A Zen Essay
I came across a nice, lucid introductory essay on Zen, which I thought some of you might be interested in:
Zen is essentially about the resolution of the dualism between the knower and the known, which is the fundamental problem of self and other. In Zen, self-realisation cannot be attained by reasoning or logical processes.The essay is the final one in this paper
The mind hinders and separates the self from Reality by the same reasoning processes that it supposes is answering the ultimate questions. The paradox is that that which is being sought is seeking. The mind does not realise that the questions it raises are the mind itself. By virtue of the human capacity for self-consciousness and the ability to make value judgements, humans become too involved in the duality between self and other, subject and object, right and wrong, good and evil, and so forth. By making value judgments and distinctions, people become attached (to worldly things). Unlike plants and animals (who are “just as they are”), we can see ourselves only from the outside. For Zen, the fundamental goal is to achieve “no-mind”, or freedom from the bounds of conceptual dualities. This dualistic perception is regarded in Buddhism as the “ignorance” inherent in human existence. Zen aims at perceiving Reality as it really is; as it actually asserts itself, rather than as it is filtered and interpreted by the mind. Ultimate Reality is lived out by “pure experience”, meaning that there is no experiencing subject, or any objective experience of Reality. Nagarjuna called Ultimate Reality (which is ineffable) “emptiness” or “void”. There is no naming, no “emptiness”; just an “experience experiencing itself”. This is reached when there is a union between the subject and the object, the knower and the known.
posted by Shonin @ Thursday, March 30, 2006
13 comments
13 Comments:
Nice one.
Thanks for sharing it, Justin.
I like this "experience experiencing itself"
"Zen aims at perceiving Reality as it really is; as it actually asserts itself, rather than as it is filtered and interpreted by the mind."
Hmm. How can we experience anything other than through the filters and interpretation of the mind?
There is no experience other than by interpretation of the mind. When you see a flower of a particular color, is this a "direct experience" of that flower and its color? What is that experience? It is based on sight. What is sight? It is light reflected off the object, hitting your eye, causing optical nerves to fire in a particular pattern.
What you consider to be an experience of the flower is a construct created by mind... a categorization of the pattern of optical nerve impulses which is then correlated to previous experiences of similar patterns, which mind has classified as "flower" of a particular color.
Okay, this is admittedly not the most scientific explanation, but you get the gist.
I would say that Zen practice allows us to minimize the cascade of thoughts that can result from perceiving something.
The initial thought is an identification of the object. Without this step we can't function.
But additional thoughts arise in which we judge the object - we add fears or hopes etc to the object. We get carried away.
So the statement that Zen aims at perceiving reality as it really is is OK - but it's not some kind of robotic pure awareness without any thought - our minds need to 'complete the equation' but we just need to not add more terms to the equation than are needed / justified by the data.
Hey, I hope Karen is ok.
Yeah, I hope Karen is OK too.
May the force be with you Karen.
I hear ya, Karen.
Endless analysis was the thing that turned me off about Western philosophy. It seemed that the deeper they dug, the more complex it got. Much like western physics' search for the "atom"... the smallest particle... beyond which there was no smaller particle.
When I discovered Taoism and Zen, I found meaningful ideas... ideas that I could really use in my life. I liked the focus on simplifying, rather than complicating my life.
The stage I am at right now is one where I actually appreciate some of the subtle complexity in zen buddhist thought/philosophy. But I have to pull back every so often, and just go with the flow.
Ananysis, and especially arguments about analysis can get very tiring sometimes.
I prefer simple communication. And I think that many of the zen teachers attempt to do this. But there is always a possibility of misunderstanding. And then the analysis comes in, trying to make it more clear.
My view is that deep analysis is necessary sometimes. But zazen is simple and straightforward. Nature teaches us by just being. We can learn more from nature than by any philosophical discussion.
Read S. Suzuki or D. Katagiri- they are excellent examples of teaching through simple means. They hammer home very simple thoughts over and over.
Not a whole lot of deep philosophy or analyzation.
The problem arises when we try to over-extrapolate these ideas. "Me" makes a very convincing argument that there is no such thing as "free will". I'm not so sure, but a good case nevertheless. I think if one is clever enough, they could create a fairly convincing argument or analysis of just about any abstract idea. It sounds good but we can't prove it right or wrong in the end.
Whether the mind can perceive itself unfiltered or whether free will exists or not doesn't really come into play in most of our lives.
As in the story this blog is named after, sometimes we just need to shut our flapping mouths and sit. It's probably the best way. As long as we think we can get our minds around reality, we'll continue (I'm included) to flap our mouths. One day though, most of us will probably realize that there is nothing to grasp at and we will drop most of this.
I'd say that it's not that 'we have no freewill' but that philosophical questions of that nature are about linguistic and conceptual conventions - defining 'me' as if it was a self-contained part of the universe and 'freewill' as an ability for that sub-system to exhibit some independence from external controlling factors. So, on this level then yes 'we have freewill'. Similarly, freewill can be seen as the mind's internal representation of its ability to evaluate certain options.
