To most of us, certainly me included, there’s magic (fake, but often captivating), and then there’s reality (genuine, but often boring). Yet like so many apparent dualisms, there’s good reason to view magical realism as a notion that blends the best of two seeming incompatibilities.
That’s how Zen teacher James Ishmael Ford views things in his book, Zen at the End of Religion: An Introduction for the Curious, the Skeptical, and the Spiritual But Not Religious. I’m almost finished with the book. It’s not among my favorite Zen books, but there’s quite a bit to like about it. My first posts about it were:
The first three of Buddhism’s Four Noble Truths are obvious. The fourth is unappealing.
In Zen, faith, doubt, and energy are all pleasingly natural, not supernatural
Here’s excerpts from one of Ford’s concluding chapters, “Zen as magical realism.” He makes a lot of sense here.
That thing about religions, at least a very big part of it, being about crowd control? Here’s the deal. It is true. It’s also true of Zen Buddhism. You dig around in any religion that’s been here for a while, and it turns out that a big part of its framework is devoted to that social cohesion thing. It’s a critical aspect of a culture. Religion reinforces obedience to the king or the republic or whatever stands as the center of the culture.
…Buddhism, when it came to China, needed to show the emperor and court that it was useful to the state. If it hadn’t, there would be no Chinese Buddhism. And it conformed. Here’s where it can get very interesting, and in China did. Similarly, as Zen came to Japan, it was essential to its acceptance that it found a useful place within society.
And we’re at an interesting moment in the West when our religions are loosening their hold on us. It’s less important that the state, that the formal institutions of our culture, accept it. Decline and chaos open some very interesting doors.
Right now, we can open ourselves in ways that invite us to reengage our traditions.
I’ve seen three principally. One is doubling down the embracing of fundamentalism of various stripes. The other is picking and choosing among the bones for useful bits. Often the word “secular” is attached to these attempts at salvaging practices. In Zen, for example, meditation is tied to brain waves. And success is measured by stress reduction.
But there is a third way. That way of rejecting literalisms of various sorts, but seeing that the tradition invites us to explore the nature of the heart and the healing of the great hurt of our human condition.
…We are always in danger of being philosophers, when what we need are poets and artists. There’s a place for the philosophy of things. A very important place. But as we engage the matter of life and death, as we take up the Zen way, we’re being invited into the place of poetry.
Awakening is always like finding a poem. It touches and transforms.
We want things made concrete, once and for all. When, as it turns out, everything is wildly dynamic, composed of many instances coming together for an instant. And then reconfiguring in new ways. It is nearly impossible to capture such a thing in prose. Although we can get close. And, as the professor noted, poets and artists get even closer to the reality of things.
…We have a terrible tendency to divide our lives between what we can touch and measure and what lives wild in our dreams. That gap is a terrible wound. Here I return to those phrases, “form is emptiness, and emptiness is form,” and “you are not it, but in truth it is you.”
As we live into our Zen lives, as we take up the practices and open ourselves to the mysterious unity of the many parts, things happen. We encounter disruptions of time and space, disruptions of our perceptions of reality. And with those disruptions we discover openings for us into new ways of being.
It’s a call into what I think of as magical realism. Or, if magical realism doesn’t work for you, perhaps like the Norwegian novelist and Nobel laureate, Jon Fosse, call this mystical realism.
The French poet Paul Eluary, as translated by the Canadian Zen poet Peter Levitt, tells us, “There is another world, and it is this one.” That. This. Here in that world, in this world of dream and icon painting, here we find the spiritual within religions.
For me, this is the great gift. What some call an “enchanted secular,” and others the “magical real.” Good terms.
…As a literary phenomenon, magical realism presents the world as clearly and accurately as possible. Realistically. But then there are left turns. Magical elements. The odd confusion between fantasy and reality. Hints of the supernatural, echoes of ancient magic. Just like with Zen.
Zen is magical realism. Its magical realism is finding a larger view of the world. Yes, it realizes what we see and what we think are the tips of several icebergs. It doesn’t ignore the material. It embraces it with abandon. In each breath. With each touch. And there is a deep to the touch. A dazzling darkness in that seeing.
Zen, taken respectfully, taken with abandon and love, taken fully. Zen lived intimately is a way of magical realism. The truth of the poem.
