Expert: Joe McSorley - 10/10/2006

Question
I hope you do not mind, I actually have several questions...

1. I once read somewhere that Buddhists do not believe that anything is permanent.  However, doesn't this contradict the idea of reincarnation--in which the soul is eternal?

2. Being a sanctioned teacher under Masao Abe of the Kyoto School of Zen, it is quite apparent that you have been meditating for some time now.  I know that while meditating, one must eliminate all thoughts--the mind must be clear and empty.  My question to you is what is: what is your general meditation process?  I wonder, how is it that one can achieve enlightenment not only through meditation, but through the course of their lives?  What is your idea of what nirvana is like?

3. It is the Taoist belief that one should not provoke anything, and one should submit only to peacefulness.  However, the world can often be cruel and vicious.  What does a Taoist do when one provokes him first?  Would it be wrong to defend himself?

Answer
Hi,
 Yes, you have revealed an inherent contradiction in some Buddhist teachings about permanence and the soul.  It actually goes deeper than this and there is some quite heated argument about this.  Buddhism teaches that ultimately the self is empty of any substance.  If this is the case what can reincarnate?  There are some who argue that there is a soul in Buddhism and will quote some lines in Buddhist text to support it but I don’t really see a support for this.
Zen does not deal with these things because they are complete distractions from awakening. There are really two manifestations of Buddhism today, that of the religion of Buddhism and that of Zen.  The religion, regardless of sect, has history, traditions and beliefs.  From this standpoint you can argue whether ‘atta’ means soul or if there is reincarnation or whatever.  The Zen standpoint is to awaken as the historical Buddha awakened.  It is not about studying some thing called Buddhism.  Zen has been called that ‘which does not rely on words or letters’, meaning it is not concerned with the history of Buddhism but with true reality here and now.  The historical Buddha did not have a history he memorized or a canon he adhered to when he sat under the Bodhi tree.  He did not discourse on reincarnation or sutras, he just went after the problem of his suffering and human suffering.
 So yes, there is a contradiction in Buddhist thought as you have stated and I think that reincarnation is inarguable.  There are past letters on this website attacking me on this stance.
  First let me say what I mean to be a ‘sanctioned’ teacher.  It simply means that when I was asked to teach at a local college I went to both of my teachers, Dr DeMartino and Dr. Masao Abe, and asked them their permission to teach.  They both said yes.  Here is the Webster’s definition of sanctioned: “ to give effective or authoritative approval or consent to”.  It means nothing more than this.
  Though it might be apparent to you that I must have meditated for some time it is actually not the case.  I came to Zen not as a religion to study but through personal existential crisis.  I had a problem with time since I was a young child and this imposed upon me a natural koan that drove me to many places and ended up in Zen for it was the only one that actually confronted my problem.  I have never been compelled to the Zen Buddhist way of life, the accoutrements of Zen monasteries and study or the cultural aspects.  My deepest concern has been to pull the arrows of my dilemma from my self.  I spent my first decade plus with Dr De Martino and then through him met Masao Abe.  My time with zazen has been spent dealing with my personal koan.  Abe was very aware of what I was going through and we have talked at length of the different approaches to awakening or solving an existential dilemma.  He did say to me once ,” zazen is not the only way but it is the best way”.  DeMartino never pushed meditation even though he spent years in Zen temples. He was often criticized by students about this and whether or not meditation was essential because so many schools demand that this it is only way.  The word Zen itself means mediation. He'd often reply that meditation is good for your health and blood pressure and perhaps some other things.  Abe, on the other hand did say zazen is not the only way but it is the best way.  So how to resolve this?  I would respond to these folks that there are so many Zen students good at zazen but seem to have no awakening and ask why it is effective.  I also would bring up the story of Bodhidharma and Hui ka pointing out that Bodhidharma did not instruct Hui ka to meditate when approached with his dilemma.  Round and round it went. After thinking on it for years I told DeMartino that I thought zazen is an attempt to fake awakening, to stop positing the self in attempt that the self would be overcome or negated.  In this sense no meditation was real till awakening.  It’s like practicing an instrument till the point where you become the instrument; it’s a self-negating though self-fulfilling process. He agreed with me but said that this makes meditation an attempt to negate mediation; in other words you have a dilemma: that which is meditating is trying to get rid of that which is meditating.  The dilemma is; if you are meditating to negate yourself by the simple act of meditation you are actually positing yourself.  In my brilliance it only took me another ten years or so to realize that this is what all Zen practice is; mindfulness, koan, zazen – it is an attempt to stop the positing and fake awakening in the hope that real awakening takes root.  Therefore, all paths are the same if approached correctly.  When I presented this to DeMartino he said 'Of course' which made me realize what a knucklehead I am.
 So what is successful meditation, sitting for hours, breathing without a fault or what?  I would say the problem taking root, so you are the problem while sitting, standing, walking, sleeping is real zazen.  Here every moment of your life is committed to awakening.  To actually sit and be separate from the chaos of life in zazen can greatly enhance or sharpen your task but you can’t leave your practice in the temple, it has to be ever present.
  Any idea of nirvana is not Nirvana.     Nirvana is greatly misunderstood in the West and also in Buddhism.  Many think Nirvana to be a place, like heaven, or a state of mind but it is neither. It is not something to be ‘reached’ or a level of awareness and it is not apart from everyday life.  To have a nirvana that is separate from samsara/suffering  ( the cycle of life and death) is to have a dualism that only the ego self has, in other words, you would not have realized nirvana to have this distinction.  Nirvana is the realization of self as other and other as self.  It is the living paradox of non- dualism in a non-dual duality. One cannot be ‘in Nirvana’ for that would mean that the self distinguishes itself from that which is not in nirvana.  Since the problem for the individual in Buddhism is dualistic consciousness, that which is our ego or the act of separating from other, than the resolution of this problem must be a realized non-dualism.  So when one awakens to ‘nirvana’ what one awakens to is immediate, here and now, and was here prior to the persons awakening.  It did not happen because of the awakening but was already the fact.  When the person breaks through to this he sees what already is and eternally is, not separate but infinite and interpenetrating.  
  I know this is a complex answer but it is accurate.  I guess most simply put Nirvana is to realize yourself not as your now know yourself but as the universe expressing itself as you.  
   I do not think the Taoist belief is not to provoke anything or submit to peacefulness.  What is peacefulness?  The goal of Taoism is to be at harmony with nature.  Lao Tze says ‘nature treats man as straw dogs’, there is nothing peaceful about this. All nature defends itself whether it’s a microbe releasing a toxin or a deer using its antlers.  Animals use tools, have societies and social hierarchies and are nature at its truest.  It is natural to defend oneself and one’s family and unnatural not to do so.  To go with nature does not mean to let nature crush you.  To go against nature is to realize that you are battling upstream.  It you harmonize with nature you can see the natural flow and go with it to your advantage.  The idea not to provoke would imply not to take medicine to ward off disease or not to farm to raise food for both of these are provocative actions.  There cannot be a peacefulness that does not stand opposed to its opposite.  In nature it is constantly creating and constantly destroying.  To be at true peace or harmony would be to realize both processes as mutually defining and inseparable and not in conflict.  This would liberate you from birth and death into wholeness.
  I hope this has helped you.  Take care,
                  Joe