Expert: Joe McSorley - 7/4/2006

Question
Thank you for your very good answer! It was interesting to read your views about having a teacher or not, and with your guitar analogy you also answered an interesting question i didn't ask too, the zen buddhist view on talent. Some of the most skilled guitar players in the world are self learned. And some people can't learn to play the guitar at all, because of lack of talent, and even a master teacher can't help them. And i guess you meant the same applies when it comes to zen?

"Why do you think sitting shikantaza will awaken you?"

I discovered that a part of me is already perfectly at peace. And i also realized that all my negative emotions and character flaws comes from me emotionally distrusting this. Nothing can ever happen to this peace, it is complete in itself! So my problem is not that i need to "awaken" or to "get more at peace", because i already am! What i need to is stop distrust/fear this fact. I feel that i don't need to do anything in order to gradually get rid of this distrust/fear, and what is a better way to not do anything then to to sit shikantaza? ;)

Now i got a different question! There seems to be a conflict between buddhism (especially zen) and hinduism about whether we got a soul or not. Hinduism says that our soul is "the self that is not the I". Buddhism reject both the I and the self (the not I). The atma VS anatma conflict.

To make an analogy: it seems like hinduism states "+0", (atma) and buddhism "-0" (anatma). It is quite obvious that "+0" and "-0" are both "0". That is why the entire debate confuse me.

What is your opinion on this?  

Answer
Hi Daniel,
Buddhism does not reject both the self and not self but says they are mutually defining.  There cannot be self without other and cannot be other without self.  This is the idea of interdependent co-origination.  There is a branch of Hinduism that also sees atman and anatman in this light. Logically speaking how can there be a you without a ‘not you’ to define who you are?  This eventually results in the paradoxical conclusion that ‘I am I because I am not I’ or self and other are mutually defining.
  There is a soul/no soul debate in Buddhism, or at least modern Buddhism too.  There are some on this site who have severely criticized me for my view that is simply this; if self is ultimately empty, where is soul?   I have been in academic debates on this topic for over 30 years and have yet to find a good argument for a soul in Buddhism.
  I am glad you are at peace.  Peace is a state that is defined by that which is not peace so it can be overturned at anytime by chaos.  In the classical Buddhist literature I don’t recall any of the Patriarchs proclaiming that they are at peace yet they’ve used many other expressions.
  Take care,
         Joe