Non-Split Thread: Transcendental and Immanent and Both and Neither and ...

[Jinyo]

Hi - interesting post. It's maybe difficult to answer from within Zen - might be revealing to take a random sample of subjects who agree to give the practice a try for a few months and see what they think/feel.

I don't want to write too much here as I'm currently sitting with some doubts that I have - but I think what might be confusing/offputting for some folks is that any serious questioning of concepts like Ultimate Reality, Suchness, etc when fully explored starts to bring up all of the doubts one may have had about transcendental 'religious' terminology/thought in one's own particular background. We really don't get rid of that God concept so easily and its maybe the reason why Christianity and Zen make for comfortable bed fellows.

I think the reason mindfullness meditation has taken off and seems to be everywhere is that it circumvents the above - and I think it's too simplistic to argue that if offers a soft option for lazy people - who don't want to think through the complexities and ramifications of Zen and other forms of buddhism. I feel Zen is sometimes portrayed as far simpler than it really is - the practice rests on a mass of assumptions that one is expected to believe (I know it will be argued that we are meant to put it all to the test through the practice) - but there is no 'objective' truth value to transcendental beliefs and ultimately it comes down to faith. In a world that is increasingly secular it's probably inevitable that mindfullness will be more popular. I also think it's important to remember that some of the criticism against the mindfullness movement has also been applied to Zen (quiescence, etc).

I'm not putting forward any fixed views here - so on the fence just now regarding certain aspects of Zen - and it's a very spikey, uncomfortable place to be!

Gassho,

Jinyo

ST

[Kokuu]

I think what might be confusing/offputting for some folks
is that any serious questioning of concepts like Ultimate Reality, Suchness, etc when fully explored starts to bring up all of the doubts one may have had about transcendental 'religious' terminology/thought in one's own particular background

Jinyo

I think it would be interesting for you to start a thread on this at some point.

It may be that I never really had a Christian upbringing but I have never had a problem with concepts such as ultimate reality and suchness. To me, they are just useful terms which describe how life is without being in any way particularly mystical or transcendental. In fact, I think that transcending reality is the total antithesis of Zen.

As Nan-chuan told Zhao-zhou "Your ordinary mind is the Way".

Can there be a tendency for some Zen teachers and students to dress this up as some kind of transcendental, mystical reality? Almost certainly. I don't find this particularly helpful though and like that in Soto Zen we mostly don't bother talking about ideas like enlightenment and just focus on simple practice.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

[Jundo]

... In fact, I think that transcending reality is the total antithesis of Zen.

As Nan-chuan told Zhao-zhou "Your ordinary mind is the Way".

Can there be a tendency for some Zen teachers and students to dress this up as some kind of transcendental, mystical reality? Almost certainly. I don't find this particularly helpful though and like that in Soto Zen we mostly don't bother talking about ideas like enlightenment and just focus on simple practice.

I actually consider myself very much a "transcendental" kind of fella and, re-reading Dogen's wild words as I go through all the Shobogenzo sections once again in recent weeks, I am sure he was too. There is something MARVELOUS when the hard borders and divisions of this and that, self and other, me and you, past and present and future and all time soften or drop away and (especially for Dogen) all things and moments then proceed to flow into and be contained and expressed fully by all other things and moments. We are not just these separate selves (although we are too), we are also the Whole Enchilada! This phenomenon is "Emptiness."

That is where I feel the "ordinary mind is the Way" comes in for most Zen fellows. This "ordinary mind" is not the "ordinary mind" before the above realization (when mountains are just mountains). It is the "ordinary mind" when both "mind dropped away" and the pouring of all other things and moments into "ordinary mind" happens (mountains are mountains again). Ordinary mind is then a facet of Emptiness. Every "ordinary" thought of a thing or a moment truly contains the entire universe, all time and space, as much as a bottle of ketchup contains ketchup. This is "suchness," this is "ultimate reality."

