18.9.10

There Is But One Dharma

My fascination has always been with Zen. And when I say Zen I don't mean the Japanese schools specifically but generally the whole East-Asian tradition, it's just I'm using this word as an accepted label for it in English. It is its perspective, its look on the whole Buddhist tradition that I can harmonise with the best. That is because it is not about any specific formula, way of interpretation that one could just draw out, but it works directly from realisation. True, this kind of directness is the hallmark and uniqueness of Zen, but mostly this is not something really tangible.

Zen could become the leading interpretation of the Buddhadharma in China, Korea and Vietnam. But it's not like an individual school, or system, rather a holistic view. That is because Zen doesn't restrict itself to this or that scripture or treatise. What Jiang Wu says somewhere (p. 275) in "Enlightenment in Dispute" that Zen has been more of an organising and unifying force in China rather than a sectarian thing, that could actually link separate monastic communities and impose some pan-Chinese model.

This, however, is irrelevant for us, as Western Buddhism is far from having a significant monastic group. There are some umbrella organisations on both sides of the Atlantic but they're apparently useless in creating any kind of unity among independent lay groups. Buddhism is still too varied and only a very few can actually see beyond their own sect. In fact, thinking in sects is one of the hindrances. It has been pointed out a couple of times already, especially by Bhikkhu Sujato, that there are actually no Buddhist sects.

What Zen, as an interpretation focusing on the essential core of the Buddha's teaching and enlightenment, can help us is to see the presence of the Middle Way in all forms of Buddhism. It doesn't matter what tradition it is, the understanding and experience to be attained is always non-attachment. As the Diamond Sutra points to this, "All worthy sages are distinguished by the unconditioned dharma." Also says, "All buddhas and their teachings on anuttara-samyak-sambodhi come from this scripture". And these buddhas are "those who are free from all notions". This is what Zen focuses on and what forms the essence of Buddhism.

For this to be understood there's no need to actually join a Zen community, it has little to do with that. One should study under whomever one favours as a teacher, as far as it is Buddhism. And although it is advisable to group up with fellow Buddhists, it is not necessary. As Hongren, 5th ancestor of Zen, says, "the buddhas of the three worlds consider the self-mind the original teacher". That is because "if you know the mind, through preserving it the other shore is reached; if you confuse the mind, through abandoning it you fall into the three lower realms." Or as a modern master, Daehaeng Kunsunim said, "Regardless of whether you are a layperson or a monastic, everyone has to practice relying upon their fundamental mind. For each person has this one, true thing within them."

If this is understood then the foundation for building bridges over technical differences is laid. With that it becomes possible to establish an authentic Western Buddhism, for true authenticity comes from each and every ones personal realisation of the Buddha's message of liberation.

7.9.10

Always Good Path

Enlightenment is usually a far away goal, something to be attained later, much later. And by later it doesn't really matter if we mean a year, ten years, the next life, or kalpas. Although it sounds promising if we're told that in this life, or at least in the next one, we can be liberated, it's still like there's only a small chance we can actually make it.

In my view Buddhism is a logical and straightforward path that can be studied, understood and applied in one's life. No magic, no mystery. It's just that it may not be clarified what enlightenment actually means. It is perceiving clearly in the six sensory fields without identifying with any of that. This is something we can actually experience for ourselves any time. It only takes a sudden shock, for instance.

There are stories about people who were enlightened by a shout or a hit from a master, or some other unexpected event. The usual way to interpret this is that at the first moment all thoughts just go away and there's a presence of a clear and aware mind. But because of this understanding it is easy to get attached to this clarity, thinking that it is something to maintain and every other state is an enemy of it. So the point is not obtaining any specific state of mind but realising letting go. Letting go means that there is not a single phenomena that remains forever, all is empty. Thus such particular teachings like impermanence, suffering, emptiness, dependent origination, etc. are all coming to the same meaning: letting go. Or letting come. Because that is liberating and not restricting. Restricting means here to be bound to a state, a concept, a feeling, an idea, whatever. This is not rejecting anything, not against anything, but only restriction.

To understand letting go and restriction we have to look at the mind and nowhere else. Doesn't matter what mood we are in, if we can look at it and let go by seeing its empty, or that it's dependently originated, or that it's suffering, or that it's a manifestation of the perfect buddha-nature, all right. The important part is to remove the restriction we have forced on ourselves through our habits and delusions. And if we enlighten our ignorance about that mental phenomenon we can be liberated.

