Bankei

[Kokuu]

Thank you, Jundo.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the use of terms like ajāta and śūnyatā - the problem comes when we try and make them into a thing. But given the tendency of the human mind to do that, such words are certainly best used wisely.

Gassho
Andy

[Jundo]

Hey Andy,

It is also good to remember here the Buddha's ancient and often repeated caution that he does not teach either "Eternalism" or "Nihilism", but a "Middle Way". What does that mean?

Well, the Buddha avoided seeing the world as either founded upon something permanent, fixed, eternal and unchanging ("Eternalism"), or reality as "not there", zero, meaningless, "a blank hole" ("Nihilism").

Kaccayanagotta Sutta

"The world in general, Kaccaayana, inclines to two views, to existence or to non-existence. But for him who, with the highest wisdom, sees the uprising of the world as it really is, 'non-existence of the world' does not apply, and for him who, with highest wisdom, sees the passing away of the world as it really is, 'existence of the world' does not apply.

"The world in general, Kaccaayana, grasps after systems and is imprisoned by dogmas. But he [who is wise] does not go along with that system-grasping, that mental obstinacy and dogmatic bias, does not grasp at it, does not affirm: 'This is my self.' He knows without doubt or hesitation that whatever arises is merely dukkha that what passes away is merely dukkha and such knowledge is his own, not depending on anyone else. This, Kaccaayana, is what constitutes right view.

"'Everything exists,' this is one extreme; 'nothing exists,' this is the other extreme. Avoiding both extremes the Tathaagata teaches a doctrine of the middle

Some thus criticize certain Mahayana Sutras and certain language used by Zen Masters such as Bankei and many others for making "Big B" Buddha into an permanent, perfect and eternal "Source", such as this description from the Nirvana Sutra ...

[T]he Tathagata is Eternal and Unchanging. Any person who says that the Tathagata is non-eternal [is ignorant] ... the Tathagata is Eternal and Unchanging. It is not good to say that the Tathagata is non-eternal and that he changes.

BUT BUT BUT ... this seeming disparity dissolves if one realizes that perhaps what is actually being pointed to is a kind of "Big P" Permanence that arises when we drop all our small human measures of "permanent vs. impermanent", starts and finishes, yesterday/today/tomorrow. "here now vs. not here later". etc. There is a kind of "Big P" Perfection found when human beings put aside all judgments of "perfect" or "imperfect" to our selfish eyes and wants. There is a "Big P" Pure when one drops all human aversions and attractions to what we like or dislike as "pure" or "impure", clean or dirty. A Silence that sings both (small case) silence or noise, lovely song or cries of grief, a ("Big "S") Sacred Stillness that is both when sitting still or moving about like a hurricane. There is a certain "Big B" Being to reality that holds both human ideas of "being or not being", existing or not existing, time or timeless, here or gone, birth and death ... etc. etc. One realizes (all caps) Just What Is, beyond yet embodying (small case) what is or what ain't, what we want & what we resist and hate.

This "Big P" Permanence, Perfection and Purity thus holds and manifests this world of starts and finishes, good and bad, clean and dirty etc. judged and labeled by "what's in it for me?" small human eyes. Such is "Big B" Buddha and "Big E" Enlightenment that even holds our small human expectations and descriptions of "small b" buddha vs. ignorant sentient beings (i.e., beings who are "ignorant" for the very reason of not knowing "Big B" Buddha that transcends even "enlightenment vs. ignorance" )

But But But But ... all of the above remains just "armchair philosophy" until one actually realizes such in Zazen. Zen folks don't just leave all this as dry words on some Sutra page. How? By sitting, dropping all small human judgments, aversions and attractions in order to embody the "Big B" Buddha and "Big E" Enlightenment that simultaneously transcends yet embodies this samsaric world of "clean and dirty, war and peace, sickness and health, life and death" and all the rest ... even "enlightenment vs. ignorance".

Something (and not "something") like that. It ain't rocket science.

Just Sit ... dropping categories, appraisals, expectations, demands on the world, as and amid this world of sometime beauty and sometime ugliness to our eyes and ... Just Sit.

Gassho, J

[Jinyo]

Hey Andy,

It is also good to remember here the Buddha's ancient and often repeated caution that he does not teach either "Eternalism" or "Nihilism", but a "Middle Way". What does that mean?

Well, the Buddha avoided seeing the world as either founded upon something permanent, fixed, eternal and unchanging ("Eternalism"), or reality as "not there", zero, meaningless, "a blank hole" ("Nihilism").



Some thus criticize certain Mahayana Sutras and certain language used by Zen Masters such as Bankei and many others for making "Big B" Buddha into an permanent, perfect and eternal "Source", such as this description from the Nirvana Sutra ...



