New Buddhist Path - Path / Transcendence? - PP 9-18

[Tairin]

-Does it matter to you that we may never know what was the "original teaching" of the historical Buddha?

-Would later traditions and interpretations that deviate from some "original teaching" be less legitimate?

No to both questions. The way I see it Buddhism isn't about one man. The teachings of Buddhism reflects the collective wisdom handed down through the ages. It continues today. Jundo and the Unsui here but also the members of the Sangha just through their postings and responses. I try to have an open mind to receive the wisdom.

The Buddhism I have come to know is a good set of guiding principles to live my life by. Whether they come directly from the historical Buddha or have been refined over time doesn't matter to me.

Gassho
Warren
Sat last night

[Hoko]

Why do you say this? First, I don't believe it would be "the complete extinguishing of the self," but rather a profound, visceral understanding of the impermanence and emptiness of the self. Why would that be like being knocked unconscious?

Gassho,

Kirk

Sat

OK, so first understand that we're discussing what we'd "imagine nirvana to be" so this is all just hypothetical intellectualizing. There's a few interpretations of annata (no self) that you can kick around. For the sake of the argument I picked 2; call them intrinsic and experiential. Intrinsically (or perhaps "absolutely") no-self means there's no self to experience "no self"! No memory of the experience would remain. There is no self to remember the experience of no self! Maybe that condition exists; I can only guess. Maybe one can attain swami-like powers where brain activity can be stopped or the heart rate slowed while lying on a bed of nails? If so I don't think this is what the Buddha intended nor can I see it in any way helpful for achieving the end of suffering. How would this be any different from dying in a frozen lake and then being revived by paramedics? Is that a process we're aiming to replicate on the zafu? I don't think that's it; but again, this is all hypothetical.
The other angle to look at it is experiential. To be able to perceive the emptiness of the self while at the same time, on another channel, maintaining a point of view and a memory of the experience. To me, this seems more apropos to real life. In real life we have two completely opposite truths existing in perfect harmony. Society tells us you can't be both for AND against something! That's illogical! But reality isn't always logical. Sometimes we're perfectly comfortable with the temperature in the room and at the same time our spouse is "freezing to death". Who's right?
So perhaps I bungled my explanation. Perhaps we're saying the same thing but in a different way? Who knows? People have been trying to articulate nirvana and annata and satori and failing miserably for centuries. Why would I be any better at it? 😉

Gassho,
Hōkō
#SatToday

[Ryumon]

New Buddhist Path - Path / Transcendence? - PP 9-18

Yes, but isn't that very different from what they say in Zen? There's that thing about rivers being rivers and mountains being mountains before and after enlightenment… So that suggests that everything is the same — in the Zen point of view — but we just understand it differently.

Edit: Heres one version of the quote I found:

"At first, I saw mountains as mountains and rivers as rivers. Then, I saw mountains were not mountains and rivers were not rivers. Finally, I see mountains again as mountains, and rivers again as rivers."

Gassho,

Kirk

[Hoko]

Yes, but isn't that very different from what they say in Zen? There's that thing about rivers being rivers and mountains being mountains before and after enlightenment… So that suggests that everything is the same — in the Zen point of view — but we just understand it differently.

Edit: Heres one version of the quote I found:

"At first, I saw mountains as mountains and rivers as rivers. Then, I saw mountains were not mountains and rivers were not rivers. Finally, I see mountains again as mountains, and rivers again as rivers."

Gassho,

Kirk

I totally don't disagree. I think we're having a non-argument. 😁

Gassho,
Hōkō
#SatToday

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

[Byrne]

Jeremy,

Thanks for sharing the whole Sutta. I enjoy it very much. I'm not sure that the Buddha is saying Nirvans requires one to be dead. Parinirvana refers to the physical death of one who had attained nirvana. Since the Buddha who is perfectly enlightened was alive in the story, that doesn't really make sense.

Gassho

Sat Today

[Jeremy]

Jeremy,

Thanks for sharing the whole Sutta. I enjoy it very much. I'm not sure that the Buddha is saying Nirvans requires one to be dead. Parinirvana refers to the physical death of one who had attained nirvana. Since the Buddha who is perfectly enlightened was alive in the story, that doesn't really make sense.

Gassho

Sat Today

Thanks Byrne, you're right. I guess in terms of nibbana and paranibbana, when for Bahiya "in the seen is only the seen...", he attains 'Nibbana with remainders'. Then at the end after he has died, he is confirmed as having attained 'final Nibbana', or 'Parinibbana'.

With respect to David Loy's question about the immanent or transcendent nature of Nirvana, in this story, the Nibbana state is immanent whereas the Parinibbana state is transcendent. The ultimate goal is transcendent, with an immanent goal on the way there. That's David Loy's ambiguity problem solved, isn't it (-:

Jeremy
SatToday

[Jakuden]

After reading through this discussion several times, it starts to look like the optical illusion pictures that can be seen in more than one way. Nirvana is immanent, but how can it also not be transcendent, because everything is. We can't be aware of transcendence by definition, can we? We have to use our immanent awareness as the finger pointing to the moon. Perhaps then death is pure transcendence, as conscious awareness ceases.
Gassho
Jakuden
SatToday


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hoko]

After reading through this discussion several times, it starts to look like the optical illusion pictures that can be seen in more than one way. Nirvana is immanent, but how can it also not be transcendent, because everything is. We can't be aware of transcendence by definition, can we? We have to use our immanent awareness as the finger pointing to the moon. Perhaps then death is pure transcendence, as conscious awareness ceases.
Gassho
Jakuden
SatToday


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree.

We (small, immanent self) can't know transcendent Nirvana but WE (large, universal self) know It. If we (small self) were not present, how could we see that no one is there? And were we to remain in the intellectual realm we'd go round and round eternally (samsara).

Like Dongshan said "I now am not it; it now is me". We (small self) can only "imagine what it's like" and consequently we (small self) will only be able to create dead, static ideas about it.

Maybe the best Way is not to swallow the hook in the first place. "Is Nirvana transcendent or immanent?"

MU!

Gassho,
Hōkō
#SatToday

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

[Hoseki]

In response to Jundo's first question, my first contacts with the dharma were with Tibetan Buddhism, which I followed for many years. One is indoctrinated that "nirvana" is something that no one can achieve, but that there's a path to achieve it. If you're lucky, you'll get reborn as a human again in a few gazillion kalpas. This made it seem too magical, and contrasted with the down-to-earth teachings of the Dalai Lama and others, who did focus on living in this world. (Not that they ignored that concept of nirvana; they just knew it didn't sell very well.) I never bought into this, and it was a relief to discover that, in zen, there is no vast cosmology of gods and demons to overcome, but just an idea of being. To be fair, since I've been practicing zen, I don't think about awakening; it's not a goal, and it's not something that I even see mentioned often in the books I read.

Gassho,

Kirk

#sat

Hi Kirk,

Given your use of the word "indoctrinated" I was wondering if felt that your teachers weren't sincere in belief in nirvana?

Gassho
Sattoday

Hoseki

[Risho]

Some of these answers may have been presented already; I apologize for any redundancy, but I haven't had a chance respond yet, so I just want to get through my responses then start into a dialogue with others in a separate posting.



-Before you began your Buddhist Practice (and/or now), how do you picture or imagine "nirvana"? What would it be like to finally realize "nirvana"? (Don't feel the need to be logical about it, and please feel free to speak from your imagination. What do you hope that "nirvana" will be like?).

I think they are great; it's a shame what happened to the lead singer. lol

Seriously, I've never really cared much for deva's dancing or maidens handing me endless beers, etc. Carrot and stick tactics don't draw me into things. One of the key reasons I really like Zen is that it's down to earth. Like the Heart Sutra says, nirvana is here and now; sitting brings us back to the here and now. Everything is our practice.

Do you lean toward a "transcendent" interpretation of Nirvana as a realm unborn, or a more "immanent" psychological interpretation as an overcoming of craving and attachment, or both, or neither, or something else?

This is a tricky one. In way, I think by being with things and sitting with them and being open enough to face the resistance and the situations that we encounter and understanding that we create a lot of the situations in our minds, we sort of transcend them.

If we think of Nirvana as this ultimate heaven like place and samsara as this place full of shit we don't like, and if we practice with an aim to only do things we like, then we are stuck in this cycle (see the Faith in Mind Sutra if you don't believe me. lol). But if we treat everything as our ground of practice (and I'm stealing that term from I think Joko Beck - but I can't remember), then that is big 'N' nirvana because we appreciate our entire life instead of being damned miserable because things never meet our expectations.


Does it matter to you that we may never know what was the "original teaching" of the historical Buddha?

Yes and no. Yes, from a historical perspective because I'd like to understand him better just out of curiosity; similar to how I really like to know what Jesus was actually like, before all the crap we added on (Zealot is a really, really good book btw). At the same time, from a practice perspective, it really isn't so important because really 2500 years later, I know way more about my practice than the historical Buddha just by virtue of being a person of my time. I think the spirit is more important than the letter of the law, which is how most things change over time. I think the spirit of our practice is still the same; or maybe not, since we don't know. lol For the most part I think the spirit of it is on point, i.e. exploring who we are, what it means to be human, etc. In the end, no matter what you call it, I think that this practice hits home for me, and that's what matters to me personally.


Would later traditions and interpretations that deviate from some "original teaching" be less legitimate?

Now that depends on how we judge the legitimacy of the practice. If we were restricted to its historicity (even if we knew the exact history/etc) we would have to keep it an oral tradition, speak, dress etc in the same way. The beauty of this practice, to me at least, is how relevant it is in my life as a 21st century dude. I love it because I can practice with my life as opposed to having to mimic some completely different way of life that has no relevance just for historical accuracy.

What do you feel about the notion of Buddhist doctrinal development as, rather than "branches that diverge from the same tree trunk", something better described as "a braided river [of] multiple interacting streams that do not derive from a single source"?

I think that's really interesting and it would sort of make sense. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Although we attribute all of this to one man, I really think that there were groups of people that were on this same wavelength so to speak. So it would make sense that different groups would have diverging views, on and on, the same as it ever was. Different humans feel more akin to different groups/views and so they practice in that manner, etc.

What is your feeling about the Joseph Campbell quote?

To be fair, I think his quote sounds sort of off the cuff. I think there is a balance to be struck here; I think all good religions worth their salt have some crazy myths and stories to keep their audience interested and explain why their way is the best or just to hammer home their point of view. I don't think we should get hung up on the myth or discount any piece of wisdom just because it isn't conveyed in a way that we assume it should be. Remember, historical accuracy and the scientific method are newer inventions that just didn't matter 2000+ years ago; so we are presented with these books of wisdom that tell stories not for accuracy but to get across a point.

At the same time, and all that being said, I think it's cool to read about flying Bodhisattvas and crazy miracles because isn't this life a crazy, inexplicable miracle? I mean those religious myths are unbelievable, but nothing is as unbelievable as this awesome life, as tasting an ice cream cone, or viewing stuff -- just amazing. I don't mean to get corny here, and it's stuff I take for granted, but I mean look at this life; that's a miracle, that's nirvana. The whole messy, beautiful thing. Nothing we invent, nor any expectation we could set for ourselves could ever hope to touch an iota of the grandeur that this real, actual life gives us every moment.

Gassho,

Risho
-sattoday

[Hoko]

I just came across this article in Lion's Roar and I thought it was relevant to this discussion.
Here is the link:

https://www.lionsroar.com/the-choice-is-yours/

The article addresses dependent origination by framing it in terms of two ways to approach it: immanent and transcendent.

The immanent way stresses proceeding forward in the world in a moral fashion with a retention of the sense of self.
The transcendent way is for "those aiming higher" and focuses on "letting go of self, that everything is not-self and nothing is worth clinging to as me or mine".

Ajahn Buddhadasa says "If both levels are understood, there is no conflict between them. They can coexist for the sake of both those who want to live in and of the world (lokiya) and those aiming to live above and free of the world (lokuttara), in it but not of it."

So I wonder: who "understands both levels" if there is no self in the transcendent view?

Dongshan (Tozan) asks a monk in Recorded Sayings "where have you come from?"
The monk answers "from wandering in the mountains"
Dongshan asks "did you get to the peak?"
The monk answers "yes"
Dongshan asks "was there anyone on the peak?"
The monk says "no"
Dongshan says "if that's so then you didn't reach the peak"
The monk is unrepentant and replies "If I didn't reach the peak then how would I know there wasn't anyone there?"

I keep coming back to this in my head over and over because it's tightly tethered to WHY I practice Zen Buddhism in the first place.
When I started off I imagined enlightenment as a form of escape from reality (mountains are mountains).
Years of constant introspection, study and practice led me to recognize that the need to escape reality was the very source of suffering itself (mountains are not mountains)
Then, by constantly reminding myself of this perspective I was able to better navigate the exigencies and vicissitudes of life.
To generate a strong foundation of faith in this perspective is the practice of a lifetime.
This is why I practice. This is why I will continue to practice.
There's no running away from reality. You take your problems with you wherever you go (mountains are mountains again)

So there's a part of me that bristles when we discuss "transcendence" because it sounds a lot like "escapism" and if you're goal is to escape reality then you're not facing reality, you're creating delusion.
What are you transcending then?

And yet... there IS a part of you that transcends "reality" (in parenthesis because what your small self defines as "reality" is perhaps not the same as Reality with a capital R).
When I am angry, ignorant or greedy I know, deep in my bones that "there is one who is not busy" (to quote Ungan from Case 21 of the Book of Equanimity "Ungan Sweeps the Ground").
There IS a part of me that ISN'T greedy, that ISN'T angry, that ISN'T ignorant. It KNOWS.
Not two moons. Not one.
It's boundless and eternal. IT transcends this ordinary existence but only I can know it.
It needs me as much as I need it.

Dongshan (Tozan) was asked by a monk which of the three bodies of Buddha didn't fall into categories and he replied "I am always close to this".
That's how I feel about transcendence. If I SAY what transcends then I immediately fall into categories.
BUT at the same time "I am always close to this". It's right HERE. It's NOW. I mean now. Now. Now...

It's immanent.
It's transcendent.

But I can't speak of it without putting a head on top of my own. I can't avoid it without cutting off my own head.
So shout MU! or raise your fly whisk and draw an Enso or point at the moon or say "the cypress tree in the front garden".
But if you really want to put it into practice then just sit. Everything at once and nothing in particular.

I already answered the question when sitting zazen this morning.
I will address this issue again when I sit zazen this evening.
I didn't stop sitting when I got off the zafu at 7 am and I will not start sitting when I get on the zafu at 7:30 pm tonight.

Gassho,
Hoko
#SatToday

[Risho]

I like that about answering the question by sitting zazen, but I would just extend it to saying by practicing throughout the day as well - but still I'm totally stealing that answer because I like it

Seriously though Hoko, your post made me think that really this practice, if we are really doing it consistently, is pushing us beyond ourselves. So in that respect it very much is transcendent. Simultaneously I think it is immanent because our practice and sitting with our lives and all the crap in them allows us to give ourselves space, which inevitably provides psychological relief in some respects.

Perhaps the view isn't that we transcend the world (I'm not quite sure what that means) but instead we go beyond the thoughts of anything to grasp or anything to improve or anyone to help, even as we do our best to improve and help "others". But that could just be the Jundo in me talking. lol

We have the one side of absolutism - where there is no one to save, then the other side, which is the same side of saving everyone. So how do we reconcile that? My answer right now is sort of a nod to the diamond sutra in a way. I practice by not practicing, therefore it is practice, and that is a subtle way of saying - practicing for the sake of practice. Just sitting to sit, not to get anything out of it. And that's the way to get something out of it, but it's not an "I" that gets something. I don't know how to explain it. It's sort of like when you want to get really really proficient at software development, if you focus on how long it will take, it will take longer than if you just dig in and practice over and over consistently. Then one day, you are a badass software engineer; not because you come in with a goal that is external the process but because you completely focus on the process. Every step is the goal bla bla bla.

So, if we go into practice with an aim of feeling better, then that's a problem. And that goes back to Dogen's question about why do we have to practice if we are already enlightened, and that's the kicker. We all come to this practice looking for something, but we have to learn to practice without any goal by just practicing and sitting with everything, which includes the goal we may have to practice, but just letting it go over and over. Old habits die hard.

Gassho,

Risho
-sattoday

[Jundo]

But we, as Soto Zen practitioners, don't think that way. If, as Loy suggests in this section and later in the book, awakening is immanent, then this fits with Dogen's idea that (I paraphrase) the very act of zazen is enlightenment itself. In Dogen's view, awakening is immanent. "To study the self is to forget the self." I'm far from an expert on Dogen's writings, but does he ever espouse the idea of nirvana as a transcendent event?

Hmmm. I believe that Loy later in the book actually encourages a path that transcends and embraces both the "immanent" and the "transcendent" without neglecting either, and I certainly feel that Dogen was a pretty "transcendent" and mystical fellow but with an "immanent" view of Practice in the here and now. Let's see what Loy says in later sections when we get there.

In response to Jundo's first question, my first contacts with the dharma were with Tibetan Buddhism, which I followed for many years. One is indoctrinated that "nirvana" is something that no one can achieve, but that there's a path to achieve it. ... I never bought into this, and it was a relief to discover that, in zen, there is no vast cosmology of gods and demons to overcome, but just an idea of being. To be fair, since I've been practicing zen, I don't think about awakening; it's not a goal, and it's not something that I even see menti

Just to note that it depends on which Zen teacher, and Dogen could be quite literal on "rebirth" in many of his writings. Also, we have our share of "gods and demons" in traditional belief. Many folks in the West like me, a bit more "modern" minded, tend not to emphasize such as much, but they are there. Whether folks believed in them as myth and metaphor, or literal truth, is hard to say. I assume more the latter or (like Byrne) unconcerned about the question.

From the opening pages of Dogen's beloved Lotus Sutra, describing those in attendance at the Buddha's Teaching ...

At that time the entire great assembly of Bhikshus, Bhikshunis, Upasakas, Upasikas, gods, dragons, yakshas, gandharvas, asuras, garudas, kinnaras, mahoragas, beings human and non-human, as well as the minor kings, the wheel-turning sage kings, all attained what they had never had before. They rejoiced and joined their palms and, with one heart, gazed upon the Buddha.

Gassho, J

SatToday

[Kaisui]

So there's a part of me that bristles when we discuss "transcendence" because it sounds a lot like "escapism" and if you're goal is to escape reality then you're not facing reality, you're creating delusion.
What are you transcending then?

And yet... there IS a part of you that transcends "reality" (in parenthesis because what your small self defines as "reality" is perhaps not the same as Reality with a capital R).
When I am angry, ignorant or greedy I know, deep in my bones that "there is one who is not busy" (to quote Ungan from Case 21 of the Book of Equanimity "Ungan Sweeps the Ground").
There IS a part of me that ISN'T greedy, that ISN'T angry, that ISN'T ignorant. It KNOWS.
Not two moons. Not one.
It's boundless and eternal. IT transcends this ordinary existence but only I can know it.
It needs me as much as I need it.

Thanks Hoko, many of your posts in this section have really resonated for me. I didn't find time to make my own comments so I was glad to see you writing so many things I felt agreement with

Gassho,
Charity
SatToday

[Jishin]

IMG_0734.JPG

Gasho, Jishin, _/st\_