To see ourselves truly.

The Scottish poet Robert Burns coined the phrase, “Ahh, to see ourselves as others see us...” and this way of seeing is indeed valuable. However, there is a more valuable way: To see ourselves as we truly are beyond the ordinary lens of perception. What is this strange way?

The Lankavatara was allegedly the sutra most revered by Bodhidharma: the father of Zen. Among the myriad sutras, the Lankavatara lays out the essential challenge inherent in the human dilemma. Here we see how the matter of perception leads us into error. The problem is that the world (including our thoughts) is perceived by-way-of discriminate forms, and we remain oblivious to the one doing the perceiving (ourselves). 

We see shapes and forms configured in different ways before us. We hear sounds tinkling or loud. We smell different aromas, and through this manner of distinguishing differences, we form judgments of like and dislike, clinging to the first and resisting the latter.

This process is essential and can’t be avoided, but unless we become aware—deeply aware—of the indiscriminate perceiver (who is beyond all color and form), we become mesmerized and enslaved by the dance of differentiation, all the while creating havoc for ourselves and others. The sutra says the result of this ignorance are minds which “burn with the fires of greed, anger and folly, finding delight in a world of multitudinous forms, their thoughts obsessed with ideas of birth, growth, and destruction, not well understanding what is meant by existence and non-existence, and being impressed by erroneous discriminations and speculations since beginningless time, fall into the habit of grasping this and that and thereby becoming attached to them.”

This unavoidable process leads to clinging to an evanescent world of objects. And as we cling, we oppose the truth of our unknowing and therefore are trapped in karma born of greed, anger and folly. The accumulation of karma then goes on and we become imprisoned in a cocoon of discrimination and are unable to free ourselves from the rounds of birth and death.

The Buddha said that it is like seeing one’s own image in a mirror and taking the image as real, or seeing the moon reflected on the surface of water and taking it to be the actual moon. To see in this way is dualistic whereas to see truly is a matter of Oneness revealed within innermost consciousness. 

The unavoidable conclusion of seeing beyond the biased lens of perception is all of us are the same at the deepest level, none better or worse. It is all too easy to become trapped by the constant flow of tidal forces and forget that each of us is the master of our very own sea.

The Deep

The easiest thing in the world is to get swept up in the waves of adversity. During such times it is nearly impossible to keep your cool and not panic. 

Over time it is quite possible to learn how to use these waves like a surfer uses a surfboard. It is unreasonable to think we’ll ever find times without waves—It is the nature of life that they come.

Even during tumultuous times, there is calm and tranquility just a few meters beneath the surface. In fact, waves are just the result of the ocean calm being pulled by external forces and without being connected to the deep there could be no waves. The deep and waves are two aspects of what makes the ocean what it is.

Our human challenge is to find that deep place of calm so that during the storms of life we won’t be swept away.

Hope: full or less?

Escaping?

More than likely most readers are more concerned with their emotional stability than matters of philosophy or, for that matter, spiritual issues (Zen included). And this priority is not incorrect. After all, anyone’s emotional stability (or the lack) is something that everyone lives with day in, day out. 

Learning about, what at times may seem arcane, be it philosophy or aspects of any particular spiritual discipline, are a means to an end of emotional stability (or the lack). If any philosophy or spiritual practice doesn’t deliver the goods, even if such disciplines are revered or considered holy, it’s time to face what lies in front of our nose’s instead of some esoteric belief system that promises one thing or another on the far distant horizon.

For the most part, emotional stability isn’t so challenging to develop and maintain, so long as we begin and continue with two simple matters: hope and self-awareness. How we relate to hope establishes much. Should we be hopeful, hopeless, or some other combination? What we hope for are a future matter and concerns expectations. Hoping for a bright future (when up to our necks in chaos and disaster) may or may not be an appropriate state of mind. 

Being glum and pessimistic in light of abundance and joy doesn’t seem like an appropriate attitude either. Conditions are continually changing, and when we subject our emotions to evolving circumstances, they will bob up and down like a cork in the ocean.