BUT BUT BUT ... this seeming disparity dissolves if one realizes that perhaps what is actually being pointed to is a kind of "Big P" Permanence that arises when we drop all our small human measures of "permanent vs. impermanent", starts and finishes, yesterday/today/tomorrow. "here vs. not here". etc. There is a kind of "Big P" Perfection found when human beings put aside all judgments of "perfect" or "imperfect" to our selfish eyes and wants. There is a "Big P" Pure when one drops all human aversions and attractions to what we like or dislike as "pure" or "impure", clean or dirty. A Silence that sings both (small case) silence or noise, lovely song or cries of grief, a ("Big "S") Sacred Stillness that is both when sitting still or moving about like a hurricane. There is a certain "Big B" Being to reality that holds both human ideas of "being or not being", existing or not existing, time or timeless, here or gone, birth and death ... etc. etc. One realizes (all caps) Just What Is, beyond yet embodying (small case) what is or what ain't, what we want & what we resist and hate.

This "Big P" Permanence, Perfection and Purity thus holds and manifests this world of starts and finishes, good and bad, clean and dirty etc. judged and labeled by "what's in it for me?" small human eyes. Such is "Big B" Buddha and "Big E" Enlightenment that even holds our small human expectations and descriptions of "small b" buddha vs. ignorant sentient beings (i.e., beings who are "ignorant" for the very reason of not knowing "Big B" Buddha that transcends even "enlightenment vs. ignorance" )

But But But But ... all of the above remains just "armchair philosophy" until one actually realizes such in Zazen. Zen folks don't just leave all this as dry words on some Sutra page. How? By sitting, dropping all small human judgments, aversions and attractions in order to embody the "Big B" Buddha and "Big E" Enlightenment that simultaneously transcends yet embodies this samsaric world of "clean and dirty, war and peace, sickness and health, life and death" and all the rest ... even "enlightenment vs. ignorance".

Something (and not "something") like that. It ain't rocket science.

Just Sit ... dropping categories, appraisals, expectations, demands on the world, as and amid this world of sometime beauty and sometime ugliness to our eyes and ... Just Sit.

Gassho, J

Thank you for this Jundo.

I've found myself running aground on the notion of eternalism from time to time. One of the recommended books on our reading list is David Brazier's 'The New Buddhism' and I have to confess I felt very confused after reading that book. He is very critical of Zen (even though embracing Zen as his practice/teaching along with Pure Land).

He argues a view of Soto Zen as teaching a notion of a 'fundamental, unifying, metaphysical substratum that is more real than the ordinary world'.
He also argues that the concept of Buddha Nature and Original or Inherent enlightenment are not Buddhist concepts (Taoist) and that 'the grasses,trees, mountain and rivers all attain Buddhahood' is a slogan. He argues that the original meaning of shunyata has been corrupted into its opposite (an underlying eternal essence of everything).

Well - this continues for many pages until he reaches an interesting conclusion - namely - Buddha discriminated between greed, hate, delusions and generosity etc and was in fact, through and through a dualist. Realizing the non-dual is absolutely no guarantee of anything in the sphere of ethics and social compassion.

I have, from time to time, felt confused and run aground on all of the above. Sometimes it's difficult to differentiate between heart-felt thinking within my mind and excessive spinning of thoughts. But - Buddhism (for some) is a faith as well as a practice - it isn't just a case of 'we sit' but also we 'believe'. Sometimes we may be called upon to explain in words what we ground our practice upon.

As it happens - I think Brazier presents Soto Zen in a different way to how it is taught here.

I gravitate to the teaching here but I would be dishonest if I said I don't also have doubts. The only time the doubts really go away is when I sit - and perhaps that is the point of zazen - and the grace of practice - and ultimately it is hard to express any of this in words.

Gassho

Willow

[Kokuu]

Thank you, Jundo

[RichardH]

I stewed in philosophical and religious ideas for a long time before accepting guidance and learning to sit. So I was bitten bad and flopped back and forth between nihilism and eternalism. That experience gave some insight into the addictive nature of mind, this mind at any rate. It was understanding the meaning of upaya, skillful means, that made it possible to start to drop it, and to look into reaching and grasping, and how ideas set up in a blind spot and rule the roost. I believe that times change, and that what is skillful in one culture and time, might not be skillful in another. Some teachings helped, some just fed my addiction, and I can see that happening in others too. So for me being faithful to the Dharma doesn't mean regarding all the traditional types of teaching as helpful, because they are traditional. This could also just be a matter of character. I appreciate the balance of Jundo and Taigu.

Gassho Daizan

[Jundo]

... One of the recommended books on our reading list is David Brazier's 'The New Buddhism' and I have to confess I felt very confused after reading that book. He is very critical of Zen (even though embracing Zen as his practice/teaching along with Pure Land).

He argues a view of Soto Zen as teaching a notion of a 'fundamental, unifying, metaphysical substratum that is more real than the ordinary world'.
He also argues that the concept of Buddha Nature and Original or Inherent enlightenment are not Buddhist concepts (Taoist) and that 'the grasses,trees, mountain and rivers all attain Buddhahood' is a slogan. He argues that the original meaning of shunyata has been corrupted into its opposite (an underlying eternal essence of everything).

Hi Willow,

At risk of going into too much detail, those are very much narrow interpretations or mischaracterizations of Soto Zen practice.

Strange as it sounds, while we believe in a TRUTH that is "more real" than this ordinary world, and while we believe this "ordinary world"(which is a place filled with greed anger and ignorance) is not any more "real" than a mirage or dream ... we simultaneously believe that this "ordinary world" is as real as real can be, and anything but "ordinary" because the "dream" and that TRUTH which is "more real" (and which is free of greed anger and ignorance) are "not two, one beyond one".

Although "greed anger and ignorance" is certainly NOT the same as "generosity, compassion and wisdom" ... yet all is a dream, while all is also real ... and so we should embody "generosity, compassion and wisdom" which is free of "greed anger and ignorance".

Furthermore, to say that "'the grasses,trees, mountains and rivers all attain Buddhahood' is a slogan" is not to understand that even "slogans" attain Buddhahood and, anyway, what is there to "attain"? (Dogen spoke of pictures of painted rice cakes that can satisfy hunger).

Yes, there is some Taoist influence on Buddhism when it crossed from India to China ... one of the best things that ever happened to Buddhism! Most Mahayanists have asserted for centuries that they actually "improved" the original formulations of Buddhism which were inspired but a bit clunky (at least from some perspectives, for the so-called Hinayana folks would disagree).

Shunyata (Emptiness) has not been corrupted into its opposite, an underlying "essence of everything", because Shunyata does not admit "opposites" (better said, Shunyata includes and transcends both opposites and identicals and anything-betweens and not-at-alls, holding each and every and some and neither at once without the least conflict.), everything and nothing in a great swimming essential dance ... beyond mere "to be or not to be".

Also plenty of room in Zen for "ethics and social compassion", thank you much!

The criticism is too narrow and does not understand the full implications of these Teachings.

Gassho, J

[RichardH]

Shunyata (Emptiness) has not been corrupted into its opposite, an underlying "essence of everything", because Shunyata does not admit "opposites" (better said, Shunyata includes and transcends both opposites and identicals and anything between or never was, holding each and all and neither at once without the least conflict.), everything and nothing in a great swimming essential dance ... beyond mere "to be or not to be".

The criticism is too narrow and does not understand the full implications of these Teachings.

Gassho, J

Hi Jundo. Are teachings other than how they are received? Is it fair to respond to very common misunderstandings by saying if people don't get it, that's not the problem of the teachings?
I have no figures here, no facts, only a sense of it, but would bet that if a poll was taken of people who are interested in Zen and who show up at a Zen center, there will be believe in a formless Mind/God, because that is the popular idea. It was just such a notion that sat like a black rock behind my eyes for a long time, because of how the teachings were picked up (naturally enough). ...and also how it was first presented by a traditional teacher. I sympathize with people who are confused. Daizan /\

[alan.r]

yet all is a dream, while all is also real

Wait wait wait, what?…now you're just jerking us around. (jk)

This thread has been seriously great reading and something I'm still sitting with. Thanks everyone. Feel like there were some serious fastballs tossed in here and Jundo stepped in with with his zen-thwacker and put them all out of the park. (did I just really write that sentence? I don't even like baseball; whatever, I'm leaving it.)

Also, I really liked what Daizan said, and think it's something we all do to varying degrees and characterizes, at least some of the time, my own little creeping doubts (which like you said Willow, mostly dissolve in sitting): "I stewed in philosophical and religious ideas for a long time before accepting guidance and learning to sit. So I was bitten bad and flopped back and forth between nihilism and eternalism. That experience gave some insight into the addictive nature of mind, this mind at any rate." Yes, that.

gassho everyone

[Jundo]

Hi Daizan,

People will believe what they believe. They always have and always will. People will receive Teachings and Teacher's words and hear them and make of them whatever they want.

Perhaps Zen Practice is just about getting behind some of those personally held beliefs and views, turning some upside down, rightside up and back again into new views and viewless views.

But people will hear and make what they want. As long as such are good ways, no harm I suppose.

Gassho, J

[Jundo]

yet all is a dream, while all is also real

Yes, Dogen and lots of Mahayana folks expressed something along the lines of how life is like something of a dream ... and we are dreamers dreaming of our "self" dreaming in a dream ... but this is our dream, our only dream of life to live ... sometimes a sweet dream, sometimes a silly dream, sometimes an "to dream the impossible dream" dream, and sometimes a nightmare ... a dream within a dream so dreamy that it bends around to be as real as real can be (as we all discover when our "dream knee" bumps into the "dream coffee table" ) ... a dream that is our dream, so we best dream-live it well.

Wake Up!

Gassho, J

[Jundo]

Anyway ... let's leave all this be, drop most away, and go sit.

Gassho, J

[Myosha]

Thank you.


Gassho,
Edward

[Jinyo]

Really helpful thread - thanks all,



Willow

[RichardH]

Anyway ... let's leave all this be, drop most away, and go sit.

Gassho, J

Thank you, Jundo, and thank you for being around.