things."
D.T. Suzuki, ibid

Try this, AR.
Let go of Dualism and embrace inclusion. Not this, Not that, Not anything.. And All of the Above.

[um]

@ AR

[1] Every thing that can be NAMED, is an "Unique variation of the SAME"
{ It takes the form of a pyramid. at its base the endless things that are around you, can be thought of etc upwards where the sameness becomes more abstract, subtle]

[2] >>On the other hand, while going back to the original is one way, but reinventing the wheel also is an option. Daoism does seem to have had a fascinating influence on Buddhism, to throw up this fascinating amalgam, Zen.<<

{ play a mental game ... think for example about the gospel of one of the apostles as an historical event and replace it to your country, in this time in one of the cities. Then ask yourself what would happen, how it would look like and if from such an event, in this time, could evolve any Christian denomination as we know of.}

Repeat this for all and other schools you know of and are interested in.

Imagine how it would be if we had TODAY, in your country, all these famous figures of the past, Kabir, Nanak, Christ, Lao Tse and of course the well known masters of Zen etc etc.

They would have to use the same set of words, concepts to express themselves

][3] Culture evolves like a tree and so does the philosophical and spiritual thinking of a culture.

[All trees grow from a seed. After the seed has developed into a tree, how can a leaf at the top branch of the tree "know" of its being an offspring of that seed?!?!]}

The tree bears fruit, drops and with some luck, another threes evolves from the seed ... and each tree being an unique variation of the same

It is my understanding that ALL spiritual school, address the same, but in a different way and differenceness is born from the regional, local culture, like the seed of the tree depends also of the soil it grows in, the climate etc.

AND ... we cannot uphold a tree and transplant it elsewhere ...all regional spiritual schools that have survived history are bound to die in the globalized culture.

Compare it with what has happened in Italy. The farmers decided grafting a vine with grafts from elsewhere, I believe from your country, and in the end all original CHIANTI vines got sick. These days you can no more drink "real" chianti

Naturaly they will fight to survive as diveristy .. but they cannot

We cannot dress ourselves worldwide mentally in the robes that were developed in and for the specific other cultures....maybe funny for a while but otherwise it is not practical

You can know wht zen is all about by placing its birth in the here and now.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Ron E.
You wrote
"Interestingly, much of what Chan points to widely complements findings from modern re-search into brain/mind/ body studies – and more, rather than complimenting religious ideology."

Yes, I strongly agree, but suggest it does both.

Modern science, in particular neuroscience, and Physiological Psychology support the necessity of learning to see, within and without.

Our thinking influences what we see. But more than that, our brain filters and reconstructs our perceptual field even before we are aware of it. Some of that is built into us, some of that is refined by conditioning, and even our emotional state at the time.

You cannot attend to something your brain has filtered out. And what it adds, what it highlights is not really there. Learning to see is to open that process and get beyond the filters.

We have edge detectors built into our brain so that we can identify objects in front of us. The actual visual input isn't that distinct. Our brain must highlight those edges for us, so we can make sense of what we are looking at and can navigate. And in the same way it suppresses other stimuli so that we can attend to the most pressing priorities, as established by the brain.

Unfortunately the brain filters out what it thinks we don't need to see, even other people and objects, even our own thoughts, memories and emotions. Even other people in the room!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invisible_Gorilla#:~:text=Viewers%20asked%20to%20count%20the,most%20famous%20psychological%20demos%20ever%22.

Zen is a very developed understanding and practice to help us see what is really there, and, as D. T. Suzuki says, that includes what is within us:

"Personal experience, therefore, is everything in Zen. No ideas are intelligible to those who have no backing of experience.... To get the clearest and most efficient understanding of a thing, therefore, it must be experienced personally.... Though the scaffold affords a most useful means to reach the inmost reality, it is still an elaboration and artificiality. We lose its whole significance when it is taken for a final reality..... To those who have not touched the central fact of life Zen inevitably appears as mystifying. Penetrate through the conceptual superstructure and what is imagined to be mystification will at once disappear, and at the same time there will be an enlightenment known as Satori.

"Zen, therefore, most strongly and persistently insists on inner spiritual experience. "
D. T. Suzuki, An Introduction to Zen Buddhism.