I call myself a "pragma-mystic" however, because as many of you know, I don't buy in to much of the magical, the mystic, the "hoo haa." I believe that the above dropping of borders, and the resulting expansion and redefinition of "self" identity, is not hard to explain or understand logically, is not contradicted by any aspect of our modern understanding of how the universe works that I know (in fact, in the book I am writing with a serious physicist and university professor, the overlaps are very obvious), and has no "hoo haa" about it. No flying carpets, magic super powers, ESP or UFOs ... but something actually very concrete.

When the barriers of "self" and "no myself" drop, the accompanying tensions, frictions, fears and such tend to go with it (because it takes two to have friction and conflict). Desire is sated in such aspect of nothing lacking in the wholeness of it all. Even "birth and death" drops away in a sense because, while "i" might die, to the extent that i am also the Whole Enchilada, one does not die in the sense that the Whole Enchilada keeps on Enchiladaing.

I entertain the possibility that my brain has been trained, or has the natural ability, to transcend and experience the softening of the self/other borders very easily, while other people literally can't get their heads around it. That is why some people get this, and some people can't. Our Zazen and other practices are meant to help soften or drop those borders (what happens to us in Shikantaza, and what happens to the Rinzai folks when they pierce MU and such). It is then not a matter of faith, but of physical and mental experience. Perhaps it does not work for everyone.

Gassho, J

STLah

PS - I think that the above is really hard for many or most people to get their heads around, so they find it easier to pray to Jesus or Amida, just go to a movie or play a video game, or try some "mindfulness" to relax a bit.

PPS -

in Soto Zen we mostly don't bother talking about ideas like enlightenment

Where did you get that? It would not be Zen without enlightenment!

[Jinyo]

Jinyo

I think it would be interesting for you to start a thread on this at some point.

It may be that I never really had a Christian upbringing but I have never had a problem with concepts such as ultimate reality and suchness. To me, they are just useful terms which describe how life is without being in any way particularly mystical or transcendental. In fact, I think that transcending reality is the total antithesis of Zen.

As Nan-chuan told Zhao-zhou "Your ordinary mind is the Way".

Can there be a tendency for some Zen teachers and students to dress this up as some kind of transcendental, mystical reality? Almost certainly. I don't find this particularly helpful though and like that in Soto Zen we mostly don't bother talking about ideas like enlightenment and just focus on simple practice.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

Hi Kokuu - just scrolling on I relate a lot to what Jundo wrote because I feel myself to be attuned to the transcendental aspect of Zen too.

I don't see this transcendental aspect as necessarily a problem - but I want to understand the basis of it more(as written in texts and experienced in lived experience.) I feel there is a lot of emphasis on immanence in the way Zen is put across (just chop wood, carry water, etc) - an instruction that's so comfortable and familiar being grounded in our everyday life. But this is also an aspect of Zen that can be naively appropriated by mindfullness instruction, etc.

By just concentrating on immanence - beneficial as that may be - I feel we sidestep the teachings on transcendence that surely envelope and ground Zen?

Perhaps Jundo will correct me here - and maybe I've got it all wrong - but I reckon Jundo teaches a transcendent aspect all the time. To my limited view it feels if we don't grasp and acknowledge the transcendent aspect of this reaching for the 'light that shines through the darkness' we're missing something?

But truthfully - the more I try to understand the less I seem to know. Or should that be - the more I try to know the less I seem to understand

Gassho

Jinyo

ST

[Kokuu]

To my limited view it feels if we don't grasp and acknowledge the transcendent aspect of this reaching for the 'light that shines through the darkness' we're missing something?

I may then be completely missing something from my practice as I have no wish at all to transcend anything,

My practice is about become totally intimate with reality as it is. This reality turns out to be much fuller and deeper than it first appears but I don't see that as transcendent.

I guess you could see it as transcending the notion of the ordinary self although it is not language I would personally use.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

[Jundo]

By just concentrating on immanence - beneficial as that may be - I feel we sidestep the teachings on transcendence that surely envelope and ground Zen?

