More Meditations

MORE MEDITATIONS
Avi Sion, Ph. D.

 AVI SION, 2008-9.
PROTECTED BY INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT CONVENTIONS.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
NO PART OF THIS BOOK MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER
WHATSOEVER, OR STORED IN A RETRIEVAL SYSTEM OR TRANSMITTED,
WITHOUT EXPRESS PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR-PUBLISHER,
EXCEPT IN CASE OF BRIEF QUOTATIONS WITH DUE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
Published 2008-9.
By Avi Sion in Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
More Meditations is a sequel to the author’s earlier work,

Meditations. It proposes additional practical methods and
theoretical insights relating to meditation and Buddhism.
It also discusses certain often glossed over issues relating to
Buddhism – notably, historicity, idolatry, messianism,
importation to the West.
This book is drawn from the author’s larger work Logical

and Spiritual Reflections.
Contents
1. Go directly and keep going 7

2. Breath and thought awareness 13
3. Self awareness 19
4. Meditation on the self 23
5. Various remarks on meditation 29
6. Mental health 41
7. Behold the mind 47
8. Four foundations and core practice 57
9. Transcending suffering and karma 63
10. Behold the soul 69
11. The Buddhist no-soul theory 75
12. Buddhist historicity 87
13. About Buddhist idolatry 93
14. Buddhist messianism 101
15. Assimilating Buddhism 107
Addenda 111
Supplements 123
References 139
GO DIRECTLY AND KEEP GOING 7
1. Go directly and keep going
After preparing the environment for meditation so you will

not be distracted, you sit down comfortably. As soon as you
do so, remind yourself why you are doing so: your purpose is
to meditate for the next hour (or whatever time you have
decided) – not to dream or think of various things, not to
fantasy, reflect, decide, plan or calculate. Remind yourself
that meditation requires a sustained effort of attention; it is
not an opportunity for letting your mind wander busily or
lazily in all directions, or doze off.
I find this introductory resolve against mental agitation and
dullness saves a lot of time, maximizing the time spent in
actual meditation. If you resolve this from the start, it is
relatively easy to keep it going.
Now, go directly to the contemplative mode. In principle,
there is no need to resort to various artifices to connect with
the mode of consciousness we seek. If we practice meditation
regularly, and remain true to it in our everyday life, then as
8 MORE MEDITATIONS
soon as we sit we can reconnect with the higher form of

awareness we previously attained. The meditation then
consists simply in sustaining that way of looking at things for
the maximum amount of time. It is very difficult to describe
in words the experience here referred to; you recognize it
when you encounter it.
However, if your attention starts to lose energy and wander,
or you find yourself at all mentally and/or physically restless
or tired, you must for a while make use of some appropriate
technique to focus your attention again. Certainly do not use
such difficulties as an excuse to put off or stop meditating –
but tell yourself that the difficulties are evidence of just how
much you need to meditate. Redouble your efforts and keep
trying.
If your mind’s wandering is mainly visual – then try focusing
it on some (mental or physical) visual object. If your mind is
mostly absorbed in verbal thoughts – then try reciting some
mantra (mentally or orally). If your body tends to fidget, rest
your awareness in your body, feeling its discomfort or pain
more attentively (without trying to relieve it). Alternatively,
in all such cases, try more general means, such as focusing on
your breathing or on the chakras (energy centers) along your
central nervous system.
Use your judgment to find the best means to return your
consciousness to its highest level. Experiment as necessary –
but also persevere in such experiment, don’t jump nervously
from one technique to another. Remember, techniques are
means, not ends in themselves. If you gaze at a candle, or

recite a long deep “OM”, or watch your breath in your
nostrils and abdomen – the phenomenon that you focus on is
of no great interest per se. It is just a way for you to avoid
distractions and get to concentrate on your true object of
meditation – which is the contemplative mode itself.
If I meditatively stare at a wall or concentrate on a sound, it is
not because I expect to find ‘reality’ in that material or
mental object. Such concrete objects are not themselves the
key to the reality sought in meditation. Rather, what happens
after sustaining such effort for some time is that another
mode of consciousness appears, a mode in which particular
objects lose their customary importance. Our concrete
experiences become irrelevant, and the emphasis is rather on
the consciousness itself. It is wide and deep; it is calm and
secure. The self vanishes and the world bubbles on.
Consider seriously the idea that all mental and physical
objects are like a dream or mirage – a projection of images,
sounds and other sensations in space and time. Reality is
what lies behind them, and these illusions act as veils in front
of it. It is as if you are wearing transparent spectacles, in
which images are optically reflected (or electronically
displayed); these images capture your interest and distract
you from seeing beyond or in-between them. According to
this view, just as mental projections veil over physical
objects, so do both mental and physical objects veil over
ultimate reality.
10 MORE MEDITATIONS
Meditation consists effectively in learning how to look

through that interfering curtain; gradually, it becomes more
transparent and we get to see through it. Such meditation is
just attentiveness, avoiding total seduction by appearances,
remaining aware that the apparent may conceal more than it
reveals. Whether sitting or in motion, we are mindful,
watching out for any clue to what all experience really
conceals and reveals.1
Another way to express what I refer to here as “going
directly” is to use the horse and cart metaphor. The Zen
master Nangaku said to Baso: “When a cart does not go,
which do you whip, the cart or the horse?”2 Clinging
indefinitely to physical sensations or perceptions, or to
emotional or mental experiences, is like whipping the cart.
Rather, whip the horse – by tuning in to your intuitive
awareness. This takes you straight to the core of meditation,
relative to which all phenomenal experiences are a mere
sideshow.
Forget the past; forget the future; forget even the present3.
You become aware of a vacuum. Then just sustain that
1
In Kantian terms, we look out for the noumenal behind or
above or beneath the phenomenal.
2
See S. Suzuki, p. 81.
3
This meditation advice echoes the more general advice in
the Dhammapada, v. 348: “Leave the past behind; leave the future
behind; leave the present behind”. See also Bodhidharma (p. 75):
“But sages don’t consider the past. And they don’t worry about the
future. Nor do they cling to the present.” Paramananda (p. 151)
quotes a passage of the Udana in a similar vein, enjoining us not
awareness. Sustaining does not mean clinging to some ideal

outlook on things or experience – but pumping in energy, to
renew moment by moment the meditative effort of increased
consciousness. Sustain the cause, not the effect – for the
effect may vary.
“to add” anything to our experience; the moment we but call the
now “now” (or even just judge it so, wordlessly), we add to it.
12 MORE MEDITATIONS
BREATH AND THOUGHT AWARENESS 13
2. Breath and thought awareness
To meditate is to make a sustained effort to increase one’s

awareness, or at least to prevent it from decreasing from a
certain level; this defines what constitutes meditation. This is
to be distinguished from contemplation, which is steady,
effortless, stable awareness (or increased awareness, in
comparison with some previous state). Contemplation is a
goal of meditation. At some stage, meditation (an effort of
awareness) becomes contemplation (effortless awareness).
There are many ways and means of meditation, of which two
may be mentioned here.
In breath awareness meditation, we make an effort to watch
the breath entering and leaving the body, patiently, without
interfering in its speed or trajectory. Calmly and single-
mindedly, fix your attention on the sensory receptors inside
your nostrils (which are static relative to the movements of
breath); and persevere in this attentiveness for a long time. At
the same time, be mindful (from the inside, if only
14 MORE MEDITATIONS
peripherally) of the rise and fall of your belly with every

incoming and outgoing breath.
Experience one breath at a time. You cannot achieve
mindfulness of breath in a mechanical manner, merely by
initially deciding to watch your breath and then doing so for a
couple of breaths. You cannot just launch breath awareness –
or any other sort of meditation, for that matter – and expect it
to carry on by itself. Your attention will in such case
naturally float away at the first opportunity. Awareness is not
something inertial – it demands effort.
Thus, to sustain your interest in the breath, engage one breath
at a time. At the end of the first in and out breath, remember
to make a new decision and effort to attentively follow the
trajectory of next breath, and so on – one step at a time. This
principle is applicable to all sorts of meditation (e.g. to
walking meditation or to calligraphy). Even when one
reaches the level of free-wheeling contemplation of one’s
breathing, feeling the emptiness within, one has to remain
focused and not take things for granted.
In the words of Zen master Dogen: “the breath that comes in
does not anticipate the breath that goes out”4. You remain
mindful of things as they are, at their own pace. This mental
will (or more precisely, spiritual will5) must be distinguished
4
Dogen, p. 234.
5
Will (or volition) is a function of the self; its source or origin
is not the colloquial “mind” (i.e. the phenomenal domain of
from the effort of breath control, which involves physical will

