What makes a zen master

In other word, no-mind is a free mind that is not delimited by ideas, desires, and images. No-mind is a state of mind in which there is neither a superimposition of ideas nor a psychological projection.

That is, no-mind is a practical transcendence from the everyday mind, without departing from the everydayness of the world. Since then, various Western philosophers have attempted to capture human nature with this goal in mind by using ego-consciousness as a starting point as well as a destination in philosophy. See Yuasa , — For this reason, Zen contends that physical nature and human nature must be sought in an experiential dimension practically trans-descending, and hence transcending, the standpoint of ego-consciousness.

As a result, paradoxes, contradictions, and even what appears to be utter nonsense abound in Zen literature. Therefore, we can say that Zen is an anti-philosophy in that it is not a systematization of knowledge built on the use of a discursive mode of reasoning anchored in the alleged certainty or transparency of ego-consciousness, one that follows an epistemological paradigm built on an ego-logical, either-or, dualistic mode of knowing.

This standpoint, as mentioned in the foregoing, relies on the discursive mode of reasoning to understand reality, while presupposing an ego-consciousness as the standard referential point. From this perspective for example, a distinction between the outer and inner worlds emerges, using a sensory perception as the point of reference.

One of the salient characteristics of this standpoint is that the world appears to be dualistic in nature, that is to say, it recognizes two and by implication, many things to be real. Epistemologically speaking, Zen observes that this renders opaque, or at best translucent, the experiential domains beyond the sensible world as well as ego-consciousness, both either taken naturalistically or by means of theoretical speculation.

The inability to go beyond these experiential domains occurs because ego-consciousness is physiologically rooted in the body and psychologically in the unconscious.

This points to a philosophically important consequence. This logic thinks it reasonable to divide the whole into two parts when knowing or understanding reality. That is, when this logic is applied to the whole, it compels the user of this logic to choose, reasonably in the mind of the user, one part, while disregarding the other part s as irrelevant or meaningless. It prioritizes one part at the expense of the other part s , while celebrating the exclusion. It champions one-sidedness in cognition and judgment as the supreme form of knowing and understanding reality.

However, Zen thinks that this prioritization, this exclusion, violates a cardinal principle of knowing, for knowledge of anything demands an understanding of the whole. Either-or logic fails on this account. For example, if one maintains that the mind is real, one disregards the body as unreal, yielding an idealist position. On the other hand, if one thinks the body is real, it disposes of the mind in the same way, favoring materialism as true and real, which is presupposed, for example, by natural science.

Either position commits itself to reductionism. Here, questioning this practice and the consequences it entails, Zen instead speaks of mind-body oneness, an holistic perspective, as it abhors one-sidedness.

Zen finds that these two things impose on the epistemological subject a structuring that is framed dualistically and either-or ego-logically, as mentioned in the foregoing. Accordingly, this structuring unknowingly frames things to appear dualistically and either-or ego-logically to the epistemological subject, while extending the paradigm to itself for self-understanding as well as things other than itself in the same manner.

Consequently, the subject stands opposed either to the outer world e. Moreover, Zen notes that the subject cannot by definition become the object or vice versa, for they are distanced from each other either really or ideally. When one attempts to know her from the everyday standpoint, one relies on the language she speaks and her body language. Here one cannot know her in toto , let alone the destiny of her life-history, because she is shielded from an observer by the spatial-temporal density of her being.

Zen maintains that the situation created by assuming this epistemological paradigm is not ideal, or real, for that matter. An either-or logic ignores this interdependence, in part because it operates within a conceptual and linguistic space with the assumption that there is no temporal change.

This assumption enables a thinker to establish the law of identity, namely that A remains the same with itself, or identical with itself. With this recommendation, Zen maintains that mind and body, I and others, I and nature ought to be experienced as one by those who remain in the everyday standpoint.

Otherwise, Zen fears that the practitioner will fall into one-sidedness, in which the knowledge claim ends up being partial, imbalanced, and even prejudiced. This is because Zen thinks the practitioner cannot achieve this negation simply by following either-or logic, or for that matter by following the intellectual process of reasoning, because both logic and reasoning intrinsically involve two things, for example, the thinker and the thought.

In other words, in the eyes of Zen, these methods lack consideration for the concreteness and immediacy of lived experience. This is in keeping with a general method of teaching in Buddhism, i.

This complication is further compounded by the differences in the personality of Zen masters. To properly respond to this question, Zen thinks it important to determine whether it is posed with a practical concern or a theoretical concern in mind.

The difference allows a Zen master to determine the ground out of which this question is raised, for example, to determine if the inquirer is anchored in the everyday standpoint or in a meditational standpoint. Why does Zen insist on this? In so doing, the monk relativizes Buddha-nature qua being, while contrasting and opposing it with non-being. Buddha-nature is not something that the dog can have or not have ; Buddha-nature is not something contingent.

Nor do I expect you to reply that the dog both has and does not have buddha-nature. Nor do I expect you to reply that the dog neither has nor does not have buddha-nature. How do you respond to this? An appeal to discriminatory thinking based on the standpoint of [ego-]consciousness is of no use either. It is also unacceptable to appeal to bodily action, let alone to engage in a mere verbal exchange. Do not swallow it where something is generated.

This is, no doubt, an existential challenge to Zen practitioners, and so they make an all-out effort, staking life and death, because it guarantees them an embodiment of truth and freedom. In order to get an idea of this experience from a contemporary point-of-view, or from outside of Zen tradition, one may also consider out-of-body experiences.

It points to a practical transcendence from the everyday either-or, ego-logical, dualistic standpoint. In light of the outer-inner distinction Zen interprets the non-dualistic experience to mean that the distinction has been epistemologically collapsed, as it arises in such a way to respond to the dualistic perspective from which the outer and the inner worlds appeared.

Conceptually, Zen takes this holistic perspective to mean the de-substantialization and de-ontologization of any two polar concepts, such as one and many, being and non-being, universal and particular, absolute and relative, transcendence and immanence, and birth and death. They are thrown into a holistic context of an interdependent causal series. For if thing-events designated by these terms are endowed with self-nature, they cannot enter into the series; what enters such a series is only an accidental attribute or property.

According to the substantialistic or essentialistic ontology, nothing can really change. For example, criminals who want to correct their criminal behavior cannot change themselves if being a criminal is the essential characterization of their being. This would pose an insurmountable challenge, if not impossibility, to a correction officer at a prison.

This question points to an examination of the epistemic structure of how knowledge operates in Zen experience. Although it is lengthy, we quote it in full in order to provide a sense of how a Zen dialogue unfolds:.

Suppose that there is a clear, transparent mirror. If it does not face a thing, no image is reflected in it. To say that it mirrors an image means that because it faces something, it just mirrors its image. The disciple asks: If it does not face any thing, is there or is there not a reflection in the mirror? The master replies: That the mirror reflects a thing means that it always mirrors regardless of whether it is facing or not facing a thing.

The disciple asks: If there is no image and since you do not give an explanation, how can all beings and nonbeings become an issue? Now when you say that it always mirrors, how does it mirror? The master replies: When I say that the mirror always mirrors, it is because a clear, transparent mirror possesses an original nature as its essential activity of always mirroring things.

The master replies: it sees no-thing. That is the true seeing. It always sees. Yanagita, , —3. Jinne conceives of a mirror in terms of two modalities: the mirror in and of itself and the mirror as it engages an object other than itself. It is important to keep in mind that both are understood in light of their activity.

What makes a mirror what it is is its activity of always mirroring, and when considered in and of itself, it possesses no specific image to mirror. There is no characteristic to it and hence no image appearing in it, i. In phenomenological terms, there is no thetic positing in this kind of seeing. When a mirror, for example, reflects an image of a beautiful object, it does not make any discriminatory value judgment that it is beautiful.

And neither does it make any discriminatory value judgment when it mirrors an ugly object. It mirrors thing-events as they are. Moreover, Zen observes that the nature of the mirror is such that it does not change due to the kind of object it mirrors. For example, it does not increase or decrease in size in virtue of the fact that it mirrors an object.

Because equality is the characteristic of this seeing, Zen speaks of the activity of this seeing as nondiscriminatory. Through this mirror analogy, Zen wants to point out what the minds of people are like in their original nature and activity. Zen would respond that this objection ignores the fact that the ground of seeing is the bottomless ground that is nothing.

What appears against mirror qua nothing is just an object. In such a seeing, the object alone shines forth. Below, we will explore further the structure of how things appear in Zen. Although it may sound paradoxical, Zen maintains that this ground is also a fount of creativity. Because there is no determination in the ground, it is pregnant with many possibilities or meanings to be realized.

Zen maintains, via the influences from philosophical Daoism, that this creativity is in the same order as that of nature, for the practitioner reaches the original source prior to the distinction between the outer world and the inner world. However, Zen does not mean it to be a mindless state, much less losing the mind. Nor does it mean a disappearance of the mind. Rather it designates a dimension of experience in which the ego-logically discriminatory activity of the mind disappears.

Zen adepts are said to acquire a power of meditation Jpn. Once such a power becomes available to the meditators, they intentionally focus on seeing whatever they want to see. If you Opt-In to text message marketing, you are consenting to receive promotional communication text message through an automatic telephone dialling system. Message and Data rates apply. Today, we often hear the term Zen master used when referring to someone who manages to keep their cool in stressful situations.

Historically, however, the term has served as a catch-all for various titles across Zen traditions—including seike, roshi, sensei, osho. And while these teachings might seem distant and irrelevant, there are many lessons we can learn from these Zen masters that apply not only to the time on our meditation cushion, but also to our everyday life.

He also founded Engaged Buddhism—a type that emphasizes using mindfulness in everyday activities like walking, cooking, and listening, as well as in social action 1. His solution? Learn to love your enemies.

While that may seem impossible to practice, his unique perspective and insight might help. To illustrate his point, Nhat Hahn has often told a harrowing story of sea pirates robbing and violating innocent travelers. But he believes this approach misses the root of the issue:. He says our degree of awakening—our way of life—is the root of everything. Commit Yourself to Practice in the 3 Core Pillars of the Fearless Path so you can step fully into your life … to create a well-lived life of meaning:.

Learn more about the Fearless Living Academy. Previous post: The Magical Power of Focus. This rule and some of the others that follow will be familiar to long-time Zen Habits readers. When eating, eat. You can do one task at a time, but also rush that task. Instead, take your time, and move slowly. Make your actions deliberate, not rushed and random. It takes practice, but it helps you focus on the task.

Do it completely. Put your mind completely on the task. If, for some reason, you have no choice but to move on to something else, try to at least put away the unfinished task and clean up after yourself. Do less. If you do less, you can do those things more slowly, more completely and with more concentration.

If you fill your day with tasks, you will be rushing from one thing to the next without stopping to think about what you do. Put space between things. That gives you a more relaxed schedule, and leaves space in case one task takes longer than you planned.

Develop rituals. Zen monks have rituals for many things they do, from eating to cleaning to meditation.