Welcome to Gaia! ::

I wish to share my criticisms of Zen Buddhism because, while I find much to admire in the Zen traditions, I have also found considerable theoretical differences with it and other (Theravada and Mahayana) sects...Unfortunately, I find various Zen views to be illogical and contradictory to those of most other sects...I trace the differences to the inclusion of the less-salient views and tendencies of Taoism into Buddhism.

Note that, while I have read several other Zen works, I'm largely relying on "The Path to Bodhidharma: the Teachings of Shodo Harada Roshi," translated by Priscilla Daichi Storandt and edited by Jane Lago (2000 by Tuttle Publishing) as representing Zen. Page citations refer to this book. However, I recognize that Zen is itself broken into many sects, some of which hold views more in line with "orthodox" Mahayana teachings...The Korean Son/Choson School comes to mind with the admirable "Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment" and its commentary by the monk Kihwa. I focus on "The Path to Bodhidharma" because it highlights much of what seems typical of Zen, both the positive and the negative.

First, what I admire in Zen. Its iconoclastic tendencies brought a fresh breath of air to Buddhist sects of the Far East that had come to over-emphasize scholasticism as a spiritual practice and integrated non-Indian traditions into Buddhism, arguably making it more widely acceptable in religiously-diverse China and Japan. Furthermore, Zen emphasizes the importance of straightforward, undiluted meditation as being required for making spiritual progress. Additionally, Zen thought emphasizes the non-conceptual nature of the transcendental mind and the need to sever all attachments to false conceptual constructs. Finally, Zen literature brings a good deal of humor where discussion is often dry and overly serious.

[Note that most of these points are also characteristic of Tibetan Buddhist sects in their own sphere of influence, and possibly other Buddhisms, too. The difference is in the exact points of emphasis in these regards].

Now, what concerns me about Zen...I'll list them in bold followed by brief discussion:


ONE SIZE FITS ALL MEDITATION WITH EMPHASIS ON LOSS OF AWARENESS

Basically, Zen meditation (zazen) is presented as "the way" to meditate. Emphasis is placed on proper bodily posture and the quelling of all conceptual thought (from the get-go). "We have to let go of our thoughts completely and read the clear wisdom of the ancients and learn from them" (63, 85). Zen, and not the vipassana of the Theravada that emphasizes the careful observation of the tranquil mind, is said to have been the practice of the Buddha. Unlike mahamudra, the conceptual mind is to be smothered instead of worked-with in order to experience the Original Mind.

The emphasis on meditating until all awareness is lost and where there is no concern (89) found in Zen is striking and in contrast to those sects that warn of relying on such deep "jhanas" or "absorptions" as a primary practice. The following is a breakdown of the stages of zazen known as susokkan, or “counting the breath meditation” (60-63):

1) su “to count”: counting of inhalation and exhalation of breaths
2) zui “to follow”: harmonization with the flow of breaths
3) shi “to stop”: mind is in one-pointed focus; all awareness disappears (62)
4) kan “to observe”: one sees clearly into the true nature of existence; awareness returns of itself (62)
5) gen “to return”: expansive awareness is turned inward
6) jo “to purify”: ‘not so much as a speck remains’ (that is superfluous to the mind)

Susokkan is all well and good to me except for the third stage of “stopping.” This is generally what other sects refer to as Absorption and is widely considered to be a potentially dangerous, empty practice; the fact that the next stage “comes of itself” is in accord with the non-Zen descriptions. Ironically, the example of Hakuin in the next chapter of the book (76) is a prime model of why dependence on the Absorptions is widely seen as troublesome, “Hakuin had experienced that Mind of the Great Death, but from there he was unable to function; he was stuck and fixed.” In other practices one is usually advised to avoid the “dark pit” by noticing its approach and redoubling one’s concentration instead of giving in. The pitfalls of “shi” could probably be avoided by fighting the drop in awareness, speeding the transition to the observation stage of “kan.”


ABUSE OF THE TERM “ENLIGHTENMENT”

Zen thinkers tend to throw around “enlightenment” in a confusing, if not misleading, manner. People are often referred to as having been enlightened when they’ve really had a single breakthrough on the path to Enlightenment. For example, “A student of Master Nansen, he (Joshu Jushin) attained enlightenment at the age of 18 and continued his training with Nansen until the latter’s death nearly forty years later” (49). Enlightenment that requires further training must be deep and broad indeed!

I realize that there is a term for lesser enlightening experiences in Zen, but if that’s what is meant, that is the term that should be used…


ILLOGICAL “NATURAL IDEALISM”

Zen literature tends to degrade the value of the human state, in contradiction to probably all other Buddhist sects, while idealizing what is “natural.” This is probably the most irritating Taoist import within Zen. For example, “Only humans hold on to attachments, and we sink into likes and dislikes” (90) and “Animals as well live in accord with nature, not as if one being is more important than another” (90). Both statements are patently false and show a surprising amount of ignorance on the part of the Roshi, which I’ve sadly seen expressed in other Zen works. Animals certainly hold onto attachments and develop many of the same mental illnesses that people do; every cat I’ve had demonstrated superficial likes and dislikes in regards to many things! Animals are often very selfish and struggle with one another for existence; this is attested by everyday observations, modern science, and core Buddhist scriptures (that many Zen authorities appear to ignore by habit).

