...otherwise known as mental gymnastics.
Today I was part of a group of about 20-30 foreigners and Koreans who sat to listen to a Zen master give a talk at a temple.
He started his talk with something like, "Nothing exists. Do you see that tree? No you don't. If you turn around it is gone. If you approach it, it looks different. It doesn't exist. If I say to you, where is the tree, and you point, why are you pointing outside yourself? Nothing exists outside yourself."
"Do you understand?" Our wrinkled brows betrayed us.
"Is it raining? Does the rain exist?"
Then he points to me and raises his eyebrows expectantly.
"Yes," I say, quite sure it was pouring rain outside.
"Where is the rain?"
I point. "Out there."
"What do you mean out there? Why do you point?"
"Erm. Because it's raining out there."
"What is 'out there?'"
"Outside this room. Out THERE, out..." (out, out! damn spot!)
"There is no 'out there,' so how can you say that? It does not exist, just as the tree and the rain and the cloud do not exist. It is only raining inside yourself."
Eh? I could nearly hear the whirring of all the brains that didn't exist.
He continued on, occasionally coming back to me to clear things up for everyone. ;) He succeeded in confusing me and everyone else greatly, which I think is part of the job description for being a Zen Master. I actually felt like I didn't know anything, and wasn't even convinced that anything around me actually existed, even though I could see it in front of my face, and most of all decided that language just doesn't cut it sometimes, especially when you're trying to define your perception of reality to a Zen monk.
What I think he was getting at was that things only really exist because of how we perceive them. Everything depends on our perceptions, and therefore, he says, we are all completely deluded.
So I said, "So if everything we perceive is a delusion, then even that thought, what you just said, is a delusion."
"Yes."
"What? How can we function then? How can we exist and talk? How can we think about this when all our thinking and our thinking about our thinking is deluded? How can I understand this?"
And he said, "There, now you understand," which was, actually, news to me. Then he likened my mind to the mud and mire that give life to the lotus flower. At the moment, though, I'd say its a pretty big, flower-less, mucky mess. At the end of the talk, he said the search was to be deep within ourselves for something that is not a concept, not a delusion, something we cannot throw away or dismiss as a construct of our own mind. This I think I can understand.
Actually one of the trademarks of Zen is the "koan" or problems it gives to its followers to puzzle over for an eternity. For example, a student once asked his master, "Master before even a thought arises, does sin exist?" The master replied, "Mountain."
Or how about, "What was the appearance of your face before your ancestors were born?" Or maybe you've heard, "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"
The book, "Buddhism," by Huston Smith and Philip Novak offers us some help when trying to make sense of the mysteries of Zen:
Our impulse is to dismiss these puzzles as absurd, but the Zen practitioner is not permitted to do this. He or she is ordered to direct the full force of the mind upon them, sometimes locking logic on them, sometimes dropping them into the mind's deep interior to wait until an acceptable answer erupts. We in the West rely on reason so fully that we must remind ourselves that in Zen we are dealing with a perspective that is convinced that reason is limited and must be supplemented by another mode of knowing. ... It intends to upset the mind--unbalance it and eventually provoke revolt against the canons that imprison it.So, I'd say my mind is still bouncing around inside its self-made jail of concepts and perceptions...and you?
8 comments:
Hiya to the Bethmister---
So loved your video and minimilist apt.- I want to sleep on your couch! About the Zen mster - he is right about some things; who can touch love? Alas when the tree in the forest falls on your head it leaves a mark outside and the pain is real inside. You do well to take advantage of being in Asia to explore all things. How else to know what is really real sez I. Trust your own voice xxxAuntie
Sanks auntie! And...you (and anyone else) are certainly more than welcome to stay on my couch! Consider it an open invite for the rest of my life, wherever I be. ;) xoxo
"There was never yet philosopher/ who could endure the toothache patiently."
- Leonato to Antonio, Much Ado About Nothing, Act V.
Ah, but if he believes the pain doesn't exist then said philosopher can... go untreated, live in agony and die of an infection, I guess. Or of pneumonia because he was wandering around in the non-existent rain while trying to ignore his toothache.
It's fun to think outside the box, and absolutely necessary to question our perceptions, but I want to know how well denying everything gets a Zen master through a toothache (or a fallen tree to the head;)
I don't think it's that he denies the actual existence of things; for he works and meditates in the same reality that we do. I think it's the word "exist" that's the trouble...and I think what they are getting at is that nothing has inherent existence, or permanent existence. Well, there is one thing, and that's what we're supposed to be striving toward...;)
Indeed. Well then. Does it not sound, though, as if he was arguing against temporal existence as well?
To be fair, I was pretty confused, and I've more than likely not done his side of the argument justice.
I mean, what do you mean by existence? Just what IS a tree? Point to the part that is the tree. The tree doesn't really "exist..." It looks and feels like a solid, but way down under, we know it's mostly space, and bits of atoms flying around at breakneck speeds. Not only that, but there may be a bunch of other things about it that we just don't know b/c we are limited by our senses, and by time. The tree, as far as WE can tell, is actually a result of a bunch of things working together. It's more like a fluid process.
I mean, what is temporal existence anyway? It's a fluid process as well right?
Wanna come over for a temple stay?
Sure it's a fluid process. The tree is a fluid process too. But it can't be a fluid process unless it exists.
All things physical and metaphysical come to be and/or cease being with what is, I grant you, an infinite complexity. But isn't that very complexity an argument toward their existence rather than away from it?
So I look at a tree and realize that it is staggeringly more than meets the eye (and more than can ever meet the mind). It is a fluid process and a titanic collection of things working together on a level I will never comprehend. Does this lead me to say the tree doesn't really exist? Mais non! It leads me to say the tree definitely exists; it more than exists; it profoundly exists. It exists because of its comlexity and not in spite of it. It exists with the ultimate exist-iness of existitude.
Yes, I think that was what he was getting at, actually. I think he was saying that our word "exist" is so limited, and we have to question what/how we know things, and realize that "existence" to us is all due to our senses...there could (and probably is) so much more out there that we cannot really understand.
I really don't think he was saying things "don't exist," in the way we interpret that phrase...plus there is a bit of a language barrier, so it's made all the more difficult to understand.
Post a Comment