Perhaps Jundo will correct me here - and maybe I've got it all wrong - but I reckon Jundo teaches a transcendent aspect all the time. To my limited view it feels if we don't grasp and acknowledge the transcendent aspect of this reaching for the 'light that shines through the darkness' we're missing something?

I may then be completely missing something from my practice as I have no wish at all to transcend anything,

My practice is about become totally intimate with reality as it is. This reality turns out to be much fuller and deeper than it first appears but I don't see that as transcendent.

I guess you could see it as transcending the notion of the ordinary self although it is not language I would personally use.

I think that you are both right! (That is possible in Zen)

I do feel that it is vital to experience the softening and complete dropping, and interflowing identity, of all things and moments, and the dropping of all divisions of this and that, me and you, self and not self, past present future, birth and life and death. That is pretty "transcendental" and has been the vital treasure of Zen Buddhism, Master Dogen and all the greats. It is not to be neglected.

And Zen is also imminent as imminent can be, down to earth, worldly. A cup of tea is a cup of tea, and chopping wood or changing a baby diaper is just this drinking tea, chopping and changing. There is nothing else in the world. This is also not to be neglected.

And both are true, and the tea and the diaper has all the universe and every other thing and moment pouring in and out. "Transcendental" is vital, but it is never an escape from the nitty gritty of this world. In fact, the nitty gritty has all time and space pouring into each bit of grit. Never to be neglected.

And neither ... just sit ... forget it all, whether the universe or the tea or the baby. No neglecting.

However, the "transcendental" aspect is pretty darn vital for many of us. Others of us Zennies, well, might be perfectly content just to drink tea and chop. That's perfectly fine too.

Gassho, J

STLah

[Jinyo]

I may then be completely missing something from my practice as I have no wish at all to transcend anything,

My practice is about become totally intimate with reality as it is. This reality turns out to be much fuller and deeper than it first appears but I don't see that as transcendent.

I guess you could see it as transcending the notion of the ordinary self although it is not language I would personally use.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

Hi -

I think perhaps there's a bit of tripping up over the word 'transcendent'. The way I see it - acknowledging the transcendent (al) in Zen isn't anything to do
with trying to transcend something. Becoming intimate with 'reality as it is' embraces both the ultimate and the particular - as I understand it this is what Zazen opens us up to?

For example, I am just re-reading Taigen Dan Leighton's 'Cultivating the Empty Field'. The words of that book sing Transcendental - but that doesn't mean that the transcendence is separate from us - or that we somehow have to transcend 'something' to reach it - the 'original boundless field ' is there all along - but there is of course some work required in order to access it.

But like Jundo says - it's maybe not necessary to over think all of this and everyone must find their own individual way in and expression of practice.

Gassho

Jinyo

[Jundo]

I think that you are both right! (That is possible in Zen)

I do feel that it is vital to experience the softening and complete dropping, and interflowing identity, of all things and moments, and the dropping of all divisions of this and that, me and you, self and not self, past present future, birth and life and death. That is pretty "transcendental" and has been the vital treasure of Zen Buddhism, Master Dogen and all the greats. It is not to be neglected.

And Zen is also imminent as imminent can be, down to earth, worldly. A cup of tea is a cup of tea, and chopping wood or changing a baby diaper is just this drinking tea, chopping and changing. There is nothing else in the world. This is also not to be neglected.

And both are true, and the tea and the diaper has all the universe and every other thing and moment pouring in and out. "Transcendental" is vital, but it is never an escape from the nitty gritty of this world. In fact, the nitty gritty has all time and space pouring into each bit of grit. Never to be neglected.

And neither ... just sit ... forget it all, whether the universe or the tea or the baby. No neglecting.

However, the "transcendental" aspect is pretty darn vital for many of us. Others of us Zennies, well, might be perfectly content just to drink tea and chop. That's perfectly fine too.