Zen takes the Taoist view that Nature is pure and good and that humans are special in being contrary to the cosmic order. However, core Buddhist doctrines hold that all of existence is defined by suffering stemming from attachments and delusion, and that all sentient beings are plagued by their misunderstandings but humans are especially poised to realize the true, original state due to their intellectual capacities and balance between positive and negative karma.

While Mahayana practitioners (including myself) generally hold that “Nirvana is Samsara,” this does NOT mean that whatever is typical of Samsara-as-we-know-it (i.e. everyday experience; Nature) is necessarily good. What we perceive as “Samsara” is a deluded emanation from the core of our minds or awareness (Buddha-Nature; Nirvana) that only “exists” because of the deluded state (and thus, because it causes suffering, cannot be considered good or pure). Thus, “Nature” is equivalent to Nirvana due to its true state/origin, but so long as it is perceived as the illusionary world defined by matter, the four seasons, etc. that brings suffering and veils the true state it is not really “good.”


UNUSUAL EQUATION OF BUDDHA-NATURE WITH LIFE FORCE

The equation of Buddha-Nature with Nature leads many Zen folks to also equate Buddha-Nature with the “life force” and even life itself, in accord with Taoist views. For instance, “But now he (Hakuin) knew that that which he had finally realized, that great, all-embracing compassion of the Buddha, was his very own life energy as well” (78 ), “This state of mind is Zen and also is called the Buddha and is called life” (97), “…we can directly touch this very True Mind, in every instant, that true Source of life energy” (105), and “…he (Heshiro) knew beyond any doubt that what he had grasped was the truth that plants and trees and the great earth all attain Buddhahood” (111).

These statements blur the lines between sentient and insentient lifeforms (and even objects) in contradiction to the non-Zen scriptures. Most, if not all, other Buddhist traditions hold that sentient beings have Buddha-Nature and others do not. Ironically, Hakuin appears to contradict himself by stating “All sentient beings are essentially Buddhas…apart from sentient beings there are no Buddhas” in his “Song of Zazen” (69) but spoke otherwise in his quote regarding Heshiro on page 111!

The Roshi does mention the flow of ki “life energy” through the body as being necessary for the practice of zazen. In both Buddhist and Hindu tantric traditions the “life force/power/breath” (e.g. prana, kundalini, shakti, kula, etc) is presented as a useful spiritual tool that nonetheless has a dark side. The energy or force is indeed said to be intimately tied with the process of attaining enlightenment, but prior to enlightenment it is also an origin of the delusions and attachments responsible for the cruel cycle of rebirth (i.e. the false projection of Samsara). When “unified” or “wedded” to pure consciousness, it allows the unfolding of true insight and power, but the mental and karmic undercurrents more often pervert its activities and turns the flow into a snare that traps the individual in the worlds of suffering. While the energy seems to be an interface between the “small” and “true” minds, it is a stretch to equate it with Buddha-Nature itself (especially since the energy is a temporary phenomenon!).

Drawing from science, it seems ridiculous to equate Buddha-Nature with the source of mere metabolic energy. The science of metabolism is well studied and it is clear that it “belongs to Samsara,” being perceivable, impermanent, aggregate phenomena that operate according to cause and effect. The same holds for linking Buddha-Nature and DNA. Other Buddhists generally consider ultimate reality to be connected primarily to the pure awareness that lies at the core of the aggregate mind, and not the life-process and its myriad components.


OVERUSE OF VAGUE POETIC LANGUAGE

While I’m a fan of poetry, there comes a point where emotional, poetic language becomes excessive in discussions of Zen. This often leads to a lack of clarity that is contrary to Right Speech. Sometimes the poetic flourishes even lead to illogical claims. For instance, Shodo Harada claims, “This process is one of understanding not with our heads but with our bodies” (86), “…not by using your head but by sitting quietly and concentrating…” (87), “…it is not harmony from the deep heart…” (88 ), and similar nice-sounding but largely insubstantial sayings. “The body” simply cannot “understand” without “the head,” concentration is an ability of “the head,” and the “deep heart” spoken of is probably nothing at all. More precisely, the “deep heart” could mean any one of many Buddhist or Taoist concepts related to ultimate reality, personality, emotions, and so forth. The ambiguity of the words makes the verification of their meaning difficult, which any Zen practitioner schooled on the limits of language should understand.


DISLIKE OF DEBATE; PHILOSOPHICAL INSULARITY

It seems that Zen masters tend to take a very authoritarian means of teaching and discourage philosophical debate and the raising of critical questions by their students (and from the outside). This is in contrast to Tibetan Buddhism, where though the teacher-student relationship tends to be very strong, philosophical debate between teachers, scholars, and students (at least among peers) is welcome and encouraged. Similarly, Tibetan Buddhists tend to look on their myriad sects with joy while Zen Buddhists seem to wish that everybody would practice in the same manner…I’m concerned that this closed attitude has allowed many of the issues I’ve mentioned to appear and become fixed in Zen thought over the centuries.