Then how can we establish and maintain stability at the same time everything changes around us? The answer to that rhetorical question depends on how we understand ourselves. If your sense of self is firm and stable, your emotions follow suit. If your sense of self depends upon the tides, then you’ll flow with the surge. 

Ultimately, whatever way in which we understand our selves determines our emotional state of mind. If we rid ourselves from expecting one outcome, or another, hope becomes a meaningless matter. The best way of arranging our emotional life is to be concerned about one thing only: Doing “whatever, after thorough investigation and reflection, you find to agree with reason and experience, as conducive to the good and benefit of one and all and of the world at large, accept only that as true, and shape your life in accordance with it.”⎯end of the Kalama Sutra.

After the choice that benefits one and all, our job is complete, and we can maintain emotional composure and let the chips fall where they may. When we base our responses to life on getting what we hope for (or wish to avoid), we’re in trouble from the very beginning. 

Is that all there is?

“Is that all there is? Is that all there is? If that’s all there is my friends, then let’s keep dancing. Let’s break out the booze and have a ball if that’s all there is.”

These words might very well be the mantra for today. They were however, sung by American singer Peggy Lee and an award winner from her album in November 1969. When your life seems surrounded with corruption it is easy to become disillusioned. Peggy Lee’s song was written by the team of Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller and based on the existential philosophy expressed at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th-century. 

More specifically the writers borrowed the idea from the 1896 Disillusionment written by Thomas Mann who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1929. Mann was a big fan of Goethe, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, all of whom, in one way or another saw life as meaningless and were considered either implicit or explicit nihilists.

Without plumbing the depths of consciousness it seems logical that life is indeed meaningless. The words of the song keep changing but the message appears to be the same. Even among mainline Buddhism that message was first resonating with what was known as “The Three marks of existence.” The Buddha was thought to have taught that all beings, conditioned by causes (saṅkhāra) are impermanent (anicca) and suffering (dukkhā) while he said not-self (anattā) characterized all dharmas meaning there is no “I” or “mine” in life.

If that was the end of the matter, Buddhism would more than likely, have lasted about twenty seconds. But fortunately that was not the end of the matter. It took some time for Mahāyana Buddhism to emerge, which told the rest of the story. In Chapter 3 (On Grief) of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra the Buddha taught, about what he called “four perversions.” 

He said that the true Self signified the Buddha, the eternal signified the Dharmakaya (the Mind of truth), Bliss signified the lack of dukkhā and Nirvana/the Pure signified the Dharma. He went on to say that to cultivate impermanence, suffering, and non-Self has no real value/meaning. “Whoever has these four kinds of perversion, that person does not know the correct cultivation of dharmas. Having these perverse ideas, their (the lost) minds and vision are distorted.”

When life seems to be characterized by violence, political shark-man-ship, power through money, injustice, a growing wave of corruption, despair, apathy, and hopelessness, it’s easy to wonder, “Is this all there is?” And while we may not yet be able to find our true Selves (which is Sunyata), we don’t need to see life through the lens of a victim. A man who waits for enlightenment before being a balm to others is like waiting for the ocean to warm before taking a bath. 

While facing such adversity in the present moment, it may require strength, endurance, and keeping a level head. But of equal importance is the clear understanding that the only way to have better “nows” for tomorrows is by making those betters today. A single match can either ignite a blazing inferno of hatred or light a lamp of love that shines brightness into the darkness. Whatever we do in the never-ending “now” will make our world of tomorrow. 

We don’t need to be a Malālah Yūsafzay or an Edward Snowden to make a difference. A single act of kindness in whatever sphere we live turns adversity into joy. A single drop of rain waters 10,000 pines.

The partnership of science and non-science.

The 8th-century Indian Buddhist philosopher, by the name of Śāntideva, said that to be able to deny something, we first have to know what it is we’re denying. The logic of that is peerless. His exact statement was, “Without contacting the entity that is imputed. You will not apprehend the absence of that entity.” 

Similarly, Bodhidharma said: “That which exists, exists in relationship to that which doesn’t exist.” And, perhaps the first known person to discuss relativity was not Einstein but rather Nāgārjuna wherein he pointed out, “That which is the element of light is seen to exist in relation to darkness; that which is the element of good is seen to exist on account of bad; that which is the element of space is seen to exist on account of form.”