[Spence Tepper]

Zen is not oppositional to inner spiritual experience. As D. T. Suzuku wrote above inner spiritual experience is central to Zen, and part of Satori

But Zen refuses to separate that as distinct and supernatural from our other experiences. The inner experience and the outer experience are not actually two separate categories at all when we see them directly. Nor is one to be rejected for the other.

They are all part of the natural reality. It is for us to explore them, to uncover them, to experience them as a natural part of our daily experience, free of attributions, just as they are. They are right in front of us and within us.

[JustThis]

There is a lot of effort in this thread put into understanding or explaining emptiness, it is only productive in that hopefully it will lead to some kind of intellectual burnout. One question that isn't being pursued is whether emptiness can be experienced (versus understood) and thus known?

[Spence Tepper]

Emptiness is OK as far as it goes...but neither emptiness nor non-emptiness is the true 'place of abiding' for the mind.

A monk asked," Where is the abiding place for the mind?"
"The mind," answered the master, "abides where there is no abiding."
"what is meant by 'there is no abiding'?"
"When the mind is not abiding in any particular object, we say that it abides where there is no abiding."
"What is meant by not abiding in any particular object?"
"It means not to be abiding in the dualism of good and evil, being and non-being, thought and matter: it means not to be abiding in emptiness or in non-emptiness, neither in tranquility nor in non-tranquility. Where there is no abiding place, this is truly the abiding place for the mind."
D.T. Suzuki, An Introduction to Zen Budhism, VI Practicl Zen

[Ron E.]

There is no need to attempt to intellectually understand Chan/Zen. Too much writing and debating by well-read experts and academics have the tendency to either put people off or condition them to over-analysing the (Zen) issue. Chan is simplicity itself, purely a way to cut through the habit of overlaying the everyday reality and sublime with ingrained concepts.

The problem (if not most of our problems) initially arise from our marvellous survival capacity to think and plan and to ‘store’ information which has created a self-structure, a self-structure that has as its prime function a need to maintain itself through being or feeling itself to under-stand all it is presented with and primarily to be right.

The Chan way is to simply help expose this perfectly natural but limited way of experiencing ourselves and the world we inhabit through revealing the limitations and illusory nature of the constructed self.

Realisations arising from Chan practise can be termed spiritual although they are the quite natural consequences (or, as Zen/Chan teachers often say, ‘Nothing special’) of realising that our brain/body organism is perfectly adapted to steering an intelligent course through life along with experiencing reality as it is, without the over-riding distortions from a concept de-pendent self-structure.

[um]

Do not forget, that, forbuddhism / chan to be accepted in China, it had to "speak" the language of TAO-ism.

Churches etc are always build upon the remnants of previous places of worship.

If it would not have been presented to a culture with Taoism etc as its main stream way of thinking, chan and later Zen would NEVER have seen the surface of the earth.

Indian thinking had to be transformed into Chinese thinking, and without that, there would never have been zen.

Zen etc is formost chinese and Japanese it suits their cultural needs.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Ron E.
You wrote:
"of realising that our brain/body organism is perfectly adapted to steering an intelligent course through life along with experiencing reality as it is, without the over-riding distortions from a concept de-pendent self-structure."

Yes, but....even the notion of brain/body as an independent organism is dualistic. Filtering experience through that is just replacing once concept for another, right.

"I don't really know"...what wonderful words these are. If only we understood how truly they are.
We are at best observers, and at our best as dispassionate observers without theology, atheism or materialism.

That makes things much simpler. Denying experience, denying possibility, these are not actually Zen. Zen is opening up without the need for concepts.

Spiritual / Supernatural / Material / Theist / Atheist how can these do anything more but be steps to an open mind?
Yes, they can also be steps to a closed mind.

This is why Zen is truly amenable to any of that, and in its own way antagonistic to all of it.
Not this/not that / and All of the above.

Not exclusive, not inclusive, but exclusive and inclusive...Whatever gets us to observe carefully, with discipline, it's served its purpose.