Doesn't sound much but by maintaining discipline and cultivating awareness our wisdom keeps growing and we can manage our lives better. And if we care to get to the bottom of our suffering we can eventually root out our wrong views and by that become free from all the trouble we create for ourselves. That is final liberation. And that's why the Buddha said that this path is good at the beginning, good at the middle and good at the end.

5.9.10

Only Natural

Do you believe in the supernatural? Well, that's certainly not a Buddhist question. I mean, if you're a Buddhist what the modern Western culture calls supernatural is not at all super but quite natural. That is because rebirth is a fundamental part of the teaching, which can happen in all six realms and obviously the six realms include all the "supernatural" beings from ghosts to gods. The other part is the existence of powers (iddhi/ddhi) and higher knowledges (abhiññā/abhijñā) including levitation, telepathy and all the other magical abilities; these all are parts of the very basics of Buddhism.

Some like to argue that all these supernatural stuffs in Buddhism are irrelevant, or simply things from the superstitions of an ancient culture. That could hardly be the case as they're an integral part of the Buddhadharma just as much as the four noble truths are. I'd rather say that those who cannot even accept - not to mention understanding - that there are these elements in Buddhism that feel so remote from our materialistic mindset, well, there's a lot of work to do then if such a person wants to attain enlightenment.

Buddhism is not a demanding religion at all. If one takes refuge in the Triple Jewel, i.e. agrees that this teaching is conducive to liberation and commits himself to walking this path, that person is a Buddhist. It is already an important level when one can wholeheartedly embrace the Buddha's word. That is the point of stream entry, the first stage of the noble ones. But until one is still in the phase of aspiring for entering the stream, the important thing is to use an open, receptive mind and be prepared for rethinking old conceptions. Actually, the whole Buddhist path is working on an inner change, to re-evaluate our views and habits. That starts from the very beginning.

4.9.10

Adapting and arguing

There is always a clash between the traditionalist and the modernist. Does that sound simple enough? Of course it is just a flashy generalisation but it's fine for a start.

As I've been involved in the Zen part of Buddhism it's become clear that those who actually study Zen can hardly agree with what goes on in the name of the so called patriarchs. A huge percent of Zen - an I'm not talking about gadgets and furnitures - is just crap. There are teachers and groups who are supposedly the real thing, the representatives of authentic transmission, but actually talk and practice something they've just made up, or their teachers did. It doesn't really matter. So if I criticise modern Zen in this way I'm either a scholar or a traditionalist, or perhaps someone who actually knows what Zen is which means that I'm a Zen follower myself believing in his own truth. Of course, if I didn't believe it I'd be a scholar and not a Buddhist.

Now, the interesting thing about this difference in approaches is that it exists in all forms of Buddhism, from Theravada to Dzogchen. And that is a good thing. It keeps the Dharma alive. People on either side may think that the others are sorely mistaken - obviously they are - but then this conversation between the two requires constant adaptation and arguing. Adaptation is good because it makes it necessary for the standpoints to try to get closer to an imaginary middle ground, which they will never reach, but in the process both sides integrate elements from each other making their own approach accessible to a larger group. Arguing is good too because it motivates everyone to clarify and explain points to a greater detail making it better understood even by those who defend it.

To appreciate the situation we should think about the great masters of whichever sect and see how they were in their times the "radical reformists". But what was once an idea of a minority of marginal thinkers can develop into orthodoxy - and this is natural selection within religion. Through adaptation and arguments a new school is built and integrated into the larger Buddhism. One or two of today's extremist teachers might end up centuries later as patron saints of a by then influential tradition. But of course that future tradition won't be much like what today they say, because it has evolved - argued and adapted.

This view of "religious evolution" can actually help us appreciate our opponents in whatever sect we follow. Also, it should server as a motivation to look at our own tradition not as something perennial but rather as a result of centuries, or even millennia of development that involved innumerable factors from geographical position to socio-political events. And at the same time, just because we're not trying to cultivate pure philosophy here, there is always the transmission from mind to mind, something that one can experience only for himself. This is what was once defined by the Buddha as essential for the teaching to stay alive, the attainment of the different levels of insight into the true nature of reality. And that insight, just like the noble path itself, is eternal.