Waving goodbye to the
sacred . . . .
We have a brain. And inside it, we have something called a
mind. There is something others call the “soul” and this too, we think of
as inside us. Who we are, our identity, is also in our mind, in our brain.
When we die, others might say: “he’s gone”, “she has departed”. Most
religions have a concept of a ‘soul’. Explanations as to how this soul got
inside the body vary from sect to sect and place to place but they all
share the notion that this soul leaves the body at death. All of these
things point to a way of thinking that starts with a non-physical thing,
that enters and leaves the body. The body is a vessel for a non-material
thing.
Buddhism has a different take on this but even there, it is very common to
see things described in non-physical, non-material ways. Some Buddhism (a
lot of Zen for sure) and some other teachers do not make the conceptual
split of physical and non-physical , in doing so, they are closer to the
approach of Science.
Science takes a different approach. Identity, an aspect of consciousness,
is seen as a by-product of the physical-only brain, perhaps an expression
of complexity. Instead of there being something “in” the brain/mind
Science would see a configuration of particles and molecules, a product of
the bodies physicality and dependent on it. A scientist would ask, what
are thoughts made of ? We might extend that and say, what are experiences
actually made of?
To put it crudely, the two models seem irreconcilable, a non-physical,
spiritual soul or identity residing IN the body versus a physical,
material combinations of ‘things’ very much OF the body.
Taking this further.
In my reading of Zen practice I cannot recall a single example of where a
Zen Master or teacher makes a distinction between physical and
non-physical, between spiritual and material. Zen is primarily about
direct experience, and direct experience does not support such a split. In
my own practice and direct experiences spread over the last 30 years,
nothing indicates such a split.
Does this mean therefore, that a “Zen direct experience” is one of
perceiving a deeper insight of the physical-only world via the main
perception organ, the brain? Yes. But it is here we can add something
significant. The Zen-direct-experience not only dissolves the false
spiritual and material split, it sidelines all our preconceptions too -
the “deeper” the experience, the more spectacularly those preconceptions
are marginalised, even the preconceptions of science.
Put another way, the Zen-direct-experience reveals physical things not yet
detectable by any scientific instrument. This would see a baseline
description of the Zen-direct-experience as an experience simultaneously
of consciousness identified with the body and in a dispersed “field” of
unknown but seemingly vast dimensions. We are nodes in a pattern and yet
(paradoxically as far as language is concerned) we are also dispersed in
the pattern too. The ‘normal’ experience of this is an oscillation between
node and dispersed pattern. The non-normal, or Zen-direct-experience shows
us degrees of both depending on the intensity of the experience.
Those who know me from before may be surprised by all this as I have been
fierce exponent of just practice, just practice, just practice. And
indeed, I still am – it is practice that delivers the
Zen-direct-experience and not the assimilation of second-hand ideas. Then
again, we need not be shy of examining issues where changes in practice
may be warranted. For me, classical Zen is still redolent of the spiritual
– material split, despite the greater clarity as compared main stream
religion. I feel we need better ways of talking about these things and
the practices necessary to directly experience the truth, a new language
of practice.
To put it as simply as possible; enlightenment is a physical event, and as
such, one day it will be known and mapped. We will switch it on as easily
as we now boot up our computers. It is as physical as
photons. Until then, practice, practice, practice.
Good luck to all.