However, it isn't true to say that there being no ultimate inherent (independent, separate,) self means that 'we have no freewill'. This is a sort of category error.
There isn't a metaphysical self bouncing around under the control of impersonal cosmic forces like a ping-pong ball in a torrent.
The above realisation renders the question meaningless.
To use Nagarjuna's system, where he eliminates all four possibilities allowed in Indian philosophy:
We don't have freewill
We don't have no freewill
We don't both have and not have freewill
We don'n neither have nor have not freewill
Now, the real Zen part is what's left after these beliefs have been eliminated. What is left?
By the time the mind becomes conscious of itself, the mind has already become something different - changed by time and changed by the process of observation. The mind isn't a thing but a set of changing processes. In so far as it is self-aware it is a feedback loop. And all awareness involves distortion in it's representation. Including and perhaps especially self-representation. Point a video camera at its own minitor and you'll see what I mean.
What they call 'mind experiencing mind' I think is better thought of as 'just being' - the mind is just being itself, not believing its own activity as some absolute truth about philosophy or the world. Just seeing activity as activity and form as form.
There is a strand of belief in Buddhism, which - as far as I can tell - is a distortion of one of Buddha's teachings - the Tathagatagarbha doctrine. It is a minority view in Buddhism as a whole (where it is widely regarded as 'heretical') but is AFAIK dominant in contemporary Tibetan Buddhism and shows its face in certain interpretations of the Zen concept of 'original mind'. This is the idea of 'pure consciousness' - that when you strip away everything impermanent and dependent, there is a silent but omnipresent and permanent ultimate entity - 'mind', 'Buddha Mind', 'Big Mind'. If such as mind is taken as an inherent entity this is really a survival of the notion of an ultimate Atman as per Hinduism.
These terms are often just used as teaching methods, but sometimes they are used literally as if they we speaking about an inherently existent entity. It is an extremely easy error to make. This tendency to fixate and reify (to posit ultimates/inherent essences) is one that Nagarjuna warns us against when he teaches the emptiness of emptiness, the emptiness of the Tathagata.
Whatever is the essence of the Tathagata
That is the essence of the world
The Tathagata has no essence
The world is without essence
For me, the definitive response to this interpretation of the Tathagatagarbha doctrine is found in the Lankavatara Sutra:
Then Mahamati said to the Blessed One: In the Scriptures mention is made of the Womb of Tathágata-hood and it is taught that that which is born of it is by nature bright and pure, originally unspotted and endowed with the thirty-two marks of excellence. As it is described it is a precious gem but wrapped in a dirty garment soiled by greed, anger, folly and false-imagination. We are taught that this Buddha-nature immanent in everyone is eternal, unchanging, and auspicious. It is not this, which is born of the Womb of Tathágata-hood the same as the soul-substance that is taught by the philosophers? The Divine Atman as taught by them is also claimed to be eternal, inscrutable, unchanging, and imperishable. Is there, or is there not a difference?
The Blessed One replied: No, Mahamati, my Womb of Tathágata-hood is not the same as the Divine Atman as taught by the philosophers. What I teach is Tathágata-hood in the sense of Dharmakaya, Ultimate Oneness, Nirvana, emptiness, unborn-ness, unqualified ness, devoid of will-effort. The reason why I teach the doctrine of Tathágata-hood is to cause the ignorant and simple-minded to lay aside their fears as they listen to the teaching of ego-less-ness and come to understand the state of non-discrimination and imageless-ness. The religious teaching of the Tathágatas are just like a potter making various vessels by his own skill of hand with the aid of rod, water and thread, out of the one mass of clay, so the Tathágatas by their command of skillful means issuing from Noble Wisdom, by various terms, expressions, and symbols, preach the twofold ego-less-ness in order to remove the last trace of discrimination that is preventing disciples from attaining a self-realization of Noble Wisdom. The doctrine of the Tathágata-womb is disclosed in order to awaken philosophers from their clinging to the notion of a Divine Atman as transcendental personality, so that their minds that have become attached to the imaginary notion of "soul" as being something self-existent may be quickly awakened to a state of perfect enlightenment. All such notions as causation, succession, atoms, primary elements, that make up personality, personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereign God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind. No, Mahamati, the Tathágata’s doctrine of the Womb of Tathágata-hood is not the same as the philosopher’s Atman.
The Significance Of 'Tathagatagarbha' - A Positive Expression Of 'Sunyata'
I recently attended a weekend sesshin. During a break, I sat in a chair, gazing at a tree.
A bird flew down and rested in the tree. It shifted postition slightly, and I could suddenly no longer distinguish between the bird's outline and the clumps of leaves. The bird and the tree were the same.
Then, one of the clumps of leaves jumped off the tree and flew away -- the bird, now recognizable as a bird again, leaving.
In that small moment, I realized more about non-duality and the impermanence of reality than I had learned in three years of intensive reading.
Post a Comment
<< Home