THERE IS AN unending cord that has come through the ages
that had come to be termed “zen.”
It has no origin and has presence before the appearance of
Siddartha. It has been both
strengthened and frayed by human endeavors.
For Siddartha, it was exposed in time spent with the
reformist Apanasadists sense of Brahman, and ascetics and Paribbajakas, [H. W.
Schumann, The Historical Buddha], and
then refined by him as direct knowledge.
Centuries later, it was expressed perhaps most lucid in written record
of Ch’an where it was also colored by Taoism. The lucidity comes from the written record being closer to
the practitioners’ lifespan whereas the written record of Siddartha appeared
only through the filter of a multi-path, oral tradition after centuries that
had to have expressed various author’s preferences).
Both before and after Siddartha and Ch’an, zen essence
was/is frayed by reflecting cultural preferences. Zen can reference many things, even in its longstanding
house as a sect of Buddhism, and clearly in myriad associations beyond
Buddhism. In Zen Buddhism, Zen can
reference practices other than monastic practices such as a “parish temple”
Soto Zen system that proliferated to perhaps 17,500 temples in Japan in the
1700’s [Duncan Williams, The Other Side Of Zen]. In this system at that
time, Soto Zen was very culturally-accommodating, offering funerary rites,
exorcistic rites, faith-healing, inclusion of local folk deities, talismans for
longevity and to prevent ailments such as smallpox as well as protect women
from the dilemmas of menstruation [leading to their fall after death into Blood
Pool Hell]. Gender and class
discrimination and military aggression have also been reinforced in modern life
[Steven Heine, Zen Skin, Zen Marrow].
The presence of “Gothic” folk deities and lay services continue in contemporary
times in Asia and likely appear as more vague motifs in global “universal”
practices [to some extent, first, in the presence of Buddhist statuary and
secondarily, in their very stylized—almost “Gothic”—appearance rather than a “
Renaissance” likeness to Siddartha, for whom there were no images for
centuries].
As with most longstanding religious practices, even in
monastic temples in China and Japan, there is the sway across time of becoming
culturally derivative and even degenerative and then reformist in an effort to
“return” to the original source.
In the written record, events may be absent [e.g., Dogen’s possible
secondary status in his monastic experience in China] or de-emphasized by later
generations [e.g., Dogen’s shift toward suggesting salvation in his later
outreach to lay audiences] [Steven Heine, Did Dogen Go To China?]. Dogen is an example because of his extensive
written record. As Steven Heine
suggests in Zen Skin, Zen Marrow,
there is always this tendency to ignore the historical in this literature. In fact, there is an effort to create
pseudo-historical myth as fact, as well as carry forward archaic religious
aspects such as magical powers and to elevate and venerate historical figures
as reality and to find healing powers in their relics, which conflicts with
core non-duality.
Still, there is a core experience that sustains and emerges
in direct experience. There in an
inherent wisdom that senses incompleteness in everyday life, and that senses an
ineffable absolute that is vast and yet undistanced and inseparable. And there is a record in the Zen
literature (but not exclusive to this literature) that unequivocally points to
a direct experience that cannot ultimately be taught. This core experience survives all of the fraying of the
cord. Zen practice is not housed
in a conformist setting of ritual, scripture and commentary. The hunger to end suffering is to get
to reality-as-it-is. As such, it
is an inherent or natural process rather than a special process. It comes without agendas such as karma,
rebirth and conceptualization. If
there is a helpful process, it is that of letting go, nothing to teach.
No comments:
Post a Comment