In today’s world, we have embraced science as the new god and have enshrined definable matter as the exclusive province of reality, yet unable to define what truth is. Perceptible form has become the gold standard that emerged out of the Western pre-Enlightenment era, beginning in late 17th century Europe emphasizing reason and individualism rather than religious tradition. Its purpose was to reform society using rational logic, challenge ideas grounded in dogmatic religious thought and, advance knowledge through the scientific method. However, to give thorough, impartial consideration to the framework of science, we need to carefully explore the foundation upon which it rests.

The physical world is governed by rules that require, as a minimum, the combined matters of time, space, and the circumstances of cause and effect. And a fundamental beginning point to all contemporary discussions of the physical world is the Big Bang.  

While Einstein wasn’t the first to discuss relativity, he did destroy the idea that time and space are two separate, independent matters and argued that physical objects are not located in space, but rather have a “spatial extent.” Seen in this way, the concept of empty space loses its meaning. Instead, space is an abstraction based on the relationships between objects. Consequently, even the conception of space, given Einstein’s definition, could not have existed “prior” to the Big Bang since there were neither objects nor a before.

The development of quantum mechanics complicated the modern interpretation of a vacuum by requiring quantum indeterminacy (meaning uncertainty). In the late 20th century, this principle came to be understood to predict a fundamental unknowability in the number of particles in a region of space, leading to predictions of virtual particles arising spontaneously out of the void. Cause and effect likewise must be acknowledged as equally absurd within the idea of singularity and/or a “before.” There was nothing to cause anything measurable, either at the most distant (oxymoron) aspect of space (oxymoron) or at the smallest (oxymoron) quantum level.

I’ve been a cosmology buff for some time with a specific interest in the pre-Big Bang state of affairs. Everything known and expressed by cosmologist begins and precedes from the “moment of singularity” when space/time came into being. The question that can never be answered with the tools of science is the “before,” which is actually an absurd idea. The big clock in the sky that governs the past, present, and future didn’t exist before that moment of singularity, so the thought of “before” is an oxymoron. I’ve never heard any explanation for what came before but recently saw the following quote on TV a couple of days back when watching a “cutting edge” show of cosmology…

“In the beginning was the void, but the void was not nothing, and then there was light, and the light changed. And so the void brought forth the world. And the world was good. And it endured until man could comprehend it. And it will come to pass that one day, the energy of the void will have pushed all things away, leaving nothing but the void. But the void is not nothing.”⎯Commentary of the latest understanding of cosmology.

Compare that to this from Zen Master Huang Po:

“To gaze upon a drop of water is to behold the nature of all the waters of the universe. Moreover, in thus contemplating the totality of phenomena, you are contemplating the totality of mind. All these phenomena are intrinsically void and yet this mind with which they are identical is no mere nothingness. By this, I mean that it does exist but in a way too marvelous for us to comprehend. It is an existence, which is no existence, a non-existence, which is nevertheless existence. To the ancients, to find the true essence of life, it was necessary to cast off body and mind. When all forms are abandoned, there is the Buddha.”

Or this from Bodhidharma (The alleged father of Zen):

 
“To say that the real Dharmakāya of the Buddha resembles the Void is another way of saying that the Dharmakāya is the Void and that the Void is the Dharmakāya ... they are one and the same thing.... When all forms are abandoned, there is the Buddha ... the void is not really void, but the realm of the real Dharma. This spiritually enlightening nature is without beginning ... this great Nirvanic nature is Mind; Mind is the Buddha, and the Buddha is the Dharma.”

Some say that when the term “void” is used scientifically, the intent is different from when it is used spiritually. My response to this alleged differentiation is, “Really?” By definition, however, used “void” means “absence,” and absence can’t be divided since there is nothing to separate, which is, of course, the same thing as an undifferentiated unity. And that is precisely the nature of a Buddha as well as the essential nature of the cosmos. Pure, undifferentiated consciousness, like the Internet, is everywhere and nowhere at once. It has no definable properties, but without consciousness, nothing could exist.

