I'm interested in Zen. I am, in fact, interested in religious matters of all kind. I'm just not religious myself. As a sceptic, it is very difficult to "believe" just because other people proclaim their belief. That looks like "proof by induction by counting" to me: There are so many people that believe in it, it must be true.
Well, Zen -- as I found it in the following two books -- captured a very nice interpretation of religious experience and wisdom. A GoodRead. See also: ZenQuote, TaoTeKing, ZenKoan, FeelGood, and MetaphysicalFuss.
Basically, the commentary to the blue cliff records tells me that Enlightenment cannot be taught. The ancient masters did not want their words put down in writing, fearing that people would start studying the words instead of seeking out an enlightened master. They believed that the words and actions of a master are specific to the situation. They are useless to others. Furthermore, writing things down introduces another danger: To mistake the words for enlightenment or the path to enlightenment itself.
Bankei also teaches that enlightenment cannot be taught. On the contrary. Everybody is already enlightened; most people forget it, however. They loose their state of enlightenment by thinking. By thinking about the world. Enlightenment, to him, is this not-thinking. The unborn. He says that thinking about not-thinking is the wrong way to go about it. Thinking about meditation is the wrong way to go about it. Just let go and be yourself, without thinking.
This is where we come back to the blue cliff records. Bankei says that reading koans may confirm your enlightenment. If you are not enlightened, however, thinking about the koans will not help you. Neither will doing lots of zazen (sitting and meditating) and all the other stuff people do.
I find that all of this makes sense. And most of what Bankei has to say about the effects of enlightenement make sense as well. There is no magic. Being enlightened, you are no longer interested in doing magic, life after death, or any other great and wonderful things.
As you may have noticed, all of this just explains what enlightenment is not. So what is it, then? The problem is that it involves not thinking. If you want to talk about pain, or food, no problem. There are shared experiences. You can name things in the real world and talk about them. But how do you want to talk about something that involves not thinking? There is nothing in the real world to correspond to it. There is no shared experience. All you can tell is wether somebody is doing it wrong. That enables you to recognize progress. But you cannot lead others to enlightenment. You can lead other people to understand and experience pain, or good food, but you cannot let them experience not-thinking. How do you want to show them? By not thinking yourself? By telling them not to think? You cannot even say "don't think about it" because the act of listening and understanding involves thinking about it. All you can say is that they should not think and wait. If they stop thinking about it, they will reach momentary enlightenment. I think I see where the difficulty is.
This is where the monastery comes in. After reaching momentary enlightenment, monks try to keep that state, to live in that state. That also seems to make sense.
Now, for the conclusion. I think many people are already enlightened. At least a lot of the time. I feel like I am often enough.
No, really. These days, many people share the values Zen is proposing. Zen says that jealousy, selfishness, anger is bad. Many people these days agree. Zen says you should be calm, you should not worry. Things will work out fine. Do what you want to do. But don't let passions rule you. Be who you want to be. Or better: Be who you already are without any false pretenses. Many people share these values, live a life according to these values. Or at least many people live a lot of their life according to these values. Isn't that enlightenment?
I feel reassured by the characterization of non-enlightened people in the books. They are rash, foolish, arrogant, easy to anger. I don't identify with them. Most of the people I know well don't qualify, either.
Some of the more troubling aspects: No love and no hate for enlightened ones? I can understand no hate, but no love? I think what this means is possessive love: envy, jealousy, worrying all the time. But if what you call love is caring, enjoying the beautiful moments in life, friendly talk amongst friends, then there is nothing to say about it. Maybe you will feel the loss of a loved one. Well, that is certainly not enlightened, but you can worry about that when there is an occasion. Not to enjoy love for fear of loss is not enlightened, either.
Anyway, that's how I explain it to myself. And it certainly makes more sense than any other religious stuff I've ever heard. Actually, it makes so much sense that I wouldn't even call it religion anymore. To me, it seems like common sense: Don't worry. Be what you are. Don't think about tomorrow. Don't be foolish nor quick to anger, not jealous nor greedy. Sure! No problem. That's what we always do.
SiteMap / AllPages / Out / kensanata@yahoo.com / Last change: 2001-11-30