Thanks for the comments, Demon, I thought my "baby" post was being ignored mrgreen

Just a few points of clarification:

The "loss of awareness" I'm concerned about in Zen practice isn't the loss of the "I" feeling, but the complete loss of contact between the mind and sense consciousnesses (as briefly described by Roshi, the author of the book I was consulting). This "blacking out" is well-known in the other Buddhist meditation traditions as being a "jhana" or "absorption," and is of controversial value to one's practice (especially to the Theravada, while the Tibetan sects primarily rely on it for very specific purposes*). Indeed, successful meditation does increase one's feeling of awareness, but the "dark pit" that hides in the tranquil comfort zone is said to side-track meditators into ignorant mental rest.

*For instance, the Doctrine of the Clear Light yoga of Naropa, by which the mental disengagement from the senses makes it possible for the individual to experience the subtle "Light" of awareness found between moments of thought. More often, the Absorptions are mentioned as practices by which the individual's mind may experience the Form and Formless Realms by exclusion of sensation in the underlying Realms (though the resulting gain of rebirth in those Deva-Realms is not equivalent to Nirvana and Bodhisattvas are asked to forgo such 'high birth' upon completing the practices).

Regarding the term "Enlightenment," I still feel that Zen authors should be careful to differentiate between a satori and the final attainment of complete enlightenment (i.e. Buddhahood from the conventional viewpoint). While all sentient beings are really (i.e. fundamentally and ultimately) Buddhas, the fact that they 'exist' in a deluded state makes it useful to distinguish between deluded and non-deluded sentient beings. Practically speaking, for a still-deluded individual to claim Enlightenment is to belittle the hard work and suffering of those who actually have, and will, "reach the farthest shore." Such claims can make the Dharma look ridiculous to others. The practitioners should be proud of making serious progress but shouldn't imply to an outside observer that they've reached the pinnacle.

Regarding Taoism, it is difficult to delineate the extent to which Taoism influenced traditional and modern Far Eastern cultures and the extent to which prior habits molded it. However, from a Buddhist standpoint, culture and tradition (as impermanent, aggregate phenomena) cannot authoritatively be relied upon as defining or representing Truth. A logical error is a logical error regardless of its origin, and time doesn't improve its status.

Buddhist authorities were often wary of those brands of Taoism that encouraged non-transcendental "alchemical" goals such as bodily immortality or the continuity of one's empty personality in a "body of light" medium. Nondualism is a major emphasis in Taoism, but the underlying principle tends to be that the world as we know it is "inherently good" but corrupted by "knowledge," "mankind," and/or "civilization." Cyclic change is seen as a just inherent aspect of the universe and the underlying Tao and not the unfortunate result of delusion as in Buddhism. The traditional Buddhist view that suffering and "impurity" is inherent in all aspects of phenomenal existence is generally downplayed (if not ignored) in Taoism*, and some of that counter-paradigm rubbed off into Zen.

*There are also later sects of Taoism that imbibed a lot of Buddhist doctrines and became more "anti-materialist" and "transcendental," but this tended to bring about conundrums with the earlier doctrines.

I like music and poetry, but vagueness in discussing the Dharma isn't right, especially if it involves confounding otherwise simple issues and making objectively (and scripturally) false statements. Vagueness unfortunately invites the "small mind" to include its mistaken interpretations into a discussion to fill the gaps, whereas the speech or text should be completing understanding to thwart such activity by the deluded mind.

The issue with false claims of Enlightenment has less to do with the feelings of an Enlightened individual and more with preserving the vitality of the Buddhist community. In fact, one of the oldest precepts was for a monk or nun to refrain from exaggerating their abilities to each other and the laity. Buddhism aims to point out and neutralize ignorance and delusion in the world, and when a prestigious Buddhist falls into self-deception and publicly claims to be fully Enlightened when still afflicted, there is a real threat of loss to the Buddhist community when the misguided individual inevitably fumbles. Additionally, while the unintentional belittlement of a Buddha's previous strivings on the Path by a faux-Buddha would not actually cause emotional offense to the Buddha, it is likely to offend many practicing Buddhists and the improper model supplied by the misguided master would likely lead his or her followers astray.

My point with bringing up Taoist influences on Zen is that the indigenous Chinese views were contrary to fundamental Buddhist views from the start; for example, by practically deifying the cyclic world when Buddhism points away from it. While quite interesting, the Taoist views seem to have muddled some of the Buddhist philosophy in its introduction to Zen. To my knowledge, the monarchies and scholarly classes had the greatest influence by combining Confucian and Taoist concepts (e.g. developing the Celestial Bureaucracy pantheon and Confucian scholarly work with classic Taoist literature). I think the old Taoist "naturalism" and "materialism" were primarily due to overall world view and not greedy monarchs corrupting old doctrines, but religious favoritism by the various regimes certainly did influence the fortunes of the sects over time.