There is a place for the theories of physical sciences that govern un-reality as well as the non-physical ideas of reality beyond the physical world. Śāntideva, Nāgārjuna, Bodhidharma, as well as Einstein agree that “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” Science and non-science make a good partnership between illusion and reality, but perhaps, independently, they can’t exist at all.

The idea that opposites attract is a commonly held notion, not only among human relationships but also in the world of physics. It is not so much a matter of what lies on opposite ends of a spectrum but that there is a spectrum at all, and where one segues into the other. Now tell me again that science and spirituality don’t wed.

The Ladder—Form

It has occurred to me that the relationship (as expressed by Nāgārjuna) between the two truths—One being dual; this vs. that (two opposites such as right and wrong), and the other being united—emptiness, resembles a metaphorical arrangement between a ladder and a wall.

A ladder connects the two sides with rungs. If there were neither sides nor rungs, a ladder could not exist. Furthermore, a ladder must lean upon (e.g., depends upon) something, or it would fall. In my metaphor, that something is a wall (the equivalent of essential emptiness).  Together these two—a ladder and a wall—make a whole, complete; they are interdependent.

For essential emptiness (transcendence) to transform, otherness would have to exit. And if otherness were introduced into this realm seen through the imagination, emptiness would transform from nothing/everything into something. 

Once emptiness transforms into form, it would then no longer be wholly essence. It would then take on definable form—an extension of essence yet imbued with essence. Otherness provides dimension. Otherness is creative expression. Otherness means contingent: one thing depending on another thing at the primordial level and beyond. Otherness is interdependent and moves away from absolute essence into the realm of form and non-stagnation. Otherness is life itself and death itself and both life and death, and neither. Otherness provides infused separation, a condition necessary to be imagined. It is “being” with a “ground” for being.

“Being” and “ground of essence” define and support one another. The two are interdependent and integral to one another. One is not more important than the other just as a mother is not more important than a daughter, who will one day be a mother with a child, and neither can exist without the seed of essence, which is transmitted eternally through a form. 

All arise and exist together. The existence of entities depends upon infused otherness. They are mutually supportive. Ground-of-being and Being are essential partners for the creative expression to exist. Ground (form) without Ground-of-being (emptiness) remains unborn potential. Being without a foundation is not possible. Being without sentient beings is pointless. Source and sourced go together. Essence apart from otherness, meaning ceases to exist at least in any way which can be comprehended. Being is the sentient eye through which essence is intuited.

The Wall—Emptiness

Image via Wikipedia

The enlightenment of The Buddha introduced an entirely new vantage-point to the human experience. 

In summary, his grasp of reality addressed two, apparently different views which he said were the same thing looked at from alternate perspectives. Those two dimensions were the conditional and the unconditional realms of form and emptiness, which according to him arose dependent upon each other. 

Today and tomorrow we’ll consider these two, metaphorically through a model of a wall and a ladder that leans against that wall. The metaphor came in a dream following a day of contemplating the various understandings of the word dharma. 

I discovered in my research that dharma was derived from the Sanskrit root dhṛ, which means to support or hold, and often referred to cosmic law. In my dream, I saw a ladder leaning against and supported by a blank wall.

The story is told that Bodhidharma sat in meditation staring at a blank wall for nine years. What did he see? Let’s take a walk into a realm almost too strange to imagine. In fact, it is only possible to enter this realm through the imagination. It is the realm of a transcendent wall, which strips conceptuality down to the ground of all being. Think essence—pure essence, infinite essence, 100% essence, without any otherness. Such a realm is impossible to imagine because to imagine it requires separation and otherness: an imaginer as well as what is being imagined, and such essence is transcendent to all divisions. It is a realm where subjects and objects melt into one another. It is non-dual in any and every way. 

Form requires dimensions of at least the aggregation of time, space, and circumstances. Not the imagination. Essence is the sentient eye seeing itself beyond all time, space, and circumstance. This essence is what Eckhart said was, “The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God’s eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.” 

Form content needs context within which to exist but essence is both content and context at the same time, which is a contradiction already. Essence is entirely “+” and “-” fusion and such a thing cannot exist except in the imagination, or so it seems to conventional wisdom.

