SUBSCRIBE TO UNMIND:

RSS FEED | APPLE PODCASTS | GOOGLE PODCASTS | SPOTIFY

**We Don't Die**
"Sensei, when I die..."
he said to the Zen master —
"You don't die!" he said

Beginning with this segment of the UnMind podcast and DharmaByte column, I want to depart from commenting on the content of my Substack postings, which feature chapters from a manuscript we anticipate publishing in future, working title: "Speaking With One (Zen) Voice." It is subtitled: "25 Centuries of Buddha-Dharma; 3 Countries of Origin; 9 Dharma Masters; 2 Dozen Teachings; with Commentary by an American ZenElder." Long subtitle, but at least it lets you know what your are in for.

Instead, in going forward, I want to introduce you to some of the most mysterious and compelling implications of Buddhism that I have come across in my studies, admittedly limited to those texts that are available in English translation. The first is the startling claim that Buddha enjoys an infinite life span throughout eternity, as testified to in the Lifespan Chapter of the Lotus Sutra, considered to be his last teaching.

This use of "buddha" should, I think, be understood in both senses: as it relates to the historical "fully-awakened one," his teachings about reality and his place in it—Buddha with a capital "B"; as well as its application to human consciousness—buddha with a small "b." The latter, generalized as buddha-nature, true of all sentient beings.

This message implies that in our conventional wisdom—philosophical and religious beliefs surrounding the "Great Matter" of birth and death—we are making a kind of category error as to first causes and final conclusions. Let's take a look at what a cursory bit of research online has to say about this phrase, consulting Master AI:

AI Overview — category error

A category mistake (or category error) is a logical fallacy where an object, property, or concept is mistakenly assigned to a category to which it does not belong. Popularized by philosopher Gilbert Ryle, it often involves treating abstract concepts as if they were physical objects, or mixing up different logical levels, such as asking for the "location" of a team's "spirit" after seeing the players.

Note that the fallacy is defined as "logical," calling into question all instances of the most basic category of intelligence: logic itself. Next, our friendly online AI assistant lists examples of various types of category mistakes, such as confusion between the abstract and the physical, mixing up parts and wholes, conflating mental and physical phenomena, as well as functional, linguistic, and scientific confusions. All conceptual.

Then, we are treated to key characteristics of categorical errors, including rank absurdity or nonsense; nouns as subjects of verbs they cannot perform; using terms in the wrong syntactical context; or using inadequate data to support an analytical operation. Dutifully providing links for further study to various online sources such as Reddit, Philiosophy Stack Exchange, and YouTube, AI summarizes succinctly:

Essentially, it is a way to make a philosophical argument cringe by treating a "concept" as a "thing."

Glad we cleared that up!

Speaking of "making a philosophical argument "cringe" is, in itself, intentionally or not, a kind of category error, is it not? Can an argument cringe? Do AIs have a sense of humor?

However you feel about the current debate over AIs encroaching upon human territory—which may be another categorical error, just on a meta level—you have to admit that they can throw together a neat and comprehensive summary, saving this writer the time and effort it would take to track down all of those links. Good enough to support the point I am trying to make, anyway.

My point being that Buddha seems to be saying, based on his own direct research in meditation, that we are grossly misinterpreting the phenomena of birth and death, making a "thing" of the concepts we have about them.

If birth, as well as death, are not "things,"—that is, not real—in the sense we imagine, it begs the question, then what are they? They definitely denote a change, but what order of change? This seems to be the point of one of the standout assertions of the Hsinhsinming—Trust in Mind, from Sengcan, third patriarch of Ch'an Buddism:

Change appearing to occur in the empty world we call "real"

only because of our ignorance

We can understand this claim on a universal level, I think. From the perspective of the solar system or the galaxy, change on this tiny planet does not seem all that dramatic. But on a proximate and personal scale, it takes on draconian dimensions.

Matsuoka-roshi's suddenly cutting off one of his senior student's statement about dying is another finger pointing at this particular moon. He didn't qualify the assertion. He just said, matter-of-factly, "You don't die," correcting the assumption "Sensei, when I die" mid-expression.

What it is that we refer to as "I" comes under intense scrutiny in Zen. We assume that this aggregation—of what are called the Five Skandhas: form, feeling, thought, impulse and consciousness; and the Six Senses: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking—taken together, is what constitutes the "I" in question.

This self-awareness is then assumed to have been born with the birth of the body-mind complex, developing along with the fetus in the womb, consciousness slowly emerging out of the growth of the brain and nervous system. This is common knowledge. Which is why it is callenged in Zen.

