132: Human Nature vs Buddha Nature 1

SUBSCRIBE TO UNMIND:

RSS FEED | APPLE PODCASTS | GOOGLE PODCASTS | SPOTIFY

Human Vs. Buddha
They are not the same —
but neither are they sep’rate.
One is the othe

In the next two segments: number 132 and 133 in the sequence, we repeat a subject that we took up in number 113 and 114; namely the buddha nature versus human nature; some of the sameness and differences between what we refer to as “human nature” and what we refer to in Zen as our “original nature,” or “buddha-nature,” “buddha” meaning “awakened one.” Please bear with the repetition; there is new material here as well. And much of what is to be said about the place of Zen in America bears repetition.

We often hear our fellow human beings idealizing human nature, implicit in criticisms of the behavior of others as “inhumane.” Which we may take to be well-intentioned, if somewhat self-aggrandizing. It implies that if only other humans around the globe were more “humane” in their treatment of others, we would see less suffering and atrocities stemming from humankind’s inhumanity to humankind, let alone the unspeakable miseries visited upon other, so-called “lower” sentient beings.

But I am afraid that our teachings from Buddhism cast a rather jaundiced eye on the veracity that idea. While, according to Zen tradition, we human beings are uniquely capable of waking up to buddha-nature, it does not follow that human- and buddha-nature are interchangeable. Far from it. Let us examine a few examples of what is conventionally meant by “human nature,” and some caveats to common attitudes and definitions, each claim followed by a “but”:

It is human nature to regard ourselves as independently existent entities.

BUT: According to Zen, we human beings are not self-existent entities. Nothing else is, either. Including corporate entities, such as the Atlanta Soto Zen Center, the Silent Thunder Order, even the government. This is the flip-side of the internet of connectivity in which we find ourselves enmeshed. Entities function only by dint of their connections.

It is human nature to want to join like-minded groups of people.

BUT: The Zen community, or “sangha,” like any group entity, is evanescent, imperfect, impermanent, and intrinsically insubstantial. This is why we refer to and visualize our members as being like the drops of water vapor in a “cloud” (J. un), constantly evaporating and recondensing over time, as people come and go.

It is human nature to hope to be appreciated for our contributions to a group, or cause.

BUT: It is somewhat inappropriate to express appreciation to anyone for what they do for Zen or Buddhism, as there is no “self,” as such, in it. It is normal to do so in polite society, of course. But Zen, while not antisocial in character, is asocial — conventional norms and memes of society are called into question, and subject to examination under the unrelenting glare of meditation.

It is human nature to expect that our social cohorts will fulfill our personal needs.

BUT: Our best laid plans often take a dystopian turn. Because a corporate entity is populated by individuals who have their own agendas, one’s personal perspective may have to be set aside in deference to the overall, long-term benefit of the group. We are encouraged to practice patience (S. kshanti) with this as a social dimension of the Precepts.

It is human nature to hope that our favored institutions will continue in perpetuity.

BUT: Nothing continues in perpetuity. Never has, never will. Eiheiji still stands, however, as a testament to what it once represented, which of course has changed over time.

It is human nature to feel disappointed when our expectations are not met.

BUT: We practice caution against developing unrealistic expectations of Zen, both of our personal practice as well as our social community. We go to Zen with the sangha we have, not with the sangha we may want.

I could go on. It is human nature to try to control the uncontrollable. And to blame others when we fail to do so. As the Tao te Ching reminds, paraphrasing, “When the blaming begins, there is no end to the blame.” Today we dismiss this as the “blame game.”

No matter how much harmony we are able to foster within the sangha, there are inevitably going to be periods of disruption and disharmony, triggered by personality issues, as well as external influences. We “do not discuss the faults of others,” but we often find it necessary to discuss their behavior from time to time, especially if it is disruptive.

THIS IS WHY WE ASPIRE TO BUDDHA NATURE

While exhorting others to remember and respect their humanity and encouraging humane behavior may be a natural, if unexamined, response to violations of injustice and offenses to our sensibilities witnessed on a daily basis, it ignores the fact that the great preponderance of the history of humankind consists mainly of these kinds of atrocities, committed under the umbrella of religious, ideological and political rationales. They represent the essence of what it is to be “human,” writ large, just as self-defense or self-preservation explains the great bulk of instinctive behaviors in the animal kingdom. Something is lacking, therein. We think it is our original, or “buddha,” nature.

Buddha nature simply means awakened nature. What we awaken to is, largely, the unreality of those things we take to be real, which cause us to react defensively to any perceived threat to our self-identity. As the great Ch’an master Sengcan reminds us, in his poem on trusting the mind:

For the unified mind in accord with the way, all self-centered striving ceases

HUMAN BEING VS CORPORATE ENTITY

This self-striving extends to corporate entities, prototypes of which were surely present in ancient China, as well as India and Japan. But today they seem to have taken on a life of their own, as an unintended consequence, characteristic of so many of our inventions. One model for taking an overview of this process we owe to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

If you search key words: “Hegel’s dialectic; synthesis of form,” the first item out of about 380,000 summarizes his concept as well as I can: Hegel presents the dialectic as a three-part structure consisting of a thesis, an antithesis, and a synthesis. In human history, when the status quo (the thesis) is challenged by a new historical development or force (the antithesis), a new form of life emerges out of the synthesis of the two prior stages.

We might quibble with certain choices of terms, such as “a new form of life,” as this would be more appropriate when considering biological evolution, rather than social or cultural evolution, the latter of which I take to be what Hegel was talking about. Those entities that appear on the social/cultural horizon as forms of government, commerce, et cetera as the “antithesis” challenging prevalent norms, the “thesis,” which then react in survival mode, often taking on characteristics of the challengers, resulting in “synthesis,” the result of which becomes the new “thesis.” The process is ongoing and continuous.

An example of another binary subject to this process, and similar to comparison and contrast of human versus buddha nature, is that of the corporate entity versus the individual, which — while occurring in human history predating and including Buddha’s time — was not so prevalent or obvious a contradiction as it is in the era of the relatively recent “Citizens United” decision of the SCOTUS.

Today, corporate entities seem to be winning the competition for survival, or dominance, on a global scale. They appear to threaten the very meaning of the “individual,” those mere human entities that they are ostensibly created to serve.

In the next segment of UnMind we will continue this examination of the origin of social, or “corporate” expressions of human and buddha nature, with a focus on those growing out of Zen practice. Corporate entities such as the Atlanta Soto Zen Center and the Silent Thunder Order are familiar and salient examples of group dynamics intended to foster the individual pursuit of Zen practice. A real modern Zen koan. Stay tuned.