ZEN: Is it Buddhism?

the Wanderling





THE QUESTION ARISES: Is the practice of Zen, which by its own nature explores or professes the Enlightenment experience as attained by the Buddha and the ancient masters Outside the Doctrine, in direct contrast with or violate the premises of the Buddhist concept of silabbata paramasa (Wrong Practice)? (see)







It is my contention that even though Zen may or may not "be" Buddhism because Buddhism is Buddhism, historically Zen is thoroughly entwined in Buddhism even though the bottom-line essence or punchline to Zen can stand on its own without outside support. Regardless of what anybody says or thinks the core of Buddhism is Enlightenment. No Enlightenment, no Buddhism. The core of Zen is Enlightenment. If Shakyamuni had not experienced Enlightenment he would have remained whoever or whatever he was prior to the experience, and thus, not become the Buddha. Think about it, Shakyamuni, the Buddha, is purported to have been an Enlightened being. Take away his Enlightenment at the level he experienced it and what do you have? Without an Enlightened Shakyamuni there would be no Buddha which inturn implies there would be no Buddhism. Enlightenment, however, stands alone. It is a fairly simple concept.



Chinese Zen master Te Shan , as a young man, heard of a "corrupt teaching in the south" that tought Buddhist ways "outside the scriptures." He traveled there to debunk the very thought of it. After arrival he reached the Attainment of the ancients under the auspices of their methods, and in turn, burnt all his commentaries and books on Zen he carried with him everywhere:







The famous image of Te-shan ripping up the sutras in liberated ecstasy is the image of Te-shan in the moment of having appropriated and internalized the sutras.

Is Te-shan destroying the text and subverting its authority because his Realization is in conflict with that projected by the text? Emphatically No! Te-shan's Realization is understood to be an actualization of the same 'way' that gave rise to the Buddha's Realization which is written into the sutra, just as Te-shan's Realization is imprinted into the textual account of his iconoclastic act.

That iconoclastic acts are not denunciations of an authority that has been broken and overcome is similarly implied in the life of Lin-chi . After having slapped his teacher, Huang-po, thus flaunting his freedom from Buddhist authority, Lin-chi settles down in the monastery to study under the master, possibly for as long as two decades. The liberating act of 'casting off' was incorporated into a more encompassing intention directed towards communal practice which included obedience, loyalty and learning.





Anybody that reads my offerings knows I am a strong supporter of Zen outside the scriptures. I have my reasons, but it is not because of a strong anti-Buddhism bias. Matter of fact it is just the opposite. As the above about Te Shan and Lin-chi attests, it is my belief that a person can come to understand the scriptures and grasp the Koans so much easier and so much better after the fact and thus be a much better purveyor of the Truth. As an example, in The Four Types of Arahats the fourth type or the highest of the Enlightened Ones is called a Patisambhidhapatta Arahat. Among the major attributes of a Patisambhidhapatta Arahat is the the knowledge and understanding of sacred texts and ability to simply explain any difficult problems and make it easy for other people to understand the super-knowledge of all of the Buddha's teachings --- an aspect of the Attainment of the Arahat on the Enlightened side of things. And we are talking (and I know it is a thin line) Arahat here, not Pratyekabuddha, Bodhisattva, or Buddha. Better to be Enlightened and innately grasp the full understanding of the scriptures than be a layperson struggling for years trying to make sense of all through the texts by simply studying or reading them. Although not totally useless as history would seem to suggest, for the most part all the bells, whistles, and rituals are just so much trappings that weigh down and add to the confusion, rather one deals with it through traditional Buddhist offerings, Zen temples, sanghas, or sesshins. The idea is to cut to the quick. You have apprehensions? You don't think it will work? After all, most likely, you aren't even a Sotapanna let alone a Zen master, Ahahat, Pratyekabuddha, or Bodhisattva. Suggest you see The Awakening Experience In the Modern Era . Remember as well:







"The Buddha said that neither the repetition of holy scriptures, nor self-torture, nor sleeping on the ground, nor the repetition of prayers, penances, hymns, charms, mantras, incantations and invocations can bring us the real happiness of Nirvana. Instead the Buddha emphasized the importance of making individual effort in order to achieve our spiritual goals". See footnote (a)







In the prior paragraph I state I have my reasons. The fact is that Zen does not have exclusive rights to Enlightenment. My mentor studied under Sri Ramana Maharshi in India, far removed from Zen traditions. Sri Ramana was Awakened as a young boy basically out of nowhere with no formal training and no master. Inturn my mentor was Awakened after two years under the grace and light of the Maharshi. True, my mentor travelled to Japan, was knowledgable about Zen, and even knew Yasutani Hakuun Roshi , but his Enlightenment experience transpired under the aegis of Indian influences. It was because of my mentor's connection with Yasutani that I eventually studied a short time, unsuccessfully I might add ( see ), under the Roshi's auspices.



D.T. Suzuki wrote in his book "ZEN BUDDHISM: Selected Writings of D.T. Suzuki:"



Buddhism is the structure erected around the inmost consciousness of its founder. The style and material of the outer structure may vary as history moves forward, but the inner meaning of Buddhahood which supports the whole edifice remains the same and ever living.

While on earth the Buddha tried to make it intelligible in accordance with the capacities of his immediate followers; that is to say, the latter did their best to comprehend the deeper significance of the various discourses of their master, in which he pointed the way to final deliverance. As we are told, the Buddha discoursed "with one voice," but this was interpreted and understood by his devotees in as manifold mannners as possible. This was invitable, for we have each our own inner experience which is to be explained in terms of our own creation, naturally varying in depth and breath. In most cases these so-called individual inner experiences, however, may not be so deep and forceful as to demand absolutely original phraseology, but remain satisfied with new interpretations of the old terms--once brought into use by an ancient original spiritual leader. And this is the way every historical religion grows enriched in its contents or ideas. In some cases this enrichment may mean the overgrowth of superstructures ending in a complete burial of the original spirit. This is where critical judgement is needed, but otherwise we must not forget to recognize the living principle still in activity. In the case of Buddhism we must not neglect to read the inner life of the Buddha himself asserting itself in the history of a religious system desiganted after his name. The claim of the Zen followers that they are transmitting the essence of Buddhism is based on their belief that Zen takes hold of the enlivening spirit of the Buddha, stripped of all its historical and doctrinal garments.

According to Tsan-ning (919-1001):







Those who conceive of a Ch'an identity independent of Buddhist teaching do not understand that "the scriptures (ching) are the words of the Buddha, and meditation (ch'an) is the thought of the Buddha; there is no discrepancy whatsoever between what the Buddha conceives in his mind and what he utters with his mouth.











For four related indepth essays on ZEN: Is It Buddhism please go to:



SEE ALSO:









SEE:































