If we want to touch reality, we need to allow reality to be. For human beings, it presents as a wonderful pageant, a tapestry, an icon. A poem. If we allow ourselves to be guided by religion as poetry, as something subtle and dynamic, as something to be experienced, then wonders await.
What is awakening? It is opening our senses, resting in the mystery, and finding the magical real.
Discover more from Church of the Churchless
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Everyone creates their own religion, because they choose what to believe, and make that choice repeatedly. And that reflects their inner state at each time they think about that system of belief or non-belief. They interpret teachings in their own way, and that interpretation changes as they grow, as they change. And so their version of a belief system changes and deepens over time.
Do they have the character of a warrior, or a lover? A builder or a dreamer? A poet or an engineer? A healer, or a destroyer? These qualities in a unique balance within each of us colour how we view spirituality, religion and philosophy. And so they determine what is Christian, what is Zen, what is belief, and what is Atheism within each of us.
What appears the same teaching isn’t. Every one of us is a filter and an inventor, even if in tiny ways.
So make the best of what you are. If you are a lover, you will seek the greatest Lover as your God, and happily surrender all to them. If you are a warrior you will seek falsehood to battle, and weaker minds to subjugate.
It is much more of a personal thing than a cultural thing, though choices do reflect and mould culture.
J. I. Ford: – “Zen is magical realism. Its magical realism is finding a larger view of the world. Yes, it realizes what we see and what we think are the tips of several icebergs. It doesn’t ignore the material. It embraces it with abandon. In each breath. With each touch. And there is a deep to the touch. A dazzling darkness in that seeing.”
Magical Realism – yes, I’m happy with that as long as it sticks to meanings such as remarkable, outstanding, extraordinary, etc.
Ford also says, “If we want to touch reality, we need to allow reality to be. For human beings, it presents as a wonderful pageant, a tapestry, an icon. A poem. If we allow ourselves to be guided by religion as poetry, as something subtle and dynamic, as something to be experienced, then wonders await.”
It all sounds a bit flowery, giving the impression that one is going to have an extraordinary awakening, whereas I understand awakening as being nothing exceptional, just a sudden realisation of things as they are, rather than what we conceive them to be.
Although he does clarify his rendering of awakening at the end of this post: “What is awakening? It is opening our senses, resting in the mystery, and finding the magical real.” But still a little too vague for me, as I feel his terminology can be misinterpreted to be somewhat ‘other-worldly’.
Buddhism is meaningless to me without Buddha and he’s been dead a long time. If you ask me, the first three vows of rssb do enough even without the meditation. But they say it’s in preparation. They all start out teaching the same thing. And I wasn’t going to get initiated before I saw the master in person so I didn’t until I did. And still it’s not built around any personality. That would be a mistake. There will have been three different rssb Masters during my lifetime before it’s over with ; maybe more. How Zen can you get??
Does anyone here actually know what this means?
This: “As we live into our Zen lives, as we take up the practices and open ourselves to the mysterious unity of the many parts, things happen. We encounter disruptions of time and space, disruptions of our perceptions of reality. And with those disruptions we discover openings for us into new ways of being.”
And this: “What is awakening? It is opening our senses, resting in the mystery, and finding the magical real.”
If you do, then maybe you could just state that, clearly and briefly.
That’s just the first step, though. Next we critique it, and either update our understanding with what’s being said, else file it away for further investigation, else reject it.
But we can’t do any of that if we don’t even clearly understand what’s actually being said.
Not a fan of obscurantism, to put it mildly. Let’s not nod our heads in agreement at faux-profundity. If the emperor’s actually buck naked, then let’s not pretend he’s wearing fine silks.
Let’s not be taken in this Zen bullshyttery. Not unless we clearly understand it, and, having understood it, find it reasonable: in which latter case, naturally, it wouldn’t be bullshyttery at all, and we can then learn from it.
The first of these two paragraphs, here’s how I myself parse this: Guy’s saying, when you “live the Zen life”, then you encounter disruptions to your perception of reality.
If that interpretation is correct, then we need to ask: Is this actually true, is this clearly documented? And more: Assuming it is true, then what is happening here, why these disruptions, what’s actually going on here, exactly? And finally: Assuming it is true, then why exactly are we to go to a great deal of trouble in order to seek out these disruptions to our perception of reality, towards what end exactly?
Those are straightforward questions, reasonable questions. Should anyone actually know, then maybe just speak up, clearly.
———-
The second portion I quoted: That needs clearly spelling out. Guy’s doing no one any favor by expressing this in such vague terms, so very vague as to be meaningless. Sounds like obscurantism to me. Nevertheless, if anyone does know what he’s actually saying, then let’s hear it.
That’s what gets my goat with things Zen. Not the Zazen of it, that’s cool (not that I’ve personally praticed it, but in principle I mean to say). What gets on my nerves is their endless obscurantism, their endless hint-hint-wink-wink faux-profundity. I mean, if you’ve anything of substance to convey, then just say it clearly, why don’t you?
Hi AR
You asked
“Does anyone here actually know what this means?
“This: “As we live into our Zen lives, as we take up the practices and open ourselves to the mysterious unity of the many parts, things happen. We encounter disruptions of time and space, disruptions of our perceptions of reality. And with those disruptions we discover openings for us into new ways of being.”
“And this: “What is awakening? It is opening our senses, resting in the mystery, and finding the magical real.”
“If you do, then maybe you could just state that, clearly and briefly.”
1. You are dealing with a poetic mind that sees flowers in the stars..
2. And may actually see the stars in a single grain of sand
3. How to explain an unusual experience in ordinary terms leads to vague metaphors when you are looking for mechanics.
4. Everyone has some extraordinary experiences. But they may not like extraordinary language, which only hurts communication, creates distance because not everyone sees things the same way.
It is ordinary because if it is real, it’s ordinary to reality. It’s only supernatural or extraordinary to those who have had little or no exposure to it.
5. If we are all learning and growing we learn and see amazing news things all the time. They are special. All of reality is wonderful. Maybe we only appreciate it when we see it for the first few times. But maybe even when it becomes ordinary, we can remember to see it as still entirely awesome.
My son likes to tell me “thank you Captain Obvious”
You are welcome.
In other words, Oh look, the emperor’s lovely silks, that none may actually say anything about about, and some won’t stop talking about. With a hint of, I’ve got some silk robes as well.
Anyway, peace, Spence. No sparring intended. If your delusions, and your facade, if these float your boat, then keep at it, by all means.
I don’t much, of late, but thought I’d try now, not sure why.
Sure, thanks for responding, the “You’re welcome”, while premature, isn’t wasted. …Just, this sort of just-throwing-out-a-bunch-of-words isn’t what I was looking for, or wish to engage with.
Hi AR
Face it, AR, people who live in this world think and experience differently than you. And they express themselves differently.
The world must be a rough place for you to navigate, filled with idiots. And it’s your job to tell them?
So sorry.
Give up dualism and accept the world whole as it is. All of equal value. Try it for a day.
That’s part of Zen. Accept, see what is really there and accept it as it is. And yourself as you are, and everyone else as they are. It’s a package deal, giving up dualism.
You might just catch a glimpse of the King’s robe. At least his slippers.
Hi Spence. Apologies if my last comment to you was kind of churlish. I’d asked after all, and you’d answered, per your lights.
Just, I’m done reading the Book of Punishment (that old Anathem reference!).
No offense. …And I really, really haven’t the stomach, any more, for sparring-for-sport. …So let’s just shake, and drop it.
Cheers
Hi AR, nice to hear from you again. As I mentioned in my previous comment, Ford’s language is too vague for me, poetic it may be but, as I said, it stands the risk of being interpreted by some in pseudo-spiritual terms who, confusing what could be a simple message by giving it many different meanings, all dependent on individual subjective experiences.
As for Zen being obscure – well, some of it is. I’d favour more down-to-earth writers on Zen, such as Hagen, Yoko Beck, Toni Packer and even S. Batchelor for a more academic approach to Zen and Buddhism generally.
I know some of the historical Zen/Chan writings do not sit well with our Western minds, though I have learned to see them in the vein of pointing to the practical, everyday sense of things, (including the mind) as being exactly what they are – ‘just this’ to quote a familiar phrase. For example, when the student asks for the teaching, the teacher asks him if he has had his supper, he says yes and is simply told to go wash his bowl. Washing the bowl (or anything else one is experiencing) is the reality of the moment, action without overlaying it with ideas, beliefs and concepts.
That’s my take on Zen, just the reality of the moment. I’m all for ‘poets and artists’, but for a book on Zen, Ford, to my mind, is simply muddying the waters with his unnecessarily poetic and vague take on Zen.
For the Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) fans…
“Bankei was preaching quietly to his followers one day when his talking was interrupted by a priest from another sect. this sect believed in the power of miracles, and thought that salvation came from repeating holy words.
Bankei stopped talking, and asked the priest what he wanted to say.
The priest boasted that the founder of his religion could stand on one bank of the river with a brush in his hand and write a holy name on a piece of paper held by an assistant on the opposite bank of the river. the priest asked, ‘What miracles can you do?’
Bankei replied, ‘Only one. When I am hungry I eat, and when I am thirsty I drink.'”
https://oshofriends.com/zen_story/36315
I count two miracles there.
One more, the miracle of pooping, especially in the dark.
Hi Umami
Good story. But interesting point, he called the ordinary stuff miracles.
If eating, drinking and pooping are miracles, surely there are a lot more, too, seeing, hearing, thinking, moving.. The earth, the stars, joy, you and I, great books, the neighbor’s cute kitty cat. The blue sky and beyond.
All miracles.
Is there any end to them? Just look around. Countless.
Osho did not say there were no miracles. He said you could find them in ordinary things. Discovery. Learning. Which starts with keeping an item mind. No. Building an open mind. The mind isn’t ordinarily open so it doesn’t see.
Extraordinary things are ordinary to reality. Supernatural things aren’t supernatural to reality. To reality they are all ordinary. Just to us, just to those nee to these things.
We don’t see it all
We are on a journey of discovery, to discovery what is just ordinary to reality. And that awakening, that capacity to see the miracle in the ordinary is a miracle.
Everything is ordinary to reality.
So how can we see the miracle in ordinary things?
Look. Listen.
Zen story, Ron. Monk goes to abbot. Asks some questions about Zen. Abbot’s atypical, weird, in that he doesn’t follow the age-old Zen tradition of talking complete nonsense couched in mysterious sounding phrasing, but instead explains what Zen is to monk, briefly and clearly. And, in the space of three minutes, the monk is enlightened.
Haha, great answer, Ron, thanks!! And not just in terms of idle chatter. I believe you’ve clearly explained the entire essence of Zen to me.
The core of Buddhism consists in going beyond mind-concocted suffering by understanding and experiencing anatta. And Zen says that that can be directly effected via distilled mindfulness, via distilled being-in-the-now, as opposed to getting caught up in mental constructs.
Wooh! I’m so glad I asked. That’s the perfect answer, and it …clicked, with me. Yep, that’s what is Zen.
Thanks again Ron!
———-
It’s …monstrous, though, completely inexcusable, the halfwittery that Zen types endlessly peddle. What you just now said, Ron, and what I just now rephrased: what stops the Zen teachers from clearly and briefly explaining this, and then going on to discuss, and teach, the techniques that effect this?
The Zen babble, there is zero call for it. And zero use for it. I’m more sure than ever now that those that resort to such are either charlatans seeking to line their pockets by pretending what they’re teaching is complex and ineffable and impossible to put in words; else they themselves have no clue what Zen actually, at core, is.
(Koans are a separate matter. They’re a specific technique, of use in a specific context. That does not mean one needs to spout mysterious sounding verbiage every time one speaks. The one has nothing to do with the other.)
Poetry’s fine, and I yield to none in my appreciation of it. But show me a “wise man” whose “wisdom” consists in spouting deep sounding poetic flourishes and nothing else, and I’ll show you either a charlatan or an ignorant fool.
———-
That said, Zen itself? As opposed to the charlatans that live off of pretending it’s this deep mysterious ineffable thing? That’s solid.
As you’ve so beautifully and clearly explained just now! Again, I’m super glad I asked!
———-
And finally, a tangent, if I may?
East and West has nothing to do with it. There’s no dearth of clarity in the East, starting with the Buddha himself, and moving on to some of the Upanishads, and a great deal more. And nor is there any dearth, even today, of fools in the West that literally believe the jaw droppingly oafish Christian/Abrahamic halfwittery. …And, I mean, Trump and MAGA? Not so much the orange ogre himself, but the fools that are taken in by his transparent nonsense? That’s firmly “Western” too.
It isn’t about West and East. It’s about those that value and seek and aim for clarity, and those that wallow in obscurantism and incoherence. There’s both types, aplenty, in both geographies.
(Just an incidental tangent, is all, that last.)