The Anima and Animus in Buddha Dharma

My intellectual goals regarding psychology and Buddhism are to harmoinze Buddha Dharma with archetypal depth psychology, as the truth of mind is necessarily both the basis of Buddha Dharma and of anything that can be called modern psychology (not to be confused with modern neuro-science masquerading as psychology).

In his archetypal depth psychology, Carl Jung presented the psychological view of the structure and function of consciousness that is remarkably similar, and I would say virtually identical, to the Buddhist analysis of the Five Skandhas and Eight Consciousnesses. That is, in looking at a zebra, it might be described by some as a horse with stripes or as a donkey with painted lines, but though the words differ the description indicates the same thing is being viewed. Likewise, though Jung's archetypal psychology uses a different framework and language, it is absolutely clear to me that he is observing the same mind and the same structure and function of consciousness that the Buddhist masters have observed. This is what makes it clear to me that mind is not something culturally conditioned, though cultural conditions may lead us to argue about our observations of the mind.

Question: I wonder how the Jungian anima and animus reflect in the five skandhas. It does look as though patriarchy reflects in both Buddhism and Jungian thought quite well. A hero with a thousand faces, sure, but all the faces are male. Zeus is a male. God is a male. Mohamed is a male. Brahman is male. And of course Buddha is male. 

Okay, let's see.

Q. How does the Jungian anima and animus reflect in the five skandhas?

Anima and animus are primary functions in relation to the ego complex, and I see them as aspects primarily of the fourth skandha.  To speak of the full complexity of the situation means to acknowledge that the anima and animus also rely on the first three skandhas, but their primary expression is as configurations of the fourth skandha upon which self-consciousness is constructed. 

The anima or animus is the reflective image of our ego-complex that takes our identity beyond the personal into the impersonal. It is the vital aspect of our feeling our life to be "animated" and filled with life. We come to know this aspect of our psyche throught the image of the "other", but it is the "other" that we are drawn to through the psychic energy called libido. As this "other" is the one that draws out our libido from being wrapped up in our personal self-image to move toward the world, it is met or felt through the image of the contra-sexual personification. Thus the male imagines the feminine anima, and the female imagines the masculine animus.  This is why sexual energy is the physical(ized) aspect of the psychic energy of libido, that is why we encounter the libido first as sexual energy.

Appreciation of the function of polarity and opposites that is expressed in the anima-animus analysis is also integral to the analytic framework of the skandhas.  This is made clear by Great Master Huineng in the Platform Sutra when he discusses the opposites in the context of teaching about the 5 skandhas and 18 Realms (dhatus).  Though he doesn't mention the specific pair of opposites of "male and female" he mentions pairs like "sun and moon," and "shady and sunny" (the synonyms of Yin and Yang") which are common images for male and female.  It is the polarity function of the skandhas that is the point of how the opposites of consciousness arise from the skandhas and manifest as opposites which confuse us and become false thinking when we disjoint the opposities and believe they can exist independently of the other.

The anima and animus is the function of consciousness that entices us out of the defensive position of the ego into engagement with the world. For example, using some of the opposites used by Huineng, if we see the world as cruel, the anima or animus can draw us into engagement through the anima or animus appearing compassionate. If we see the world as muddy, the anima or animus can draw us out by appearing clean or pure. Form and emptiness are likewise like this.

Q. A hero with a thousand faces, sure, but all the faces are male. Zeus is a male. God is a male. Mohamed is a male. Brahman is male. And of course Buddha is male.

Sure, we can't argue aginst the fact that patriarchy took over most of the world's societies.  But that does not mean that patriarchy is the truth, or that Buddhism is limited to patriarchy.  Over the years, the recognition of the problem of one-sided patriarchy became apparant.
Of course, Zeus was accompanied by the goddess Hera, and only a partisian of the patriarchy would dare to undervalue Hera and the other goddesses.

In Christianity, the mother Goddess was indeed missing in the Garden of Eden and only appears through her earthly messenger the serpent, who then becomes vilified by the father God, but this is rectified by the development of the Madonna image to take the place of the missing mother in the Garden.

In Buddhism, the the importance of and reintegration of the feminine arose in several ways. One way was the designation of the Prajna-paramita as the mother of the Buddhas. Another way was in the Sutras such as the Vimalakirti Sutra and Queen Srimala's Lion's Roar Sutra that explicitly portrayed women as every bit the equal of men. 

So, strictly speaking all the faces are not male.  But admittedly, in Buddhist countries the cultural patriarchy has been slow to respond (if at all) to the equality of opposites that Buddhism teaches. This is largely due to Buddhism usually taking a nonconfrontational approach to such cultural politics, or in some countries actually turning a blind eye to the problem of patriarchy.    

Q. How does the anima and animus function in relation to the defensive position of the ego?

The most important example of this within the context of the Buddha story is the appearance of the maiden Sujata. If we view the life story of Buddha as an embodied archetypal story of the journey of awareness to awakening, then the anima appears in a most pivotal and crucial role, that of the milk maid who rescues Buddha from the impending death caused by his own asceticism. 

While Buddha remained in the castle, he was still within the domain of family and tribe and so could not develop the individuation necessary for awareness to awaken. The ego must be developed for this. When Buddha left the palace this was the necessary initial stage of individuation of the ego. Buddha initially developed the ego by study of the Dharmas of any teacher he could find.  However, this is not sufficient on its own because the development of the ego under the sway of the fight or flight instincts creates the defensive position vis a vis the environment, i.e., the world, or an attack position. Thus the ego either defends against the world or wants to become a world conqueror. Study becomes a way of trying to conquer the world. Modern science shows us how this path turns out.  Thus for a conscientious ego, it becomes clear that the world cannot really be conquered by study, only more questions arise with every one answered, Only more ways that we are conquered by the world are shown to us, for example, DDT, radiation poisoning, global warning, as the humbling responses of the world to our attempts to conquer it.

In the Buddha’s story the ego-complex is played out by Buddha adopting the ascetic approach in which the world is simultaneously both defended against and attempted to be conquered by the same ascetic practices.  The ascetic believes the world can be conquered by not allowing it to attack oneself through the desires and needs of the flesh, The ascetic believes that the impure, dirty, confusing, and entangling world cannot conquer oneself if one literally removes oneself from the world’s influences. However, this is where the conscientious ego, though necessary in the developmental scheme of awareness, also comes to the limit of itself and the anima and animus are necessary to be constellated for the journey to continue to fruition.

The Buddha’s extreme indulgence of asceticism is the perfect example of the ego’s self aggrandizement and defending itself against the world by creating an image of the world’s muddy, impurity, ignorance, etc. and the ego-based idea that to overcome the world one must separate oneself from all of that muddiness, impurity, ignorance, etc.  Here the story of Buddha engaging in asceticism with five fellow ascetics is noteworthy because it show Buddha as the sixth consciousness of thinking attempting to remove himself from the world along with the five sense consciousnesses.  However, because Buddha carries this to the extreme, he is able to come to realize the hopelessness of this one-sided approach of the ego. At this stage then the anima is constellated first in the form of a lute, then in the form of the milk maid.

At first the anima comes to us in odd ways that we don’t necessarily recognize in anthropomorphic images.  Buddha at the edge of his despair is roused from his anguish by the sounds of the lute being played.  From this experience he comes to understand the embodied meaning of the Middle Way. If the strings are too loose they cannot make the melodious sound, if they are too tight they will break and not make any sound. Only the Middle Way of tuning between too loose and too tight will allow the string to vibrate and make music.  In the life story of Buddha, this is the first recognition of the Buddha that can truly be called Buddha Dharma. From this awareness of the Dharma activity of opposites heard in the vibrations of a lute string, the Buddha Dharma is born. Some versions of the story say that it was Indra who appeared in the passing boat playing the lute. This obviously points to the archetypal or mythic aspect of consciousness as the source of the experience. The lute itself is the anima image that through its sweet voice has drawn Buddha back to engagement with the world by the recognition of melody, tone, sweetness, etc. as playing their role and that the Way is to be found not by defending against or attempting to conquer the world. 

However, at this point the Buddha is so weak that he cannot even walk, so this means that the ego, if left only to its own resources will starve itself to death.  Something deep in the psyche is moved to rescue the ego from this predicament, and the Buddha story portrays this next anima movement (animation) by the milk maid.  There are several versions of this story, as there should be with any truly archetypal story. One version has a passing goat herd boy come by and offer goat’s milk to rescue the Buddha, but this seems to be a version tinged with patriarchal aversion to the female image that is intended to erase the sexualized aspects of the anima from the story. This misunderstanding comes because the tree that Buddha was sitting under was called “the tree of the goatherd” (ajapala).  Other versions just say “villagers brought him food.” The more archetypically authentic stories portray the milk maid version. Here’s one.

The young woman was named Sujata (“well born”).  (Here it should be noted that Sujata also is one of the names or epithets of the Buddha himself, so this is another way of pointing to the archetypal context of the story where the maid Sujata is the anima figure of the Buddha Sujata.)   Sujata the maid had been lamenting her inability to conceive a child. She goes to the village sage who tells her that in order for her to become pregnant that she must provide the tree [i]deva[/i] (or divinity of the tree) with a special mixture of rice milk.   Sujata prepares the milk by using milking the best cows and feeding that milk to better cows and then feeding that milk to better cows until she has the best milk possible. Then she mixes is with the best rice and goes to the forest to offer it to the tree deity of “the goatherd tree.”  Buddha happens to be sitting under this tree and in his completely emaciated state he is unrecognizable as a human and Sujata believes him to be the tree deva and offers her milk and rice mixture to Buddha in a golden bowl. . Buddha receives the rice milk and is saved from starvation and revived.   The archetypal story continues with the golden bowl being tossed into the river and floating upstream with the involvement of the Nagas but that can be explored at another time.  At this point it suffices to say that the involvement of the Naga here is the transition of the anima figure to the deeper imagery of the psyche.

What is the necessary food that the anima brings to us to save us from the starvation diet of the ego complex and aid us in our enlightenment?  We learn something from Bodhidharma when he is asked about this in the work attributed to him called “The Discourse on Breaking Up Appearances” (破相論), loosely translated by Red Pine as “The Breakthrough Sermon.” 

This discourse is historically important to Zen as it clarifies many points of differentiation between the Three Vehicles approach to Buddha Dharma already present in China when Bodhidharma arrived, and the perspective of the One Vehicle Lineage of Southern India that Bodhidharma brought to China.   The Discourse is presented in the classical style as interrogatories on points of Dharma with Bodhidharma’s responses.  The gist of the Discourse is that “Only the one Dharma of contemplating Mind unites and includes all Dharmas and is superlative for introspecting the essential.”  After this point is made, the Discourse explores how the Buddha Dharma is perceived from this perspective. 
At one point the interrogator asks about the story of Buddha having to receive Sujata’s offering before realizing enlightenment. This doesn’t make sense to the questioner if just contemplating Mind is the direct Dharma Gate to enlightenment. 

Here’s Red Pine's translation:

[Q.] But when Sbakyamuni was a bodhisattva, he consumed three bowls of milk and six ladles of gruel prior to attaining enlightenment. If he bad to drink milk before be could taste the fruit of buddhahood, how can merely beholding the mind result in liberation?

[A.] What you say is true. That is how he attained enlightenment. He had to drink milk before he could become a Buddha. But there are two kinds of milk. That which Shakyamuni drank wasn’t ordinary impure milk but pure dharma-milk. The three bowls were the three sets of precepts. And the six ladles were the six paramitas. When Shakyamuni attained enlightenment, it was because he drank this pure dharma-milk that he tasted the fruit of buddhahood. To say that the Tathagata drank the worldly concoction of impure, rank-smelling cow’s milk is the height of slander. That which is truly so, the indestructible, passionless dharma-self, remains forever free of the world’s afflictions. Why would it need impure milk to satisfy its hunger or thirst?
The sutras say, "This ox doesn’t live in the highlands or the lowlands. It doesn’t eat grain or chaff. And it doesn’t graze with cows. The body of this ox is the color of burnished gold." The ox refers to Vairocana. Owing to his great compassion for all beings, he produces from within his pure Dharma-body the sublime Dharma-milk of the three sets of precepts and six paramitas to nourish all those who seek liberation. The pure milk of such a truly pure ox not only enabled the Tathagata to achieve buddhahood but also enables any being who drinks it to attain unexcelled, complete enlightenment. (From [i]Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma[/i], translated by Red Pine, p. 91-93.

Here's my translation:

Question. The Sutra says that at the time the Tathagata of the Sakyas was a Bodhisattva he had already drank three pecks (about 6 gallons) and six liters of milk and rice gruel just to complete the Buddha Way. Before, because he drank the milk, afterwards he could bear witness to the Buddha fruit. How could it be that merely contemplating mind attains liberation?!

Answer: Truly know that which you declare is without falsehood! Certainly, because he ate the milk like that at first, he became Buddha. Of that which is declared to be “eating milk” there are two kinds. That which is the food of the Buddha was not indeed the worldly milk of impurity and actually was the clear and pure Dharma milk of True Suchness! That which was three pecks exactly was the three collected pure precepts. That which was six liters exactly was the six paramitas. At the time of completing the Buddha Way from eating the clear and pure Dharma milk like this, just then he could bear witness to the Buddha fruit. If it is declared that the Tathagata ate the worldly concoction that was the rank and malodorous milk of the ox of impurity, h1ow could it not be the extreme of the wrong of slander?!
That which is true suchness itself is the indestructible diamond (vajra) without leakage, the Dharmakaya forever free from every and all sufferings of the world. How could it be necessarily so, that the milk of impurity is used to fill the hunger and thirst? It is like the (Mahaparinirvana) Sutra which articulates, “This ox does not dwell in the high plains and does not dwell in the low wetlands, does not eat unhulled rice, horse grain, chaff or bran, and doesn’t participate with the bull ox in common with the herd. The color of this ox body is made violet as burnished gold." That which is declared here as “the ox” is Virocana Buddha! Because of using great compassion and sympathy for everyone, from within the embodiment of the clear and pure Dharma is produced like this the subtle Dharma milk of the three collected pure precepts and the six paramitas to nurture everyone of those who seek liberation. So indeed the milk of clarity and purity from the ox of true purity is not only to complete the Way of the Tathagata’s drinking; for everyone of the multitude of beings, if they are those who are capable of drinking, then in all cases they attain unexcelled unified thorough enlightenment.

Here we see that Bodhidharma takes the story out of the literal to the archetypal level and explains that what Buddha received at the hands of Sujata was not common milk but the Milk of the Dharma of the Cosmic Buddha. This is important to understand because it is not the anima that provides enlightenment; the anima is the intermediary who brings the initial taste of enlightenment. The anima does not give us enlightenment but is the one who enables us to be fortified to find the place where we can realize enlightenment.  Thus Buddha was able to rise from underneath the “goatherd tree” and move to sit under the Bodhi Tree by the nourishment provided by the anima.

There is an important point here in that when Buddha accepted the food from the anima Sujata, the five ascetic companions left him in disgust as if he had given up on the quest for awakening.  This is the portrayal of the abandonment of the five sense consciousness as the sixth consciousness turns inward toward the eighth consciousness. More importantly, it shows that when the anima brings the ego out of the self-world opposition, the awareness now can either chose to re-engage in the world as ego or turn away form the world and ego to go further and deeper in contemplating the mind. As Buddha is the one who awakens, the Buddha story tells us the anima’s nourishment is to be used to continue the journey to the Bodhi Tree, not to return to the ordinary world. Thus the awareness that has transcended mere ego awareness by the help of the anima now turns from engagement with the five senses to engagement in direct contemplation of mind.  At this point the seventh consciousness appears in the archetypal figure of Mara and attempts to dissuade, confuse, and scare us from the task of directly perceiving the eighth consciousness. 

So the role of the anima (or animus for female practitioners) is crucial for awakening as awakening is told in the story of Buddha.

The Five Skandhas

Here are some comments about the Buddhist analytical framework known as the Five Skandhas.  I'm riffing off of the answer.com entry by Barbara O'Brien.

The block quotes are from Ms. O;'Brien:

What are the skandhas? Here is a basic guide. (The non-English names given for the skandhas are in Sanskrit unless otherwise noted.)

The First Skandha: Form (Rupa)

Rupa is form or matter; something material that can be sensed. In early Buddhist literature, rupa includes the Four Great Elements (solidity, fluidity, heat, and motion) and their derivatives. These derivatives are the first five faculties listed above (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) and the first five corresponding objects (visible form, sound, odor, taste, tangible things).

Another way to understand rupa is to think of it as something that resists the probing of the senses. For example, an object has form if it blocks your vision -- you can't see what's on the other side of it -- or if it blocks your hand from occupying its space.

In one sense, the Skandha of Form is the trickiest to think about. Why? Because it is the suggestion of what is beyond thinking by using objectifying language. In other words it is the psychic view of "the physical."  As Carl Jung pointed out, once we take the POV of psychology, we have to stand within the field of the psyche and can no longer pretend that we are standing within the field of the physis or physical world.. In other word what we call "form", "matter", "material", "things" are all categories or differentiations of mind. This is the view of the Lankavatara and the other Mahayana sutras that teach the unity of mind.  Once the unity of mind is recognized there is no way to "step outside" of mind.  Therefore there is no "form" outside of the differentiation of mind, only our attempts to develop a consensual reality.  This why the first skandha is all important but so often overlooked in discussion of the skandhas.  In Zen, when phrases like "the bottom of the bucket opens" or "dropping mind and body", it is the letting go of the materialist view of the first skandha that is being referred to by the "bottom breaking" or "dropping body." 

Each skandha has one or more core polarities associated with it, indeed we can say it is the field of that polarization that makes the skandhas identifiable as a numbered skandha.  With the first skandha, it is the polarization of "inside and outside", "subjective and objective", that is primary.

The Second Skandha: Sensation (Vedana)

Vedana is physical or mental sensation that we experience through contact of the six faculties with the external world. In other words, it is the sensation experienced through the contact of eye with visible form, ear with sound, nose with odor, tongue with taste, body with tangible things, mind (manas) with ideas or thoughts.

It is particularly important to understand that manas -- mind -- in the skandhas is a sense organ or faculty, just like an eye or an ear. We tend to think that mind is something like a spirit or soul, but that concept is very out of place in Buddhism.

Because vedana is the experience of pleasure or pain, it conditions craving, either to acquire something pleasurable or avoid something painful.

 By referring to "the external world" Ms. O'Brien is showing that she is standing on the first skandha as if it exists objectively.  Here we see how the skandhas begin to construct a worldview, or a view of reality.  The second skandha is also called "reception" because it acts in relation to this primal split between internal and external. In other words, what we call sensory data is discriminated on the basis that there is an internal and external reality and that the data is coming from an external reality.  This works fine for light and sound which we say come from outside, and becomes a little fuzzy with smell and taste as they are sensed as being in the nose and mouth, and then very fuzzy with touch sensations in the body and completely fuzzy with ideation in the mind.   

 By receiving sensory data pre-screened as it were by the first skandha's polarized division into inside and outside, (me and not me, etc.) the next primary polarization is the allotment of that sense data into the categories of the primary characterization of "pleasure and pain" or "attractive and repulsive", etc. Now we have four boxes for every sensory quantum which are (1) the inside and pleasurable, (2) the inside and not pleasurable, (3) the outside and pleasurable, and (4) the outside and not pleasurable. This basic framework is the foundation for the construction of the house of views that we build.

The Third Skandha: Perception (Samjna, or in Pali, Sanna)

Samjna is the faculty that recognizes. Most of what we call thinking fits into the aggregate of samjna.

The word "samjna" means "knowledge that puts together." It is the capacity to conceptualize and recognize things by associating them with other things. For example, we recognize shoes as shoes because we associate them with our previous experience with shoes.

When we see something for the first time, we invariably flip through our mental index cards to find categories we can associate with the new object. It's a "some kind of tool with a red handle," for example, putting the new thing in the categories "tool" and "red." Or, we might associate an object with its context -- we recognize an apparatus as an exercise machine because we see it at the gym.

I very much disagree with Ms. O'Brien's statement that most of what we call thinking fits into the samjna skandha.  Thinking is much more complex and in fact we don't even have conscious thinking until the fifth skandha so most of what we "call" thinking is conscious thinking, so is not often even considered at these unconscious levels of the first four skandhas. 

This skandha is of course as she points out integral to the formation of thinking because it is the beginning of the putting together of the differentiations of mind that becomes thinking. It is the third skandha that begins to relate all the items previously labeled according to the four boxes of the first two skandhas, and by using these four-colored building blocks the third skandha puts them together into the nearly infinitely varied patterns (dharmas) of our consciousness code like the four amino acids of DNA are put together to form the mind boggling number of combinations in the genetic code. 

It is this conceptualization of associations that we call "perception" in that we are now beginning to be able recognize patterns and call them things (dharmas).   Here the multitude of polarities abound and there is no primary polarity as associated with the first, second, and fourth skandhas. That is, the entire world is polarized with such polarities as "soft and hard", "smooth and rough", "male and female",  etc.

The Fourth Skandha: Mental Formation (Samskara, or in Pali, Sankhara)

All volitional actions, good and bad, are included in the aggregate of mental formations. How are actions "mental" formations? Remember the first lines of the dhammapada (Acharya Buddharakkhita translation)--

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

The aggregate of mental formations is associated with karma, because volitional acts create karma. Samskara also contains latent karma that conditions our attitudes and predilections. Biases and prejudices belong to this skandha, as do interests and attractions.

This is the most psychologically challenging of the skandhas to understand. In the context of Jungian archetypal psychology, the fourth skandha is all the mental formations that at one end are the individual complexes and at the other end are the archetypes of the collective unconscious.  The "ego" or "self" is only one of the complexes, though it is the individual pole of the primary axis of the mental formations that at the other end is the collective pole that goes by the names of "Self", "God", "Atman" etc. The two ends of this primary axis of mental formations are the "I thou" relationship.  However, the mental formations are not a completely connected structure, but more like a solar system or galaxy in which many formations are whirling around in a gravitational relationship but have their own sense or appearance of autonomy in various circumstances.

It is the appearance of autonomy within the central mental formation of the "ego complex" that is the basis for our sense of personal independence and identity. It is this sense of personal independence and identity that is the basis for our self-mage of responsibility and intention. It is this sense of responsibility and intention that is the basis for our karma. That is why the fourth skandha is sometimes identified as "volition." 

Ms. O'Brien's saying "All volitional actions, good and bad..." points to another important factor. It is with the fourth skandha that the primary polarity of "good and bad" is developed. At the level of the second skandha there is "pleasure and pain" that acts as the seed of the polarity of "good and bad", but it is not until the activity of the fourth skandha that second skandha polarity becomes developed in the mental formations and "good and bad" are materialized.   This is why pleasure is not the sole determining factor of what is "good" though it is a significant factor.  The ability to substitute an ideal as a higher good than pleasure is a function of the mental formations as the ego complex interacts with other complexes that create identities such as tribal or national identity in which we would sacrifice our personal pleasure for a greater good. In the religious context it is those factors that become associated with the "god pole" of the central axis that become identified with "the greatest good."  For those who do not identify the collective pole of the central axis with a personality image such as a father god or mother goddess, other images may act as substitutes such as "the people", "the nation", "money,"  "family" etc.

In Zen, getting free from the control of the polarized fields of the fourth skandha's mental formations is what is referred to as "not thinking good and evil."  

The Fifth Skandha: Consciousness (Vijnana, or in Pali, Vinnana)

Vijnana is a reaction that has one of the six faculties as its basis and one of the six corresponding phenomena as its object. For example, aural consciousness -- hearing -- has the ear as its basis and a sound as its object. Mental consciousness has the mind (manas) as its basis and an idea or thought as its object.

It is important to understand that consciousness depends on the other skandhas and does not exist independently from them. It is an awareness but not a recognition, as recognition is a function of the third skandha. This awareness is not sensation, which is the second skandha. For most of us, this is a different way to think about "consciousness."

It is also important to remember that vijnana is not "special" or "above" the other skandhas. It is not the "self." It is the action and interaction of all five skandhas that create the illusion of a self.

Having an appreciation of the fifth skandha of consciousness and how it functions within the scheme of analysis known as the five skandhas is essential to understanding the wisdom pointed to by the analytical framework.

Ms. O'Brien's caveats about remembering that consciousness is neither separate nor independent from the other four skandhas is well taken. Another way of saying this is that the distinction of the five skandhas are an expedient means of discussing "one mind" or "one suchness."

However, I would add another caveat that consciousness is not just "a reaction that has one of the six faculties as its basis and one of the six corresponding phenomena as its object." since that conceptualization is a construct of the four skandhas as well.  The terms "six faculties" and "six corresponding phenomena" are both phrases that are the result of the first four skandhas.  There is no such thing as a "phenomena" that is outside the skandhas. There is no such thing as a "faculty" that is outside the skandhas.  "Phenomena" and "faculty" are third skandha appearances that become associated with the "good and bad" evaluations of the fourth skandha so that we congratulate ourselves for the good idea that consciousness is a reaction that has one of the six faculties as its basis and one of the six corresponding phenomena as its object. 

To the extent that the term "consciousness only" became associated as consciousness without the appreciation of the other four skandhas the term became one-sided and thus "mind only" was necessary to point to the conscious and unconscious functions that result in our conscious awareness.  Awareness of itself is crystal clear, but it is by the friction created by the polarizations of mind that light and shadow are created that then becomes developed into "self consciousness" by which we humans are able to engage in a level of awareness that we call awakening to get free from the selfishness of self consciousness and realize the consciousness of no self, no nature, no mind.

 

My new translation of "Inscription on Silent Illumination"

This is my most recent translation completed today. 9/18/11.

Inscription on Silent Illumination

Mo Zhao Ming

By Zen Master Hongzhi Zhengjue of Tiantong (1091-1157)

In silent silence, forgetting speech.

In bright brightness, appearing in front.
When reflected upon, you’re wide open.
Where embodied, numinous.

The solitary illumination of the numinous

Illuminates within and returns to the wondrous.
The moon in the dew, the starry river,
The snowy pine, the cloudy mountain peak.

In the dark yet universally bright.

In hiding yet all the more evident.
The crane dreams the cold of mist.
The water contains the depth of autumn. 

The vast kalpas are empty emptiness

Appearances are all together identical.
The wondrous is preserved at the place of silence
Achievement is forgotten within illumination

What is preserved to preserve the wondrous?

Wide awake breaks up confusion.
The path of silent illumination,
The root of freedom from minutiae.

The unobstructed view is free from minutiae,

The gold shuttle, the jade loom.
The straight and the biased revolve,
The bright and dim are causally dependent.

Depending on nothing is the location of capability.

When at the foundation, turning around mutually.
Drinking the medicine of good views,
Beating the drum smeared with poison. 

Turning around mutually when at the foundation

Killing or saving life is on us.
From inside the gate emerges the body;
The tip of the branch bears the fruit.

When only silence is the perfect speech,

When only illumination is the universal response,
Response does not fall into achievement.
Speech does not involve listening.

The 10,000 phenomena infinitely connected together

Shine freely and articulate the Dharma
All that proving clearly.
Each and every one questioning and answering.

Questioning and answering, proving clearly,

Precisely mutually responding.
If within illumination you lose silence,
Immediately you see aggressiveness.  

Proving clearly, questioning and answering,

Mutually responding precisely.
If within silence you lose illumination
The muddiness becomes remaining things (dharmas).

The principle of silent illumination complete,

The lotus opens, the dream awakens.
The hundred rivers go into the sea.
The thousand summits face the highest peak. 

Like the goose choosing the milk,

Like the bee picking the flowers.
The reaching and attaining of silent illumination
Conveys our family of the [Zen] lineage.

The silent illumination of the family of the [Zen] lineage,

Penetrates to the top, penetrates to the foundation.
The body of emptiness,
The arms of the mudra. 

The one important event from start to finish,

By the manner of transformation is 10,000 differences.
Huo Shi presented an unpolished gem
Xiangru pointed out the flaw. 

To suit the capacities [of people] there are standards.

The great function does not strive.
Within the palace walls, the Son of Heaven.
Outside of the barriers, the General.

The foundation and affair of our family:

Within the compass, within the carpenter’s square.

Transmit it going in every direction.

It is not important to earn praise.

~The Chinese text at CBETA begins at T48n2001_p0100a25(00).

Archetypal Buddhism

Comment: I really found it interesting that after Buddha's awkening he didn't have that desire to save all beings. He had to be persueded by some diety to teach.

This is a great episode in the Buddha story. As I remember the story, it is not that "he didn't have that desire to save all beings," but that he had the desire yet didn't see how he could effectively communicate what he had experienced to anyone. He was at a standstill point of tension between the idealistic desire to save and the practical realities of how to proceed seeming insurmountable. Who of us does not experience this? His dilemma was that he directly perceived the timeless and wordless profound wisdom (prajna) and inherent intelligence (jnana), yet he felt that on the one hand he was incapable of putting them into words that could be understood by the people of his time, and on the other hand there would be no people who would be able to benefit from the words that he could formulate as opposed to just being made more confused by them.

The appearance of Indra, the "supreme diety" of this dimension, is the recognition of the archetypal truth that our motivation occurs only when an archetypal figure is constellated within mind. Without some kind of constellation (discrimination, differentiation) of an archetypal figure (i.e., a primary configuration of 4th shandha) there is no motivation for us to act. It is just as true to say that every one of our acts has as its motivating mental configuration one or another primary archetypal figure as its constellation or context. Without the primary archetypal figures of the 4th skandha there would be no fruition of consciousness as 5th skandha. The archetypal figures are the constellations in the firmament of our own mind which is the One Mind of No Mind.

In Buddhist terminology, every nirmanakaya Buddha has a samboghakaya Buddha as its intermediate progenitor and the dharmakaya Buddha as ultimate progenitor.

Consciousness depends on our personal complexes which in turn depend on our impersonal or collective archetypes. Self-consciousness is possible because the primary archetype of "god-self" formed in the nascent interaction of discrimination ("the 7th consciousness") where the ocean of concsiouness ("the 8th consciousness") is first stirred can become manifested in the derivitive ego-complex that organizes the reflectivity of consciousness (the 6th consciousness) in relation to the senses (the 1st thru 5th consciousnesses) into the experience of self-conciousness or self-awareness.  This  process develops over years so that sometime around age 6-8 we have a mostly developed self-consciousness based on the establishment of a self-image (ego complex) that is possible because of the "god-self" archetype having been constellated in mind.

“Full Moon on 9/11/11”

On nights like this the difference between myth and reality seems blurred.

The full moon crashes into me like a 767 crashing into the South Tower of Manhattan,

Strikes me like lightening splitting the Tower of the Tarot of Marseilles,

And my inner beings jump for their lives only to fall all the way down to the ground,

To be consumed by the swirling maw of dust.

Thankfully, no one is starting a revenge war against the moon in their name.

~gw

9-11: the Day Nothing Changed.

Again and again we are subjected to the worldwide propaganda machine that tells us 9-11 was the "Day that Changed the World",  the "Day of evil that changed the world forever",   "Opinion: A day that changed the world", etc.         

In fact, 9-11 was a day that changed nothing.  What I mean by that is that nothing changed because of the criminal attacks on 9-11.  Things change everyday, so of course change has occurred since 9-11. The Department of Homeland Security, the greatest government boondoggle in the history of the USA, was created, but 9-11 was just the excuse, not the cause.  We've been going down the road of the American Brand of Fascism since the middle of the 19th century and not one thing related to 9-11 has changed the direction of that road.  The fact that 9-11 has been used to hasten us along that road is in no way a change in our world. 

Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan have been created, but they too were not caused by 9-11 or anything directly resulting from 9-11.  They were caused by government officials with their own agendas of profit-making and self-aggrandizement who have simply used 9-11 as their justification.  

9-11 was a day that 3,000 innocent Americans died in a criminal enterprise, and in our orgy of vengeance we have killed hundreds if not thousands times more innocent people.  But even that is not a change. Americans have relished such orgies of violence for a long time, such as the piled corpses in the Philippines at the beginning of the 20th century ("Remember the Maine") and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 ("Remember Pearl Harbor"), just to name two examples in the long list of innocent victims of America's revenge fantasies made into manifest destiny. 

If in response to 9-11 the American people had come together to change our ways, then we could have said that 9-11 was a day that changed the world. But, no we did not come together to reassert the rule of law to track down the criminals behind 9-11, no we did not come to see as a nation that our own actions as a nation set the stage for 9-11, no we have not changed one thing about our foreign policy and how we resort to military might to maintain the American Empire and its War Racket for the protection of corporate profits.

No, 9-11 is not a day that changed anything in the world or how America does its business.  9-11 is a day that only confirmed and cemented all the worst in ourselves.  And today, 10 years later we witness the orgy of self-aggrandizement continuing without change in our orgy of American exceptionalism.

Zazen and Zen-Samadhi, from Bodhidharma to Hakuin

 In the Zen lineage from Bodhidharma to Hakuin, zazen, i.e., sitting meditation, has been described as the method of practice and zen-samadhi (Skt. dhyanasamadhi, C. 禅定, chanting, J. zenjo)  is described as the realization of practice.

Bodhidharma (5th/6th century)(From "Great Master Dharma's Discourse on the Nature of Awakening”):

            “If a person knows that the six roots (i.e., 6 sense organs) are not real, that the five accumulations (skandhas) are provisional names, and that seeking everywhere for their substance is necessarily to dwell without samadhi, then one should know that such a person expounds the words of the Buddha.  The sutra says, "A home in the cave of the five accumulations is called the courtyard of zen.  When the inner illumination is opened and unbound, then the gate of the Great Vehicle could not be brighter!" 