Gassho, J

STLah

If I may, the little talk today during our weekly Zazenkai was precisely on the transcendent as imminent, transcendent as transcendent and imminent as imminent. The most ordinary is amazing, the wondrous is nothing special. Maybe give a little listen. It is from 55:30 here, and a little more from 1:29:00 at the end ...

Gassho, J

STLah

[Tai Do]

I have thought a lot about this and found that I don’t like to apply concepts like transcendence and immanence to Zen or to Buddhism in general. These categories are too much linked to western Judeo-Christian-Islamic mysticism in my view. They are used in Theology and Philosophy to differentiate between Dualistic (God and the World/Self are different and separated things) and Monistic (God and the World/Self are the same or united thing). As such I found it useful not to use these categories in studying and interpreting Zen and Buddhist thought and Philosophy.
Of course, there is also the parallel to the Tariki (other-power) x Jiriki (self-power), but if I’m not wrong, these concepts were first used by the Pure Landers to criticize others sects for relying on the self and thus failing to understand the importance of No-Self. But I think this critic is undeserved, especially in Zen. In sitting zazen I don’t think we are relying on our self-power. In relying on Buddha-nature, that pervades everything, I don’t think we are relying neither on other-power nor on self-power. Zen is beyond self-power and other-power, as is beyond Dualism and Monism, hence Non-Duality instead of Monism.
I could be wrong and I would very much appreciate to be corrected if I am.
Thank you all for this thread.
Gassho ,
Metta to all,
Mateus
Sat today

[Jundo]

I have thought a lot about this and found that I don’t like to apply concepts like transcendence and immanence to Zen or to Buddhism in general. These categories are too much linked to western Judeo-Christian-Islamic mysticism in my view. They are used in Theology and Philosophy to differentiate between Dualistic (God and the World/Self are different and separated things) and Monistic (God and the World/Self are the same or united thing). As such I found it useful not to use these categories in studying and interpreting Zen and Buddhist thought and Philosophy.
Of course, there is also the parallel to the Tariki (other-power) x Jiriki (self-power), but if I’m not wrong, these concepts were first used by the Pure Landers to criticize others sects for relying on the self and thus failing to understand the importance of No-Self. But I think this critic is undeserved, especially in Zen. In sitting zazen I don’t think we are relying on our self-power. In relying on Buddha-nature, that pervades everything, I don’t think we are relying neither on other-power nor on self-power. Zen is beyond self-power and other-power, as is beyond Dualism and Monism, hence Non-Duality instead of Monism.
I could be wrong and I would very much appreciate to be corrected if I am.
Thank you all for this thread.
Gassho ,
Metta to all,
Mateus
Sat today

I like to say that whether we use words like "transcendence" or "immanence" or not ... the whole universe flows in and out and as all things, and all things flow in and our and as the whole universe. ("Universe" even does not do the trick to capture the whole of reality, any more than the name "Mateus" captures the whole of who is Mateus or "Everest" conveys all the grandeur and power of that mountain, However, sometimes we need some word or name to communicate. I like to say "reality" or "the Whole Enchilada" or "whatever is and the kitchen sink.")

Likewise, Tariki (other-power) and Jiriki (self-power) don't help very much, as our sitting Zazen is supported by the whole universe outside us, and we support the whole universe with our sitting. This is hard to convey, but we rather feel that the whole universe allows and gives life to every blade of grass, while each blade of grass brings life to and allows the universe. Outside is just inside, and inside precisely out. Words struggle to convey this.

We sometimes say that reality is "not one not two," meaning something like expressing a flowing Wholeness to reality that is precisely every separate thing (including you and me), and yet all the separation is swept away in the Wholeness, and yet that Wholeness is precisely each and every separate thing (Mateus too), as well as each separate thing is each separate things like its own shining jewel (Mateus shining as Mateus too). Be don't just say that the world is divided in two, but neither is it one ... and even images like "0,1,2,3 ..." limit. What is present in a world of "0,1,2,3 ..." when we drop even "0,1,2,3 ... " from mind?