Experience is more important, opening to experience, not trying to filter good experience from bad, even real from unreal. Legitimate from illegitimate: These are barriers we ourselves erect unnecessarily. How can we be empty filled with all that "education"? And why? Fear is at the bottom of it. Anger, emotions..attachment....but let's look directly at those. Let's open ourselves to our own internal experience. "All Guests Welcome Here."

[Ron E.]

Spence. Your last comment referring to dualism of the body/brain organism is incorrect. The best or only way to realise the Zen/Chan way is to do the practice with a Chan teacher. Otherwise, all conclusions and opinions are just that.

[Dungeness]

@Ron E [ The Chan way is to simply help expose this perfectly natural but limited way of experiencing ourselves and the world we inhabit through revealing the limitations and illusory nature of the constructed self. ]

I agree deconstructing the wobbly edifice of self is key.

@Ron E [ brain/body organism is perfectly adapted to steering an intelligent course through life along with experiencing reality as it is, without the over-riding distortions from a concept de-pendent self-structure. ]

The "brain/body" unfortunately refracts its conclusions through the mind downstream
however. Sometimes results are wonderfully wise and intuitive but just as oft dodgy,
incomplete, or wrong. It takes years or more likely decades of mindfulness practice -
Zen's or any others' - to withdraw and discern the truth even if you were to successfully
and miraculously shed the distortions of self first. A master's "stick" may well be needed
along the way as well.

[Appreciative Reader]

Ron:

Where is the evidence that Zen is able to actually do what it claims to do? Where is the evidence that it is even possible to eschew mental constructs and directly perceive the world as it is? Where is the evidence that enlightenment isn't a fairy tale? Where is the evidence that these absurd Zen riddles are no more than faux-wise bull shytte? Where is the evidence that there is anything you can learn from Zen masters other than to pretend you understand what in fact you don't, that and how to keep some idlers well fed?

Why on earth are we giving these guys a free pass?

Like I said to Spencer: By all means let's seek, by all means let's investigate, by all means let's research (whether secondary research, or if we've the stomach for it, then primary research): but let's not pretend we know, when in fact we don't. Let's not throw aside reason and rationality to favor whatever pet woo appeals to us.

It's good to know what Zen teaches, what Theravad teaches, what Tantra teaches; it is great to actually practice Zen if one can, or Theravadin meditation, or Tantra; and by all means let's present our findings and subject them to scrutiny. But why pretend we know it makes sense, when we don't actually know that; and why assume, on their behalf, that what they're saying makes sense and that it's actually a thing, when in fact we don't?

(Sez the guy who himself "practices", a great deal, and isn't dismissive of the possibility of any of this. But I can't countenance the blind faith that their enlightenment is actually a thing, and that the only way to access it is by learning only from them --- as opposed to critically examining what they "teach".)

Let's not be seduced by these exotic traditions (exotic to Western eyes at any rate) into giving their woo a free pass.

[Ron E.]

D’ness and AR – thoughtful comments!

Briefly: I recall once when walking along a mountain path suddenly finding myself falling toward a protruding rock getting nearer to my face as I fell. My body twisted and I landed by the side of the rock. I couldn’t say how I missed it, just that it happened without thought – which arrived instantly after. Science explains these happenings as reflex actions. As all these movements occur, the muscles involved provide feedback to the brain with information about where the various body parts are in space and how fast they are moving.

It is everyday experience that we have the ability to see, hear, feel something etc, before forming a concept (an opinion or thought) which arrives a nano-second later. I guess I put this down to awareness, awareness of just seeing or whatever. Incidently, Awareness seems to me to be something that is in every cell of the body and not just confined to the brain.

Meditation practice appears to help develop awareness, whether it is simple mindfulness techniques or the more (seemingly) exotic Chan/Zen practice of ‘just sitting’ and perhaps for some, koans. As a naturalist, Chan and Zen appeals to me in that it doesn’t dress nature (and we humans with our amazing mental abilities), up in supernatural concepts.

[um]

@ AR

Again ...all are focussing in this discussion on teachings and teachers, all things outside. Outside the practioner, the seeker and the critic in order to understand.

That fails, has failed and will fail.

If one would like to understand what all these forms of spirituality are, one has to direct one's attention to those that created them, to those that used them, to those that critized them.