What would such a realm approximate? The closest thing imaginable would be a black hole, which instead of sucking in otherness, sucks in itself (symbolically an Ouroboros—expressing the unity of all things). An infinitely large (or infinitely small: size is a contradiction) sucking machine without motion or any defining characteristics. Why? Because this is the primordial seed essence before mother and child. Form mother and children come next. “Large” is a defining characteristic. “Small” is a defining characteristic. “Motion” is movement from one space/time circumstance to another and this requires otherness which in the case of essence is so profound it cannot exist.

Defined thusly, in a dream, essence is transcendent to both life and death. It is beyond time, space, and circumstances. Such a condition is non-conditional, non-contingent, and non-everything. In fact, it is transcendent even to that prior statement since “non” is otherness and pure essence is non-non and is indefinable. It is wholly beyond; even beyond imagination and logic and every other frame of reference, which requires discernment. This would be 100% potential energy without even a glimmer of kinetic energy. Conceptually it is impossible to imagine. All concepts fail to capture essence. 

I think this way of envisioning essence is a fairly accurate description of something that is 100% ready: neither alive nor dead but ready for either, neither or both, only this is transcendent to all such defining characteristics which imply life or death. Readiness is unborn and never dies. This would be an independent, wholly essential, unconditional non-thing with no other purpose except existence itself. This is a Self with no other. It would be the womb of creation without a child, forever and ever: another with no otherness, yet transcendent to such distinctions. It would be completely empty of everything, yet completely full at the same time. It would be everything and nothing at once. It would be completely meaningless and completely meaningful—The Big Bang before either bang or big—pure singularity of the essential kind.

Is this what Bodhidharma saw? We’ll never know but countless Zen Masters have spoken about this ineffability using names like Mind Essence, Ground of Being, Original Face, and Purity. Some have called it Buddha—the Dharmakaya. Others have used the word, God. The founder of the Rinzai Zen (Lin Chi) used the idiom, “True Man of no rank” because, within this ineffable sphere, there is no discrimination and discrimination is conditional, only possible when otherness is present. 

Bodhidharma simply called it “The Void” or the primordial mind and what he was experiencing for nine years was a view of his own mind. Names are mere handles to represent what can’t be, and never will be, adequate to describe what is utterly transcendent. Exodus 20:4 speaks clearly about the admonition of God: “You are not to make an image or picture of anything in heaven or on the earth or in the waters under the earth.” 

And the understanding of this admonition is clear: any and every word or handle harkens a conceptual image engraved in the mind: a shadow—a surrogate, of the energy which inhabits and moves all of life. Essence is things exactly as they are, sans any and all defining characteristics. This is suchness. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth. “Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know.” — Stanza 56, The Tao Te Ching.

Ideas about God.

Virtual and Non-Virtual Reality.

“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” – Albert Einstein

Is Einstein’s statement true? In a certain sense it is and the reason, when thoughtfully considered, is that we are sentient beings. Broadly speaking, sentience denotes beings-with-consciousness, in some contexts, life itself. Some may argue, quite convincingly, that “yes, but we are fundamentally spiritual beings equipped with perceptual qualities.” I would not argue against this, and even so, our receiver of the spiritual source of all still must be perceived in one way or another. This is a case of a message and how a message is received. 

Unfortunately, for the most part, our receiver becomes clouded with a host of biases, preconceived beliefs, and ideas that sway the clarity of the message. The Psalms say, “Be still and know I am God,” Bodhidharma defined Zen as “Not thinking” and Jesus noted, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.” The task is to not tamper with the message but instead to refine and clear out the receiver. 

One of the most profound mystics of all time was a Christian mystic by the name of Meister Eckhart who said this about God and ideas about God:

“To be full of things is to be empty of God. To be empty of things is to be full of God. Man’s last and highest parting occurs when for God’s sake he takes leave of god. St. Paul took leave of god for God’s sake and gave up all that he might get from god as well as all he might give—together with every idea of god. In parting with these he parted with god for God’s sake and God remained in him as God is in his own nature—not as he is conceived by anyone to be—nor yet as something yet to be achieved, but more as an is-ness, as God really is. Then he and God were a unit, that is pure unity. Thus one becomes that real person for whom there can be no suffering, any more than the divine essence can suffer.”