Gassho, J

STLah

PS- I jokingly called this a "non-split" thread because I split it off from its original thread, "not one not two."

PPS - Do you know English slang, "Whole Enchilada"? https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/whole+enchilada

[Heiso]

I also suspect the the word 'transcendence' has become rather loaded of the years particularly for those of us coming from monotheistic backgrounds - I have always tended to think of it in mystical type terms but now I think of sitting shikantaza as a form of practical transcendence and so every day we are transcending the self/not myself duality (the duality of non-duality, if you will!) if only briefly inbetween accidentally thinking about putting the washing on or shopping lists.

And 'Keep on Enchiladaing' is my new bumper sticker.

Gassho,

Neil

Sat Today.

[Tai Do]

Thank you, Jundo and Neil, for your responses and Jinyo for open this thread. These are precisely things I’ve been thinking and rethinking over the years.
Gassho,
Mateus

Sat today

PS: It was the first time I have encountered the expression “Whole Enchilada”. I liked it.

[Heiso]

Purely by chance I stumbled across this seemingly relevant article by Norman Fischer which addresses the transcendence of mind: https://www.lionsroar.com/everythings-made-of-mind/

Gassho,

Neil

SatToday

[Jundo]

Purely by chance I stumbled across this seemingly relevant article by Norman Fischer which addresses the transcendence of mind: https://www.lionsroar.com/everythings-made-of-mind/

Gassho,

Neil

SatToday

Thank you for this, a simply BRILLIANT piece by Norman Fischer that I think is right on the money, and explores the Buddhist concept of "mind" is its various facets. Lovely. I recommend working through it, although it may take some effort for some. It is also right in line with what we have been discussing.

Let me try to describe some of this simply:

We usually think of our "mind" as that which is happening between the ears, probably in the brain. In fact, that is true. However, that is not all that "mind" is, because "mind" is also the whole "outside" world that is needed to allow that "inner" experience to be. For example, if you look out with your eyes, light enters, a signal travels upwards from the optic nerve, and you see a lovely green apple tree in your mind which appears to be standing in front of you. You may then decide to reach out your hand, pluck an apple and have a tasty sweet bite.

Usually, we think of the "mind" as only the subjective part behind your eyes and between your ears and the taste on the tongue, but from a Buddhist perspective, the ENTIRE FEEDBACK LOOP outside and inside and back again is the whole "mind." The molecules that are (we assume) outside somewhere, the light photons that bounce off the molecules at a certain frequency and enter the eye, the eye itself, the brain which interprets the data as "lovely green apple tree," the hand, the molecules you appear to reach out for and bite, the tongue, the resulting "sweet taste" is all the mind. In fact, you would be like the deaf and blind Hellen Keller, trapped in some isolated state, without that entire feedback loop. You need the "outside" to let you have the subjective experience "inside." (What is more, we do not realize how much of the world we create, and how much would not really exist without us. For example, photons are not "green" without our eye to see, "lovely" is our subjective opinion, apple sugar is not "sweet" without our tongue, and even "trees" are just molecules without our brain to identify them in a category and stick the name "tree" on. There might be something out there with the chemical composition of sugar molecules, but no "sweet apple" without you to experience so. So many things in this world do not quiet exist without our subjective experience, for example, a "book" made from trees is not a "book" without intelligent and literate human beings to read it. An ant crawling across the surface of the "book" would not perceive it is a "book," and perhaps only as another surface for crawling. Thus, there is no "book" there ... just a mass of atoms perhaps ... without a human "reader" to give it name, differentiation, meaning).

