170: Happy New Moment

SUBSCRIBE TO UNMIND:

RSS FEED | APPLE PODCASTS | GOOGLE PODCASTS | SPOTIFY

**Happy New Year**
It is just a thing
we made up when we were young
there is no "new year"

In the previous segment of UnMind, titled "the least important thing," I closed with a call for submissions; quoting myself:

If you have any topics or areas of interest in Zen that you would like me to explore in 2025, please let me know. You know where I live.

Having received little response, I can only assume that this podcast is not gaining much traction out there, in spite of near-weekly continuity for the past three or so years. Or that those of you who are following it don't have any topics of interest related to Zen, at least none that you would like me to take up. Or some combination of both.

In this segment, the last one of the year, let me start with the obvious: the fact that actually, you do not know where I live. That is, none of us really knows what the rest of us are going through, on a year-in-year-out, day-to-day, hour-by-hour, moment-to-moment, basis, except in the most general sense. And that's okay. But we have to wonder whether everyone else is dealing with the same kinds of issues, such as anxiety over aging, sickness, and death, those personal dimensions of dukkha that Buddha taught we all face. Anxiety stems from the unsatisfactory nature of living in the face of impermanence, imperfection, and insubstantiality, universal aspects of the koan of existence. Are you feeling the angst?

Can you remember when it first dawned on you that this life — which seems so substantial, so perfect in so many ways, and that we once took to be permanent — is insidiously deceptive in that regard? That the causes and conditions of it are not part of what you bargained for, opting into birth? Assuming you had any choice in the matter.

Few of us would credit a claim of any real intentionality on our part that preceded birth. But in fact Buddha does, explicitly — or at least implicitly — in his explication of the Twelvefold Chain of Interdependent Origination. It is his model of how things got to be the way they are — including, most crucially, our own presence in this world of sentient being. According to this cogent analysis, we come into being owing to our very desire to exist — the desire for knowing, or consciousness itself. Considered dispassionately, how could there be any simpler explanation for life?

Upholders of theism would have us believe that there is a separate intent to life, an intelligent "designer" operating behind the scenes, as author and director of its creation. The adherents of deism hold that the creator god is not directly involved, but simply got the ball rolling, perhaps by means of the Big Bang. Atheists deny outright any possibility of such disembodied intent, and agnostics try to walk the tightrope between belief and disbelief, according reality to the limitations of their senses and intellectual understanding. No woo-woo, in other words.

Most religious thinkers are resistant to the idea that we are simply a fluke of some kind, the result of a secular-reductionist chain of events beginning with material elements combining physically in a random process; yielding organic chemistry; leading to one-celled organisms; finally culminating in human beings, the absolute apex of evolution, or God's greatest creation. In our human opinion, anyway.

Most rationalist thinkers would probably push back on the equally simplistic notion that some creator god is to be given credit, or to be blamed, for our being here, and its corollary, that we have to pass the test of Her intent. On the one hand, this doctrine conveniently relieves us of the burden of accepting responsibility for our own existence; on the other, it tasks us with noodling out exactly what that intent might prescribe for the behaviors and attitude adjustments necessary to pass muster.

One logical consequence of this notion is that we assume that our reward will be in heaven, if anywhere, but certainly not on this earth. But we cannot escape or postpone the inevitable onset or aging, sickness and death, simply because we hold to a belief, however compelling. Unless you believe in a scientific possibility of eternal life as suggested by sci-fi speculations such as technologically-enhanced consciousness, uploaded to digital hardware and/or downloaded to new bodies, or the same old carcass rejiggered with endlessly replaceable parts, grown in tanks from genetic sources.

With apologies for that discursive ramble into weirder pastures, let us return to the focus of Zen on the present reality of the moment, devoid of any beliefs — religious, scientific or fantastical — that we may tend to turn to for comfort.

The Heart Sutra of Buddhist liturgy — a central, condensed summary of Buddha's teaching chanted on a frequent basis in Zen centers, temples and monasteries around the world — takes us through a long litany of what might appear to the uninitiated to be a thoroughgoing denial of reality as we know it.

Testimony as to what the iconic "Bodhisattva of Compassion" (Skt. Avalokiteshvara; Ch. Quanyin; J. Kannon) realized through meditation begins with the cryptic statement that s/he "clearly saw that all five aggregates are empty and thus relieved all suffering."

Remember that this model of the "five aggregates" (Skt. skandhas) represented the best science of the times as to what, precisely, sentient existence consists of, in its ultimate finality. Today we would paint a much more complex picture, but Buddha had to work with the sum total of information available at the time. Then he goes on to reduce all of reality to one fundamental dyad, which, like all dual pairs, cannot be separated:

Form does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not differ from form; form itself is emptiness,emptiness itself form; sensations, perceptions, formations, and consciousness are also like this.

Form, or appearance (Skt. rupa), constitutes our normal cognizance of the material world, with its near-infinite variations — the "myriad things," or "ten-thousand things" — and the names we give to them (Skt. nama), taken together as "name and form" (Skt. namarupa), "the one and the many," for short. This would be roughly equivalent to current terms such as phenomena and noumenon: particular things, and unitary sameness as their essence. This is a thread running through Zen teachings, indicating the nonduality of duality, or the "Harmony of Difference and Equality," as the famous Ch'an poem, "Sandokai," would have it. In our modern idiom, we would speak of the interchangeability of matter and energy.

The other four skandhas — Sensation, Perception, Impulse, and Consciousness itself — are similarly subject to deconstruction, though their position on the spectrum of energy and the psychological plane makes for a more convoluted analysis. Suffice it to say that the prefatory phrase, "given Emptiness" (Skt. sunyatta) indicates that all five are not what they seem to be, just as solid, liquid or gaseous matter is permeated with space, as we know today.

The monolog then goes on to negate all of the familiar dimensions of consciousness, including the Six Senses or realms (Skt. dhatus) of the Buddhist model of awareness:

Therefore given emptiness there is no form; no sensation; no perception;
no formation; no consciousness — no eyes; no ears; no nose; no tongue; no body; no mind — no sight; no sound; no smell; no taste; no touch; no object of mind; no realm of sight; no realm of mind-consciousness.

That last, the non-reality of "mind-consciousness" itself, indicates that the various findings, conclusions, and recommendations for practice, as well as all broader implications of insight into reality deriving from it, must also be set aside:

There is neither ignorance nor extinction of ignorance; neither old age and death nor extinction of old age and death; no suffering; no cause; no cessation; no Path; no knowledge; and no attainment.

So where, we might be forgiven for asking, does that leave us? According to Zen, right back where we started. Nothing has changed; nothing that is not already real and true can be revealed by our meditation. Sitting still enough, upright enough, and long enough will simply allow us to see the delusionary aspect of our own interpretation of our own consciousness. "Until we come to no consciousness also," as the first translation that we recited at the Zen Buddhist Temple of Chicago expressed it.

Let that percolate for a moment. If indeed Buddha, or Avalokiteshvara, or any one else, can come to a state of "no consciousness" — and come back from it, alive and well — what are we to make of that? This ultimate finality is what I like to call the "singularity of consciousness" —"That of which there is no whicher," as Alan Watts, my brother's favorite commentator on all things Zen, put it.

The AI summary leading off the search results (which may be the go-to virtual Zen master, or "buddha of the future," otherwise known as Maitreya) paraphrased:

to describe something beyond comparison, an ultimate reality or absolute that cannot be measured or ranked against anything else

Which is eerily similar to a concluding section of the longest Ch'an poem in Soto liturgy, the Hsinhsinming—Trust in Mind:

No comparisons or analogies are possible in this causeless, relation-less state; take motion in stillness and stillness in motion; both movement and stillness disappear; to this ultimate finality no law or description applies.

So there you have it. All things are like this, to cadge another repeat Dogenism.

Let me close with best wishes for a happy new year; a happy new month; week, and/or day; happy morning, afternoon and evening; a happy hour or half; a happy minute, second, or moment. They are all equally empty. As the same poem reminds us in closing: