In a chapter of Zen Buddhism called "Satori, or Enlightenment", D.T. Suzuki remarks, "Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the Zen experience is that it has no personal note in it as is observable in Christian mystic experiences." (p.106) Suzuki is referring to the idea that satori experiences are often direct glimpses of the everyday, rather than having to do with ideas of connecting with a higher being. Being associated with "any ordinary occurrence in one's daily life" (p.1017), Zen does not involve glorifying some idea of connection or a higher being: rather, "Here is nothing painted in high colours, all is grey and extremely unobtrusive and unattractive." (p.107)
Why would such a compassionate philosophy as Buddhism, for instance, uphold the notion of the 'impersonal'? Have people not at times heard the criticism that modern life is impersonal, and people are often treated as numbers? Why would anyone therefore embrace what Suzuki refers to as "impersonal" experience? Like anything related to Zen teachings, Suzuki's remarks seem to require qualification, particularly for those who imagine spiritual experience as intensely ''personal'.
I think that when Suzuki talks about the 'impersonal', he is likely not referring to a kind of 'bureaucratic' or 'soulless' style of impersonal life that we sometimes see in contemporary society. He is not describing 'being treated as a number'. in other words. A more apt explanation might be to describe the 'impersonal' as a release from the bondage of 'the personal.'. And a person can experience that bondage in so many ways. One way is the way in which we frame ourselves and others in terms of narratives of personal expectation and role-play. Because so-and-so seems the 'caring sort', my expectation is that such a person will always care for me, or might always be able to read my emotions. Such a state of thinking 'over-personalizes', without seeing what is truly happening in each moment. Rather than seeing a person truly as they are from moment to moment, I am seeing that person through the lens of my desires and my preferences for them.
Many spiritual teachers describe how people categorize others according to whether they benefit someone, whether they harm or neither. These three tendencies appear to correspond to the three kleshas of desire, hatred and ignorance. This way of being not only makes every experience personal (by projecting my image onto the situation), but it also creates suffering for everyone. This is because, rather than seeing a person as they appear in the present moment, I am always comparing that moment to my previous thought of the person. This fluctuation creates a great deal of turbulence. If I am able to see that these are just projections of my inner desires, I am better able to distance from them and not take them as 'personal.' In fact, perhaps the ultimate impersonal moment occurs when I don't attach a self to any of what is happening. Instead, I see that they are just causes and conditions arising, and I don't see those thoughts as reflections of me at all. At that point, even the notion of 'impersonal' and 'personal' disappear, because there is no dividing line where "I" am and where I am not.
I have found that when I let go of trying to see experiences in terms of personally edifying outcomes, the experience itself is overall more satisfying. It lacks the ease or security of an experience that fulfills a narrow view of who I am, but it still turns out to be more enjoyable than experiences caught up in self and craving.It is at that point the ordinary can intrigue and provide even entry points to mystery.
Suzuki, D. T (1956), Zen Buddhism. New York: Doubleday
No comments:
Post a Comment