But the "mind" extends further. One could say that every single happening since the Big Bang (or whatever came before) that happened in order to allow there to be a brain and eye and hand and tree and apple is also your "mind" in wide meaning. For example, every twist and turn of physics, chemistry, biology and history that allowed there to be stars, which formed elements, which elements formed the planet, then formed the tree and the eye and the apple and the tongue and the brain is part of the process. Your parents and all ancestors are part of your mind for giving birth to you, and all the food you eat (in fact, that all your ancestors ate, that every fertilizing worm in the soil under the tree ate) is your mind for fueling the whole thing.

In other words, the WHOLE ENCHILADA is necessary for your mind between the ears, and is thus not to be separated from it. When the hard borders between the inside "self" and outside "rest of the world" soften, we see that all flow together in Emptiness, all things flowing and dependent directly and indirectly on all other things, great feedback loops within loops, and this whole dance of everything might be called your "mind."

Now, one caution: This idea of a WHOLE ENCHILADA mind DOES NOT necessarily mean the same thing as some mysterious "COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS" or Godhead or the like. I mean, it --might-- mean that, but not necessarily, and may simply mean that your subjective mind is dependent and part of the rest of nature, which whole of nature is otherwise not conscious. Of course, you can prove that the universe is "conscious" and "intelligent" when you look in the mirror, because the universe is partly you, and you are conscious and intelligent, so the universe is "conscious" and "intelligent" at least to the extent of you! However, whether there is some "Grand Consciousness" and "Super-Intelligence" to the entirety of creation? Well, we Zen Buddhists tend not to be so concerned by that. (I have my suspicions that there is some greater intelligence to the grand scheme of things, but I am not really so concerned one way or the other. If there is, I am here and alive. If there is not, I am here and alive.). Also, none of this proves that ESP exists, or anything like that (i.e., even though the whole universe might be called my "mind," that does not mean that my brain can read your thoughts).

So, that is our Buddhist idea that we have in mind of "mind."

As we discussed above, "suffering" arises when our mind cuts the world into pieces, separates our "inside" from "outside," and experiences a world of conflict and friction, friend and foe, likes and dlslikes, tasty apples and unpleasant bee stings. Although the bees are also part of your mind (and you part of theirs), they are a painful part for your arm. Our Buddhist practice cannot make bee stings not sting.

However, by softening the hard borders of "inside and outside," subject vs. objects. we experience the wholeness of mind that Norman Fischer discusses, the transcendant.

Maybe my mind explanation has just made your mind even more confused??

Gassho, J

STLah

[Junkyo]

Could becoming truly in touch with things just as they are be a type if transcendence? As in transcending all of the distractions, narratives, that so often cloud our mind and prevent us from seeing/experiencing the world and our lives just as they are, in their clearest sense?

Perhaps the very normative function of cutting through the proverbial "crap" or "B.S." and seeing the inherent truth of our reality is transcendence; nothing mystical or magical about it.

To some degree there may be an aversion to anything transcendental due to the cultural baggage surrounding the word here in the west. We imagine some mystical quality to transcendence, when we should just view it as a way of describing the overcoming of obstacles and defilements.

I guess what I am trying to get at is that transcendent and imminent are not 2 different things. Perhaps transcendance is imminence and vice versa?


Out of interest, the idea of Tariki (other power) in Shin (Jodo Shinshu) buddhism is typically described as a total reliance on Amida Buddha's infinite merit as well as the 18th vow of Amida ensuring ones rebirth in the western pureland of Amida upon ones death (not a permanent place to reside either, it is only temporary). Keep in mind that Shiran (founder of Jodo Shinshu) believed himself to be totally incapable of reaching enlightenment any other way as he felt he was too defiled to make proper use of self powered practices (such as he was trained in as a Tendai monk). He was a rather self deprecating fellow, but quite insightful. It is also important to note that he truly believed that he was living in the age of mappo (dharma ending age), and that true dharma practice could no longer be done, therefore reliance on Amida was the only viable way to liberation. Interesting history!

Gassho,

Junkyo
SAT

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk