A Veil Over the Deep

The difference that is contemplated amongst the different religions on the time/space dimension is without the pain that uniformity brings. Within these differences are honored not one truth but many. When they do not point to the same ending then there is truth. If they all say the same thing, then there is lost the abundance of the truth.


If all is the same, then where does truth lie?

There is no truth when all truths are the same.

There is that which reveals.

And, to be not as one,

There are those ways which bring open the beauty of nothing.

This is the path of many truths,

Not the path of one highest knowledge or experience.

Then, in those many differences, which are illuminating,

There is the known.

When all is asunder, all is then known unencumbered in this the spacious.

The differences in religions are fundamental and profound

And so there is emptiness.

Serpent Inclosing Water

I would like to try to elucidate the differences between Hinduism and Buddhism, which I very briefly touched upon earlier. First off, I should say that I am very happy for those of you who have had such deep meditations into ultimate Thusness. However, you have not been the only ones who has realized Thusness with deep and penetrating insight. It is from my own insight of Thusness, through my own realizations that I come to write this.

My insight into thusness has shown me that it is unknowable, empty, that which is beyond definition. And while I do not care for the term “consciousness”, I do acknowledge that “awareness” (or that which we would take to be such) is present.

And I have found, that if one looks deep into the constitution of personality (specifically one’s own personality), one does find “awareness” present at its most basic level. I have seen this: awarenesses aware of awarenesses, and that which is beyond awarenesses. And, this is at the very depths of ones personality.

And, free from predetermined conceptualizations, in deepest insight of this most basic “level” of personality, I have realized that as awarenesses are aware of awarenesses, some awarenesses harmonize with other awarenesses. And, in a manner, that harmonizing gives rise to a sort of association amongst them.

However, since all is interconnected to everything, awarenesses are “continuously” aware of further awarenesses. They are in a dynamic process, always connecting with more awarenesses, as awareness leads to more awareness. (Their “connections” are also unlimited, because there is no end to awareness being further and further aware.)

This association, which has emerged as the harmony developing amongst awarenesses, is also dynamic and unlimited. Here again, since all is interconnected to everything, and awareness is “continuously” aware of further awarenesses, the association is always changing as awareness leads to more awareness. (And, it too is unlimited, because there is no end to awareness being further and further aware.)

This association is not the same as the awarenesses from which it springs. And, it is not independent from those awarenesses, because it relies on those awarenesses as its innermost beingness. And, this association is not separate from the awarenesses, for the same reasons.

This association, or harmony, can grow and develop into more complex associations. And with the appropriate complexity, this association can become what we would call a human being. And yet, at its bases it is still the interacting awarenesses from which the harmony of association has emerged. And so, personality is also dynamic and unlimited.

In some ways, I would say that the association that springs from these awarenesses interacting is like a pattern. It can then be recognized. And, because this association is made of awareness, it can be aware of the association, itself.


So, present are both the underlying awarenesses (that are aware of awarenesses), and the association that arose (amongst these awarenesses). So then, where does the true self of the human personality lie?

The true self is not the underlying awarenesses. While the personality has arisen as an association of them, it is not the same as them. However, the true self is not that (arisen) association either.

The true self is actually the realization that occurs when the association, which is aware, realizes its own self. That realization is the true self, recognized in the harmonies of the association from which it has arisen. That realization continues as its own self-recognition. And, it is that self realization, self recognition, that is the true self.

That realization transcends the association itself, and yet it is not independent of it. And, while it is well beyond the underlying awarenesses, it is not disconnected from those same awarenesses. Still, because it is self-realized, it is not dependent upon the association either.

This true self is not established in any way, as it is beyond that which makes up the reality of either side of the one great truth. And yet this same self is not without the participation in either of these two realities, as it realizes itself in the context of the reality that it finds itself within.


It is easy to see that it is the underlying reality that gives rise to the associations that grow to make up that which we call samsara. And, while I have emphasized the awareness of the underlying truth, this is not to say that it is not empty. As for those who would like to call this underlying truth Brahman, or Big Kahuna, or great consciousness, etc, I have no problem with that.

But, I hope it is obvious from my exposition that Buddha nature, the middle way, is neither this underlying thusness, or that which arises from it, nor is it separate from the two. When the true self is realized, then it is realized as neither dependent upon either of these two “extremes”, nor separate from them. Thus self-identity is neither established as existent, as all is empty, nor as non-self, as it is evident.

And, this is where I find that the Buddha Way distinguishes itself from Hinduism. As some have pointed out, Hinduism is concerned with a path that leads to the realization of the one side, Brahman. While Buddhism, as I elaborate it here, is the middle way, where the truth of self-realization leads to refuge in neither one side nor the other; that which we call liberation.

A Second Firmament

"I was wondering. When you sit to go meditate...do you meditate on the idea of "I am a Buddhist meditating"? Or do you go and meditate...experience some selfless freedom...then come out and pick up the idea, "I was just meditating as a Buddhist experiencing a selfless niceness.?"


The way of Buddhism is not about finding a refuge in selflessness. The path of the Buddha’s truth is not about knowing selflessness, or selfness for that matter. If you are enjoying a selfless freedom and are happy there, that is fine with me. I don’t have a problem with that.

However in my own experience of the Buddha way, the truth is that to look for this or that is merely another refuge to fall into, rather than realize the truth of reality that is behind such misconceptions.


"But one must integrate totally that which is beyond form with form and go beyond both form and formless...seeing them as non-dual. In Hinduism...or the path of the Siddha's, liberation is not a formless realization. It's free from both form and formlessness but end's just like it does with Buddha's. Having a perfected realm to hang out in."


In Zen, we have a saying: Not two, not one, not zero.

Nirvana is not a perfected realm to hang out in. It is not a realm at all.

Power Lunch

In the midst of your ramblings do you ever consider that the highest truth is not “Oneness” or “a mass of consciousness”, or that an understanding of Buddhism may not be what Buddhism is about? That Buddhism may in fact be quite different from Hinduism?

Yes, we can see some similarities between the two schools of thought, but in being blinded by one’s own projections one does not see that their distinctions are miles apart in both their fundamental pathways and destinations.

The practice of Buddhism is not the same as the practices of Hinduism, though some may care to think so. The practices of Hinduism are to know the highest truth and in that knowing the devotee then realizes his oneness with the highest truth.

While in the practice of Buddhism the practitioner does not realize his oneness with some “super truth”, but rather lives the highest truth in the life one is engaged in. One is a spiritual destination and the other is a spiritual life.

And while the great Hindu teachers may encourage their disciples to live their physical lives, the truth is that their focus of salvation is upon realizing union with highest truth. These differences make the two systems irrevocably dissimilar in both content and function.

The truth of Buddhism is, in practice, not about ending in some “cosmic oneness”, as you call it. Without knowing this truth you will forever be lost in the depths of trying to join with what you think of as absolute truth, without the advantage of the knowledge of life.

Lost in this absolute oneness, you will never gain your freedom from its depths, as you will not be able to know the way it is without its timelessness. This is why the two paths are fundamentally different and why their goals will never overlap, but be forever dissimilar. Why one is about liberation, while the other is about union.

Gift Wrapping

Likewise, the supreme Reality, which is One,
Appears to be two.

Through Her,
The absolute Void became the primal Person;
And She derived Her existence from Her Lord.

Shiva formed His beloved Himself;
And without Her presence,
No person exists.


There is something missing in this poem. The thing that Buddhism emphasizes is not the no self, nor the self. This poem has nothing of this transcendence: First there is the supreme being, and now we have the no person.

When we look at the implications of these statements, then we see the nature of the two systems. This poem is about “knowing”, this is true, but it does not bring the fullness of the implications of what this means to beinghood.

First we have formless, and no person, then absolute void. But again, there is the shifting to one side and then the other. But, neither side will contain the truth. This is what is lacking.

I suppose that we could pretend, that the truth does not require this examination of selfhood from the implications of dependent origination. Or, that somehow these implications are visible within the words of this poem. But, that would be a fair amount of pretending, which I find unwarranted as this poem stands.

When you begin to see beyond the limitations of an experience of the absolute truth, into what its meaning and implications are toward daily living, then perhaps you will begin to understand the inner depth of the meaning to which to Buddha address himself.

Striking Fire

I practice Tai Chi Chuan. While I am certainly no expert by any means, I have come upon a few interesting pieces of information over the years.

I understand that at one time there was a tradition in China that if a Tai Chi Master hurt an opponent in a fight, the winner would be responsible for bringing the injured loser back to health. This goes right in line with the school where I studied Tai Chi Chuan – many of the advanced students studied acupuncture; the Sifu was a certified acupuncturist and he had a school of acupuncture, as well as the Tai Chi Chuan Academy that the students attended.

In case you’re not familiar with Tai Chi Chuan, it is known as an “internal fighting form”, meaning that one engages the (inner) energy while exploiting a weakness in the opponent. The various movements that you see in the Tai Chi Chuan form are frequently practice movements at striking an opponents energy points (acupuncture points). Ideally, a true Master of Tai Chi Chuan, I imagine, would know exactly where the right point to strike an opponent would be, and with just the right amount of energy in order to inflict the degree of effect intended for the opponent.

There are stories that tell of how one could merely be touched by a Master, and perhaps 2 hours later (unknowing that it was connected with that particular touch) suffer a sudden feeling in an organ.

If I am not mistaken, Shaolin monks studied internal martial arts forms as part of their practices. Perhaps there is a connection to the medical abilities through this avenue.

Portent of the Eagle

The truth is that none of our hands are clean. We all are guilty. We are a part of the culture that breeds corporate oligarchs and the consumers who relish their products. I think that if we lose sight of our complicity then we will become self-righteous. But if we realize that we all play a part in this culture then we can have compassion for those who might be more formidably held in its grip.

For me, Buddhism strikes a nice balance between indulgence and withdrawal. Just as in our practice, we are aware of moments that rise and pass on, acknowledging them and then letting them work themselves away.

So too in the public sphere, it is important to acknowledge wrongs and questionable activities in the public eye. In this way the public is made aware of where their actions are leading, and as a whole our society can debate the issues and realize the consequences as the learning experiences that they are. In this way we know what we are doing, can evaluate the activities against the supposed merits and try new options if necessary.

However if that public scrutiny link is broken, as it seems to be in this culture, then the process I outlined above does not act. If instead we are more informed about entertainments, sports, and celebrities by our media information outlets, then the whole of society loses the real picture of here and now.

In my opinion, the situation has become so lopsided that an honest expose of all our current indebtedness to the wrongs that we ignorantly inflict upon our fellow citizens of the world (and the planet itself) would be too much for our society to bear at once. So perhaps a catharsis will be generated in another way.

Horn of Plenty

"Buddha mind is totally immersed in the state of all things being interbeing and empty of inherent existence in and of themselves so this transcends being the Self of the cosmos because this transcends cosmos and Selfhood. So one is seeing all particulars from the standpoint of essential nature as well as conventional nature at the same time."


Yes, this is the “fun” part, but I would say that it’s a little more “subtle” than that. When you flip-flop into that which you might call cosmos, that’s when you realize that the self is neither these awarenesses, that realize themselves in ever more awareness.

Nor the dimensionless that expresses itself as “cosmos,” all thus.

That’s when you realize the truth of self, that in knowing itself, realizing itself, it realizes that it transcends the configuring of awarenesses.

That’s when you realize the truth of self: as the identity, the recognition of itself through the endless “configurationing” of awareness awarenessing, that realizes itself continually.

When the self is realized thus, the whole of reality is not other. The expression of that which is seen as reality.

The Stillness of the Wind

"After realizing emptiness deeply, the fact that everything is a mere illusion, you will start to drop everything, your hopes, fears, anger, desires, thoughts and your memories, because you don't need the thought-mind any longer…."

You also realize that you don’t any longer need to drop everything, hopes, fears, anger, desires, thoughts and your memories.

The wisdom of all that is also in the thusness of this: “human being”.

Thus we honor illusion, and mind.

A Small Day

What I would like to stress first is that these are just my views that I am presenting here. I have not studied the state of Zen in Japan, nor have I been to Japan. But as a practicing Zen Buddhist for over 3 decades I have noticed a few clues emerging. These are what my views are based upon.

Zen, in Japan, is one of the society’s major religions. Just as so many people in this country would identify with being Christian, so do people in Japan identify with being Buddhist. But just what did these people identify with when they thought of themselves as Buddhists? It was not the monk who spent several hours a day practicing on the cushion, just as when we think of being a Christian one does not immediately identify oneself with a monk in his monastery.

When one thinks of being a Christian, frequently it is that one goes to Church and listens to the sermon. Being a Buddhist in that kind of culture does not mean that you are striving to attain enlightenment any more than your average Christian is trying to have a vision of God. In these kinds of cultural situations, one just tries to go along with what the religious leaders tell you to do in order to be a “good” Buddhist (or Christian).

The next point to mention is that the Zen Temples in Japan have been around for hundreds of years. But, even with the most highly enlightened Zen Master, there is no guarantee that the students will also be highly enlightened. And yet when a Zen Master passes on, he names a successor, even among the less enlightened students if need be. While it is true that one could refuse to name a successor, who would choose to forsake ones students so, or choose to end the line of linage there. Such are the ways of people. And such are the ways that good Buddhists are named as Zen Master, even though they not be what one might think of as truly being the ultimate, a Zen Master.

Perhaps more than one Temple might have had a not-so-accomplished student succeeding as Zen Master because the choice of closing the Temple and thus cutting off the lay practitioners would have been a worse choice. So, over the course of time it is easy to see that the quality of Zen teachers could have degraded in some locals. Therefore, some “Zen Masters” may have played a quite necessary functionary role in the community (as the Christian priest plays a role in the Christian community), but it wasn’t necessary for them to be a Buddha to play that role.

I’m not saying that there are no real Zen Masters in Japan, its just that we should not assume that the head of a temple (someone who might be called Zen Master in title) is truly a Zen Master as we commonly would like to think the term means, a fully enlightened personage.

Consider some of these comments made by an American visiting Japan a few years ago:
“All Zen monasteries still practice Zazen at around 4-am and around 6-8pm. This means that most of the Working Japanese people can not participate in that Zazen sitting periods.” And “Sundays and Sesshin are currently the only times laymen can practice in most places. Some places host one or two meeting a month for sitting Zazen.” And “It is very fine and nice if you want to experience the unique spiritual and cultural atmosphere of the Zen monasteries, but if you want to find true teacher, you must distinguish between Zen priests and Zen teachers. Most of the priests are not Zen teachers. Even if they are the abbots of their temples.”