Until our hearts are pure, Einstein’s statement remains true and we will live in a perceptible and virtual world of illusion. Afterward, we will move beyond rational based perception and see God, who looks like nothing and everything at the same time.

Small steps.

Often, I’ve found myself faced with seemingly insurmountable challenges and felt as if I needed to swallow the entire ocean in a single gulp. The only result of that approach was fear, inaction, and coughing up the imagined impossibility. 

But after failing, I came to my senses and remembered an ancient bit of wisdom offered by the Chinese sage Lao Tzu, roughly 2,600 hence. 

“Do the difficult things while they are easy and do the great things while they are small. A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step.” 

The words of Lao Tzu are as useful today as they were a long time ago.

A friend sent me a link to words of wisdom offered by the oldest living person. He just happens to be a Zen man and offered similar thoughts concerning a healthy life. They are worth your time reading. I confess to having a problem with one of his tips: to have no choices but rather accept everything as it comes. 

Like everything, the tip has two sides. One side is the peace that comes with feeling the smooth caress of the winds of change on your face in the coolness of the morning breeze. The other side is to get out of the hurricanes of life before devastation occurs. Those are the two sides spoken of by Lao Tzu in the first sentence of the above quote.

Knowing when to stay and when to leave takes art and experience, and both this ancient sage and the world’s oldest man agree, as I do, that breaking down giant challenges into small pieces makes for manageable tasks. Importantly is that first assessment of staying or moving. To inform that assessment, we can turn, not to an ancient sage, but rather to Mark Cane, the contemporary American climate scientist who advises, 

“The first step toward success is taken when you refuse to be a captive of the environment in which you first find yourself.”

Regardless, there is always the first, small step or sip of water. Picking and choosing, as well as the wisdom of recognizing our self-imposed captivity, are seeming contradictions, but that is the true nature of Zen: To hold no fixed perspectives but rather use expedient means—upaya-Kausalya, measured and dictated by unfolding and unanticipated circumstances. How very different such advice is from the embedded and rigid ideologies of today.

Things are not what they appear to be, nor are they different.

“True vision isn’t just seeing seeing. It’s also seeing not seeing. And true understanding isn’t just understanding understanding. It’s also understanding not understanding. If you understand anything, you don’t understand. Only when you understand nothing is it true understanding. Understanding is neither understanding nor not understanding.

When the mortal mind appears, buddhahood disappears. When the mortal mind disappears, buddhahood appears. When the mind appears, reality disappears. When the mind disappears, reality appears. Whoever knows that nothing depends on anything has found the Way. And whoever knows that the mind depends on nothing is always at the place of enlightenment.”

These are the words of Bodhidharma in his famous Wake-up Sermon. True of great sages, these words appear abstruse and difficult to fathom, but they are consistent with the experience of awakening. When that moment arrives, you reach a point where nothing seems to exist. In such a state, you become aware of both nothing (the absence of things) and everything (the presence of things). 

It is the true seer in us all that notices the difference between one state and another. That seer both exists and doesn’t exist. It exists in a pure, uncontaminated state as an unconditional non-thing but doesn’t exist as a conditional thing. Most of the time, we are ensconced in perceptional awareness of things. We see only what can be seen: Objective matter and remain unaware of nothing. Nothing can’t be seen, only experienced through a state known as no mind (wu xin in Chinese, Mushin in Japanese).

It is said that when everything appears, the mind appears. When nothing appears, the mind disappears. When the mind appears, we live within a state determined by cause and effect and subjected to karma. When the mind disappears, we live in the enlightened state of a Buddha, far beyond cause and effect. 

In this no-mind state, there is no discrimination: all is unified, whole, and complete: The realm of Nirvana. In a mind state, everything is subjected to discrimination between this and that: The realm of choice and karma. Mushin is shin: Shin is Mushin. Emptiness is form. Form is emptiness. Both united yet different. Both divided yet united. Emptiness is empty. Formlessness is form.