`           To not bear in mind all things (sarvadharma),  therefore, is called doing zen-samadhi (dhyana-samadhi).  If someone understands these words, then walking, standing, sitting, and lying down are all zen-samadhi.  Knowing the mind is empty is called the act of seeing Buddha.  Because why?  For all Buddhas in the ten directions, in every consideration there is no mind.  Not seeing in (by) the mind, is called the act of seeing Buddha.

            To unstingily renounce the body is called Great Charity (mahadana).  The samadhi of detaching from the various activities is called Great Sitting Meditation (J. dai zazen).  Because why?  Worldly people are singly directed toward activities, and the Small Vehicle is singly directed toward samadhi.  Namely, to pass beyond the worldly people and the sitting meditation (zazen) of the Small Vehicle is called the Great Sitting Meditation. If those who act with this realization, in all the various appearances, do not seek to release themselves and, in all the various illnesses, do not cure their own errors, then this is entirely the power of Great Zen-Samadhi.”

Dajian Huineng (638–713)  (From The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Ancestor, Chapter 5, “Sitting Meditation (Zazen)”):

“Learned and virtuous ones, what is called zen-samadhi? Outwardly, to be free from characteristics is doing zen. Inwardly, to not be perturbed is doing samadhi. Outwardly, if one attaches to characteristics, inwardly, the heart-mind is immediately perturbed. Outwardly, if one is free from characteristics, the heart-mind is immediately not perturbed. The root nature by itself is pure, by itself is samadhi. Only by seeing conditions and thinking about conditions is one immediately perturbed. If someone sees various conditions and the heart-mind is not perturbed, this is real samadhi. Learned and virtuous ones, outwardly, to be free from characteristics is immediately zen. Inwardly, to not be perturbed is immediately samadhi. Outwardly, zen, inwardly, samadhi, this is doing zen-samadhi.

Dazhu “The Great Pearl” Huihai (second half of  8^th century) (From “Discourse On The Essential Gate Of Entering The Way Of Immediate Awakening”):

Question:“For a man to cultivate the fundamental root, what method (dharma) of cultivation should be used?”

Answer, “Only by sitting meditation (zazen) is zen-samadhi quickly attained. The Dhyana Paramita (lit. Zen Gate) Sutra says, ‘To seek the noble intelligence (arya-jnana) of the Buddha, then zen-samadi is necessary.  If there is no zen-samadhi, thoughts and ideas clamor and stir and spoil good roots.’”

Question: “Say, what is doing zen, and say, what is doing samadhi?”

Answer: “To not give birth to false thoughts is doing zen. Sitting to see the root nature is doing samadhi.  That which is the root nature is your unborn mind.  In that which is samadhi there is no mind that responds to the environment and the eight winds are not able to stir.  For that which are the eight winds, benefit and ruin, defamation and honor, praise and ridicule, and suffering and pleasure are called the eight winds.  If like this one attains that which is samadhi, even if one is an ordinary man, one then enters the rank of Buddha.”

Hakuin Ekaku (1686 - 1768) (From Ode to Sitting Meditation (Zazen Wasan)):

As to the zen-samadhi of the Mahayana, 

There is just too much to praise.
The several perfections such as charity, morality, and such;

Chanting Buddha's name, confession and repentance, austerities, and the like;

The many good deeds and various virtuous pilgrimages;
All these are coming from within it.

Also, a person succeeds by the merit of a single sitting

To destroy one's immeasurably accumulated crimes.
Where then should the evil appearances exist?
The Pure Land is then not far away.

This last quote is most interesting because in virtyually all translations of Hakuin's "Zazen Wasan" the term "zenjo" (zen-samadhi) is translated as "zazen" in order to make it easy for English readers. The fact is that the term "zazen" only appears in the title of Hakuin's "Ode to Zazen" and nowhere appears in the body. Unfortunately that kind of attempt to make the idea accessible for English readers leaves out the very essential nuance that is the difference between zazen as the activity of sitting-zen and zen-samadhi as the realization.

These great zen masters all directly stated the relationship between zazen and zen-samadhi. Today we hear a lot about zazen, but the recognition and realization of zen-samadhi is hardly spoken of.

I assert that without the realization of zen-samadhi, there is no true zazen, no matter how much zazen is talked about as a practice.

Best News of the Day = Pastafarian Rights

The best news of today, at least the news that made me laugh the loudest, comes from Austria where a Pastafarian has had affirmed his right to wear his preferred head covering on his driver's license photo!
Yes, that is Pastafarian with a "P" and his head gear is a pasta strainer! No kidding, here's the story with photo . As a Pastafarian member of The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Mr. Nico Alm has had his day in court and won! I tell people who are thinking of going to court that you are never guaranteed to get justice, you are only guaranteed to get a decision. It's looks like Mr. Alm got both.

Check out the Religion Dispatches article for the full story.  And enjoy your next plate of pasta!

P.S. For those who may not read through the whole article, here are the last two paragraphs. I love the Pastover and Ramendon.  For us Zennies who have the Rohatsu sesshin meditation retreat to honor Buddha's enlightnment we might want to consider having a Ropastsu retreat.

While FSM began as a joke, the community that has formed around it has come increasingly to resemble Durkheim’s moral community. Historically, critics of organized religion have framed the alternative as a worldview that is individualistic and cerebral. For example, Thomas Paine stated, “My mind is my church.” What’s so significant about Pastafarianism is that it’s taken atheistic philosophy and infused it with collective meaning in the form of rites and symbols. The image of FSM now appears on car bumpers, necklaces, and as street graffiti.
In addition to Skepticon, Pastafarians have also created International Talk Like a Pirate Day, Pastover, and Ramendon. For functionalists, it is irrelevant whether Pastafarians sincerely believe in their noodly deity. This shared body of symbols and practices has spawned an esprit de corps, uniting philosophical atheists and agnostics into a moral community, meaning that Pastafarianism may well be on its way to becoming a religion—in both the substantive and the functional sense.

The Dharma of Instincts and Skandhas

One person shared a story about feeling compelled to throw a rock at a squirell on a tree and feeling ashamed when the rock actually hit the squirrell. Another person replied:

The simplest explanation is that you were born with a hunting instinct.  You certainly weren't the first kid to do this.

The simplest explanation is usually simplistic.  Every person is born with every instinct. But as I read the original story there wasn't any hunting goinng on there.

In the context of psychological motivations, from the perspective of Analytical Psychology there are five primary instincts:

(1) hunger (feeding)

(2) sex (reproduction)
(3) action (fight, aggression, progression)
(4) reflection (flight, reflex, regression, digression)
(5) creativity (construction, imagination)

All five are necessary for and result in our survival, though they can be viewed in a hierarchy of neediness, sense of demand, or biological imperative in terms of our survival.   Most of our behaviors show a combination of instincts, and it is very rare for an act to be solely influenced by only one instinct. For example, "hunting" is a combination of the hunger, action-aggression, and creativity instincts.  When one instinct predominates in a manner that suppresses the others our behavior becomes obsessive or addictive. 

The instincts are the physical "muscle" or "force" that powers the psychic structure that culminates in consciousness, which in Buddhism is called the Five Skandhas.  As such they are inchoate in the First Skandha called "Form" and become more differentiated and coherent in our awareness as they are embodied in the mental "structures" or inherent patterns of personality of the other skandhas. 

From another perspective, each of the five instincts is the physical analog of the 5 Skandhas so that Form is analogous to feeding, Sensation is analogous to sex, Perception is analogous to aggression, Mental Formations is analogous to reflection and Consciousness is analogous to creativity. That is, in each skandha the corresponding instinct becomes the dominant influence. In the same way that the instincts do not operate alone, none of the skandhas functions in a vacuum without the presence and activity of the other skandhas. However, at any one time there is usually a dominant instinct and skandha active, so that sometimes the dominance is only a just noticeable difference and at other times the dominance is overwhelming in awareness and obscures the actual ongoing presence and activity of the others. 

The reflective instinct is the key to creativity just as the 4th Skandha is the threshold to the 5th Skandha of consciousness. The reflective instinct is the source of our self consciousness and comes out most primitively in the flight response when we feel the overwhelming need for self protection, as a flight response is the "bending back" (re-flexis) from the perceived danger. Reflection is also the source of our self-awareness or self-consciousness as it functions to bend back awareness to create (i.e., in conjunction with the fifth instinct) the image of our "self" in the first place. 

This bending back manifests in the mutual reflectivity of the Sixth and Seventh Consciousnesses, first to create the self-image which at first becomes enchanted with externalities and then, when ripened, there is the turning back (paravritti) of awareness itself from the glamour of objects to see through the subjectivity of the self-image to the treasure at the source of our awareness. As Zen Master Dogen said, we are usually reaching out to or advancing toward objects to confirm them on the basis of our "self," and this is the natural delusion that is technically called the Seventh Consciousness attending to externals.  When the turning around or bending back (paravritti) of awareness occurs it takes place in the deepest part of our consciousness called the Eighth Consciousness or Storehouse or Treasury (alaya) Consciousness.  Then the myriad things are no longer objectified as being confirmed by the self-image but their sensory data-stream returns to the source in the alaya and awareness perceives its own oneness in what Dogen calls satori. 

Here’s how D.T. Suzuki describes it:

The Manas is a double-headed monster, the one face looks towards the Alaya and the other towards the Vijnanas. He does not understand what the Alaya really is. Discrimination being one of his fundamental functions, he sees multitudinousness there and clings to it as final. The clinging now binds him to a world of particulars. Thus, desire is mother, and ignorance is father, and this existence takes its rise. But the Manas is also a double-edged sword. When there takes place a "turning-back" (paravritti) in it, the entire arrangement of things in the Vijnanakaya or Citta-kalapa changes. With one swing of the sword the pluralities are cut asunder and the Alaya is seen in its native form (svalakshana), that is, as solitary reality (viviktadharma), which is from the first beyond discrimination. The Manas is not of course an independent worker, it is always depending on the Alaya, without which it has no reason of being itself; but at the same time the Alaya is also depending on the Manas. The Alaya is absolutely one, but this oneness gains significance only when it is realised by the Manas and recognised as its own supporter (alamba). This relationship is altogether too subtle to be perceived by ordinary minds that are found choked with defilements and false ideas since beginningless time.

Zen Master Hui Hai, The Great Pearl, when describing the many names for formless Mind said,

As the Suchness to which all phenomena ultimately return, it is called ‘the Tathagata Treasury’.

Understanding this complexity of the phenomena of mind in its functioning of the instincts and skandhas is not for the purpose of better understanding but for the purpose of not attaching to understanding.  The one supreme Buddha vehicle of sudden direct awakening that does not rely on understanding leaps over the dull and sharp understandings of ordinary people and sages to see one’s own nature.

The Man in the Moon

A poem for the full moon of August 12, 2011.

The Man in the Moon

Zen Master Hui Hai, known far and wide as “The Great Pearl,” said,
“The moon is reflected in that deep pond, catch it if you like.”

Reaching to grasp the moon in the pond,
Stirring the ripples and making 10,000 more reflections,
and still coming up empty handed.
Reaching for “not-reaching” stirs up reflections on reflections.

Throwing our life into it
Falling head over heels into the pond,
Sooner or later we discover with a great laugh
The one who is facing the pool.

 Isn’t this like Paul Simon singing,

“I have reason to believe

that we all will be received

in Graceland”?