All these so called spirituals school, serve a purpose. and the purpose is to be found in humans.

The cars did not invent themselves, humans did and... for reasons of their own. understanding these reasons, does make one understand the car,, its function etc.
Against that background many path lose their mystery.

Why did we in the Christian world for centuries not have anything spiritual that can be compared with what they have in the east.

Spirituality is developed to solve certain human demands, solve certain problems etc.

Are we other humans than our brothers and soisters in the east?
Do we not have the same drives, needs etc as them?

What needs where people trying ti fulfill, that accepted ZEN?
Are they so alien to us that only THEY have these needs?

I want to think that all humans are alike.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Ron:

You wrote:
"Spence. Your last comment referring to dualism of the body/brain organism is incorrect. The best or only way to realise the Zen/Chan way is to do the practice with a Chan teacher. Otherwise, all conclusions and opinions are just that."

Yes, I agree. My point was a little different. Zen doesn't make claims about what the body or mind is, or what spirit is, or our experience is...Your claim that this is all just body and brain, which is to say no spirit or anything else, is just to try to put Zen into a conceptual box.

That's incorrect. As D.T. Suzuki writes, logical thinking fails because Zen is not final.

Not to say that isn't your truth. It just doesn't conform to Zen.

[Roger]

Awakening could be a simple Surrender.

That is, abandon all varieties of Religion, Philosophy and Mysticism.

Just surrender to life and accept that you can never know……. there is no final knowledge.

You are simply one infinitesimal part and parcel of something that is far too vast for you to ever comprehend the whole of it.

Surrender to the whole.

Then your useless search will finally be over.

Then you can get on with the business of living your own life (Open minded with critical thinking) as you were before you got caught in the trap of such things.

Only then will you be unencumbered by all these fools who want to sell you their fancy ideas and useless versions of supposed Reality.

Wisdom is to totally abandon all ideas and efforts, and again to simply surrender to the Whole.

The more you try to talk about it, or figure it out, or to arrive at some final understanding... the more you will remain bewildered.

There is no answer and there is nothing that you can do about the situation.

You will never find what you are looking for.

So Surrender is your only truly wise option.

Finally, don’t buy into anything I have written here, MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND …………….

[um]

@ Ron

What you wrote brought tears in my eyes.
I do not know why
and ,,
I need to

[um]

Sorry Roger and Ron .. I meant Roger and I need not to know

[Roger]

@um

The Whole could be interpreted as the Voidness, the Emptiness, etc. All dualistic wordage.

[Ron E.]

Spence, you are at it again – mis-interpreting part a comment to introduce a concept you want to promote. I referred to: - “Realisations arising from Chan practise can be termed spiritual although they are the quite natural consequences (or, as Zen/Chan teachers often say, ‘Nothing special.” This is not a claim as you say for trying to put Zen into a conceptual box.

You commented: - “Zen doesn't make claims about what the body or mind is, or what spirit is, or our experience is...Your claim that this is all just body and brain, which is to say no spirit or anything else, is just to try to put Zen into a conceptual box.”

My comment above is not saying this is what Zen says, it is pointing out that realisations arising from Chan practice are quite natural and not spiritual – in the sense of being ‘super’natural. And also, my comment did not claim anything about “. . . this is all just body and brain, it clearly stated how “. . . our brain/body organism is perfectly adapted to steering an intelligent course through life along with experiencing reality as it is, without the over-riding distortions from a concept dependent self-structure.”

Zen continually points out that this, what we are in this present moment is it! and as one Zen teacher puts it: - “Living Zen is nothing special; life as it is. Zen is life itself, nothing added” (from Joko Beck’s book – Nothing Special). You seem to want to introduce (or defend) ‘something special’ by way of perverting a portion of a comment to argue your ‘spiritual’ perspective. Any spiritual (again in the sense of ‘super’natural) interpretation of life is definitely a concept whereas the natural world (that I refer to) which we all experience and live with – is not a concept

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Ron
We agree in part.
What is for each of us, our experience, is unique. We are only in each moment as ourselves for one fleeting, priceless moment.

That's going to be different for each of us, and even different for each of us at different stages of life and develoment. We may come to see things we hadn't before. And other things we may realize felt obvious but were not true, at least in light of where we are in this moment.

It isn't necessary for each of us to have the same experience. That's why I don't suggest discounting anyone's experience as part of their legitimate experience or as mere concept.

The experience of a transgender young adult may only be conceptual to me, but very real to them. I chose to honor it as real. When they are shamed by bullies, I feel ashamed for what they must endure.

The experience of a Black woman may only be conceptual to me, but very real to them. I chose to honor it as real. When they are harmed, I feel harmed.

The experience of a hungry child may only be conceptual to me, but very real to them. When they cry out, I cry.

Things outside of our current experience may just be opportunities to broaden our understanding, our compassion.

Nothing outside of our experience is necessary, but that changes when we let go of labels we place, dualistic thinking. We broaden our own experience taking off those blinkers.

So what isn't real for you isn't real to you. But it may be real for others. We can honor our differences, try to understand them even when we know they are outside of our current experience. They are no less real to the person who lives those things. I wouldn't label it conceptual.

Zen compassion is an opening up. It is a path to an ineffable Satori.

[um]

IF ...

“Living Zen is nothing special; life as it is. Zen is life itself, nothing added”

THEN ...

why call it Zen??

Why living in a monastery?
Why enduring the hardship of sesshins?

Why walking around in a costume?

[Appreciative Reader]

Hahaha, agreed, um, with that last.

When people say things like "It's nothing special", "It's not different than life", and what have you ---- and Zen types do it, and Advaitic types do it as well ---- then it makes sense to ask them what you ask them: "What the eff are you on about, in that case? What the eff is the point of your effing Zazen, or whatever the heck you suggest people do?"

In my experience, when people don't clearly spell out what they mean, then that is either because they are themselves confused and deluded, or because they're out to bamboozle others.

Which is why I continue to view the Zen riddles with the deepest skepticism and mistrust. I'm fine with their using the riddling thing as a pedagogic technique, that's different; but to attempt to sound wise by bypassing explanations and resorting to wise-sounding riddles, that I call out as complete bull.

That nose thing for instance? Of course, if that is merely a cartoonist's comedic take on Zen, then the joke is well appreciated, and in fact makes the exact same point, through humor, that I'm trying to make here.

But should people try to see in that some deep wisdom, then I call it out on two counts.

First: Effing spell out what you mean to say. That way we can clearly examine what you're saying, clearly understand, as well as clearly evaluate. Don't hide behind obfuscation.

And second: Differentiate clearly between Koans and explanations. By all means Koan away all you want, and ask your novices and apprentices and whatnot to think about the sound of one hand clapping; but when a factual question is asked of you, then factually answer it, or else present your tentative answer while clarifying that your answer is tentative, or else honestly admit that you don't know. Don't hide behind faux-profound riddles.

A big boo to Zen riddles, as far as I am concerned. (To clarify, one more time: I've nothing against the pedagogic technique of Koans. Nor have I anything against humor, I like to think I can appreciate it as well as the next man. But middle-finger you, if you try to present your faux-profundity to me with your wise-sounding riddles in lieu of plain straightforward explanation, when a straightforward explanation is what is asked for.)

[umami]

It's probably all to do with cessation of desire. By direct perception of emptiness, desire falls away. If everything's a big zero, what is there to want?

Any readers here in such a state of being?

[Appreciative Reader]

Excellent questions, umami.

Why do you ask? Have you experienced this yourself? Would you like to talk about it?

Depending where this goes, I might have something to add to it. I think this is a fascinating question, and a very important one, at least for those who are hard-core into this sort of thing.

[Appreciative Reader]

Bump! Because this question interests me.

And I direct this to umami, obviously, who was the one to have raised the question; but also to anyone else who'd like to chip in, either off of their own personal experience, or else conceptually, either way.

[manjit]

"It's probably all to do with cessation of desire. By direct perception of emptiness, desire falls away. If everything's a big zero, what is there to want?

Any readers here in such a state of being?

Posted by: umami | May 18, 2023 at 10:59 PM"

I have no desire to answer your question.

That must be a good start.