20241214 - 18:12
There are, as I happened to mention, and thus to realize, to a friend recently, 2 main sources for my “Buddhist” understanding. Buddhist is quotationed because it implies that this understanding is ‘something’, as in, knowledge, as in, understanding of a ‘thing’. Although a lot of it certainly are ‘views’ [Ditthi], no matter how ‘foundational’ they are, perhaps more importantly, there is knowledge of a process upon which to understand and release those (very same) views. We might, for brevity’s sake, thus declare that these two sources supports my worldview (which, through implication, is Buddhist.)
The merging of these two sources is highly unorthodox and a possible source of contestation from both parts, and yet it is undeniably so. It is, in the end, my life, that we are talking about, and although one might oppose the following discussion on theoretical grounds, their marriage is within it a fact. A fact, in fact, that has recently been flowering in beautiful and highly unexpected ways. One might of course conclude, as understandably necessary from a certain point of view, that I am a fool, and any derivations from “my life” are, then too, of necessity foolish. To such a skeptic there is no answer; my senses make up a world that is, too me, undeniable, and yet it is only to me that they are so. Perhaps, indeed not at all unlikely, I am a fool, and I am very open to not only such an idea but the discussion that would follow. The foolish thing, however, would in that case be not to out myself as one; so let us begin!
We are talking about, one one hand, Zen Buddhism, and on the other, Theravada Buddhism. Both of these are however to be taken within a context and with huge caveats.
When I mention Theravada I am referring to, first and foremost, the Pali Canon, and specifically what is often termed the EBT, or “Early Buddhist Texts.” To be even more specific I am referring to the Sutta Piṭaka, not having ventured personally into Vinaya, and from an explicit rejection of the Abhidhamma. Furthermore, and perhaps more honestly in regards to the facts of my own sutta studies, these are mainly approached through the understanding of Nanavira Thera and his sphere of influence. One might look at the Path Press Publications to get a feel for this ‘sphere’, as well as Hillside Hermitage and the main teachers there; in my mind we are mainly talking about Bhikku Anīgha, recently very active in the reddit community, as well as Ajahn Nyanamoli Thero, whom, although having published a few books, is mainly known through the Youtube Channel of Hillside Hermitage.
As perhaps evident through the abundance of links, names, and resources, this is a primarily theoretical framework. I must, however, be very very clear and precise in what might otherwise be read into the word ‘theoretical’. It is, in no way, shape, or form, abstract. I am only referring to the form of these teachings when I write ‘theoretical’, and it might be contrasted with, and as we will see it shall indeed be, a ‘practical’ framework which might be communicated, instead of as here in the form of words, through action: i.e in physical immediacy. This ‘theoretical’ is, as hopefully (somewhat) clear, only the form through which teachings are communicated; whichever way that happens to be they must then be “taken up”, they must be lived and worked, and through that practice, ultimately understood. What defines a teaching is ultimately this practice, which is the unique work of every student, and NOT the form of communication. In a certain sense the practice is the same irregardless, in another sense, as it pertains to individual students, it is absolutely unique. We might remind ourselves that what we aim to approach is reality, Dhamma, and in such a sense there is only one understanding. In as far as something aligns with the Dhamma, aligns with reality, it aligns with everything else that does so. As Nanavira points out in one of his letters to Sister Vajira, and which we might extend in meaning, in as far as two people understand the Dhamma, in that way they might be said to understand eachother as people; it does not necessitate that they understand (i.e know) eachother as individuals.
In contrast to this theoretical framework which have benefitted me in abundance, there is the Zen side of things. As a lost and confused teenager by the age of 19, after finding myself interested in Buddhism and ‘spirituality’, I was still wise enough (although by the incessant and continous urging by all the resources I was consuming) to search out a physical community, a Sangha, to get help and support in my practice, in essence, ‘to see what it’s all about’. What I found was a Zen-buddhist center close-by, a well-established community, and a regular communal practice. Being, of course, a lost and confused teenager, I was nervous, shy, scared, and full of ideas and opinions about what Buddhism ‘should be’. Nevertheless, something made me stick to it, and for as long as I was living in the city, I continued going. With large gaps, and even when it was ‘regular’ only once a week, it in a certain sense came to define my practice. There was something that was evidently maintained, and whether cause of effect, correlated with my going there. When that something was lacking, I was not going. I kept an emotional distance towards this place, and yet started considering it a home; for my practice, for myself. The people I met there, and the conversations that were had, created a foundation and large depths of inspiration which has carried my practice forward ever since. This place, this ‘practice’, was a contrast to my, at that time even more highly, theoretical studies, and came to define what for me was Buddhism ‘in actuality’, but which more accurately might be described as ‘in immediacy’. It is not, as I mentioned previously, with a value-judgement, that I say this, but simply to point towards this very real difference of physical immediacy. Only very recently have I come to understand how well this contrast matches the two ‘sources’ themselves.
To make a long story short, I left the city, and recently returned and lived at a ‘temple’ connected with this center for the past 5 weeks. In other words, I committed, I dove in. What I found here, in what can probably best be described as ‘on a farm’, in the hallways, washing dishes, cleaning toilets, in the eyes of the teacher, was, again, the immediacy of the teachings. What I found was Dhamma unfolding all around me, in all the things I had so long neglected as ‘unimportant’ or ‘beneath me’ in my quest for Freedom. For the first time in my life I found a framework within which I felt myself ‘allowed’ to practice and realize the teachings which I had studied, learned, and in a certain sense, merely collected. The theoretical framework I had spent so much time studying came alive within this new framework of ‘immediacy’; it was not, that is to say, discarded, but practiced. In times of silence the words of the suttas would ring in my head, sitting in Zazen various metaphors would arise and urge me forward, remind me of what and where to look. Through the rigid schedule and precision of the Zen-way there was no longer anywhere I could hide; all I could do was to do it. The marriage of these two sources, the meeting of these two worlds, has within me flowered and blossomed into something I can only regard as the practice of Dhamma. My way, my truth, my illusion, my wisdom, my foolishness - to these I possess no answer. All I want, and all I could ever hope for, is to share this, opening myself to whatever might arise.
As a sidenote, it is noteworthy and to me very interesting (and to be explored!), how this compares to the actual emphasis made by these two doctrines. I am grateful to a fellow sangha-member for pointing this out in one of the last conversations we had before I left. Whereas Zen emphasizes the ‘living lineage’ of Dharma-transmissions, from teacher to student, all the way to the Buddha, Theravada emphasizes the accuracy and ‘reality’ of their scriptures, as being from the Buddha. So within, so without.
This, only introductory glance, has now been going on for too long. I have attempted to introduce a topic which this project will continue to flesh out and explore. Right now I have no idea in what way (form) that will take place, and it is something I am sure we shall find out together. Right now, it is simply this.
Gassho!