Another reference to the kind of singular realization that Zen is pointing to comes from Tozan Ryokai, 200 years after Sengcan, in Hokyo Zammai—Precious Mirror Samadhi:

Although it is not constructed it is not beyond words

Like facing a precious mirror form and reflection behold each other

You are not IT but in truth IT is you

The first line refers to the unconstructed nature of what Master Muso Kokushi, a generation or two after Master Dogen in Japan, called the "uncreate" in his letters, or "Dream Conversations," to the two brothers who shared the shogunate at the time.

Master Dogen also pointed a few fingers at this same moon, such as this excerpt from Fukanzazengi—Principles of Seated Meditation recently posted by Joan Halifax-roshi:

Put aside the intellectual practice of investigating words and chasing phrases, and learn to take the backward step that turns the light around and shine it inward. Your body and mind will drop away of themselves, and your original face will manifest. If you want to get into touch with things as they are, you—right here and now—have to start being yourself, as you are.

Approaching "things as they are," the singularity of Zen, then, requires a fundamental reversal, a 180-degree flip, of our usual approach to learning, engaging in un-learning. Not learning something new, but unlearning what we think we know, in order to return to the original state of not-knowing. Huineng, sixth patriarch in China, coined the phrase:

Show me your original face before your father and mother were born

Another teaching attributed to Hakuin Zenji asks, "What nostrils would there be on that face?" In other words, what was THIS—long before our body came into being? Whatever that was, it must also still be what it is after the body deconstructs into its components, as Master Dogen asserts in another teaching:

Just as firewood does not become firewood again after it is ash

You do not return to birth after death

This analogy refutes the common (mis)belief in reincarnation left over from early Hinduism—that there is an essence, entity, or spirit, the atman, a "thing"—believed to be reborn again and again, transmigrating from one lifetime to another. There is no "you" to return to birth, just as there is no "you" that can die. The body is the firewood.

Buddha testified that he found no evidence of the existence of such a "thing" in his direct experience, likening the incarnated body to a chariot. When the chariot is taken apart, and the parts are laid out on the ground, where, he asked, is the chariot? The chariot (or any other thing) functions as a chariot only when assembled. There is no entity, no "there" there, between the parts somewhere.

Likewise, the human body, which seems to be one thing, is more like a jellyfish, consisting of an unimaginably complex amalgam of many parts all functioning together to create the illusion of a single entity.

This raises the question of what kind, or order, of experience Buddha can be talking about, if at the center of it there is no self, no soul, nothing but connectivity of the parts. How can that realization even be called an "experience"? This conundrum is hinted at in the Heart Sutra, after a long line of negations: "given emptiness...no seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching...no realm of sight, no realm of mind-consciousness," etc. Again, Zen wisdom from Master AI:

The phrase "until we come to no consciousness also" refers to a specific passage in the Heart Sutra (Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya) that systematically negates the traditional Buddhist categories of experience to reveal their "emptiness" (śūnyatā).

Which brings us to the functioning of zazen, or shikantaza, the objectless meditation of Zen. It is often misinterpreted as "emptying your mind of thought." But this is not the point of zazen, however, and in any case not really feasible. Thinking is not the problem; it is our over-reliance on thinking that gets in the way.

It is not for nothing that Zen is called the meditation school of Buddhism. All other sects practice meditation to some degree, of course, but the singular emphasis upon upright seated meditation belongs to Zen, primarily Soto Zen, or what we refer to as "Dogen Zen," as illustrated by this line from his Jijuyu Zammai—Self-fulfilling Samadhi:

From the first time you meet a master without engaging in incense offering

chanting Buddha's name repentence or reading scripture

you should just wholeheartedly sit and thus drop away body and mind

When even for a moment you express the Buddha's seal

by sitting upright in Samadhi the whole phenomenal world becomes the Buddha's seal and the entire sky turns into enlightenment

Emphasis mine. One aspect of Dogen's particular genius was to recognize the centrality of this practice of upright seated meditation, referred to as the genuine transmission of realization from generation to generation of the lineage, going all the way back to Shakyamuni himself. And according to Buddha himself, even previous, "prehistoric buddhas."

Like transmitting art or music, the method can be taught, but the essence of the practice cannot. Art and Zen have to be discovered by the student from their own experience. In the process, they have to set aside all they think they have learned. Zen and creativity are based on the process of unlearning what we have learned to the present.

A current trope may make this point a bit more succinctly. In zazen, we are "reverse-engineering" consciousness itself, allowing it to manifest untrammeled by our ideas about it.

Let's pick up the thread in the next segment. Meanwhile, practice-practice-practice: attention-attention-attention.