(on the muscles of the nostrils, the diaphragm or whatever). It
is more akin to the “presence of mind” (or again, more
precisely put: presence of spirit, or spiritual presence) used in
Tai Chi or Yoga6.
If your breath is irregular in some way (whether ragged,
uneven or however uncomfortable), the simplest way to calm
it is to wait for it patiently to do so by itself (as it is bound to
do eventually). If such waiting results in your forgetting to
watch the breath, no matter – when you become aware of
your loss of attention, just return to breath awareness. If you
lack the patience to wait but want to do something about it,
then count the breaths as they occur (whatever their speed
and shape). But abandon words again as soon as possible, for
they are ultimately a hindrance to progress.
In thought awareness meditation, we make an effort to watch
our thoughts come, play out and go. This is again essentially
a spiritual act, a willing of attention – to be distinguished
from the effort of thought control, which involves willing
one’s thoughts to take shape, to go in a certain direction, or to
stop. It takes a lot of practice to get to the point where one
memories, imaginations, thoughts, anticipations, dreams) but the

soul (i.e. the spirit – a non-phenomenal domain of the psyche).
6
In Tai Chi and Yoga, movements are so slow that we get
the time to follow them in great detail mentally. Ideally, one’s
breath should be equally gentle, to facilitate awareness of it.
Similarly, when reciting a mantra, it is wise to utter is slowly (e.g.
one in or out breath per syllable).
16 MORE MEDITATIONS
can sit back and watch one’s thoughts flow without getting
caught up in them and carried away by them; but, although
the brain seems programmed to hinder it, such detachment is
indeed possible.
Thought awareness is facilitated by body awareness, breath
awareness and awareness of one’s surroundings. When
thoughts run wild, you can rein them in more readily if you
increase awareness of the here and now. The thinker is
suspended in a cloud, unaware of his physical existence or
his surrounds: return him to earth. If the thoughts are
overwhelming, ask them only for a little room in a corner of
your mind – a place for monitoring thought. Then slowly
expand this observatory’s portion of the mind.
It would not be quite correct to say that one should just sit
back and watch one’s thoughts, as one watches one’s breath.
Breathing is not expected to stop (but only to calm down),
whereas thoughts ought to eventually stop. Therefore, one
has to use a certain amount of thought control, even while
avoiding crude force. Paradoxically, true thought control is
not possible without thought awareness; you cannot precisely
influence what you are not sufficiently conscious of. That is
to say, to succeed at fine-tuned control, one needs
proportionate attentiveness. Therefore, meditation on thought
is a cunning mélange of awareness and control, in measured
succession, until awareness and control both reach their peak
level.
At that stage, it is possible, not only to instantly stop thought

by an act of will, but to sustain this interdiction for a long
time. Eventually, even this act of will becomes unnecessary
or unconscious, because we come to reside comfortably in
inner stillness and silence. This is not the final goal of
meditation, but merely an intermediate stage. Until now,
thoughts were a distraction from deeper meditation; now, it
becomes possible to contemplate the non-phenomenal self
and its relation to phenomenal experience more precisely.
18 MORE MEDITATIONS
SELF AWARENESS 19
3. Self awareness
The philosophical idea of Monism is of utility to meditation.

When the philosopher proposes that matter, mind and spirit
must eventually be One, he/she does so because this theory
seems like a logical conclusion from all the data of
experience and thought. But for someone engaged in
meditation, this idea has a more practical intent: it informs
him/her that all common distinctions are ultimately
unnecessary to meditation, even artificial impediments to it,
since they disturb the natural rest of the psyche, i.e. they are
psychologically pointless and fatiguing.
In truth, it is more accurate to say that the distinction between
soul and mind-and-body is at first psychologically valuable,
too, in that it allows us to focus on the non-phenomenal soul
alone, while regarding the phenomena of body and mind as
mere distractions relative to that object of meditation. Once
this level has been mastered, and we become adept at
strongly intuiting the self in the midst of mind-body events, it
20 MORE MEDITATIONS
becomes wise to transcend all such separation, and view self-

awareness as a distraction, too.
We may distinguish four senses or levels or types of “self-
awareness” in the course of spiritual development:
a. The lowest form of self-awareness is that of the narcissist.
Here one focuses on aspects of one’s body and mind, of
one’s life and history, etc., that are either pleasing or
displeasing, confusing this “ego” construct with one’s
self. This is a sort of egotistic and egoistic indulgence
devoid of reflection, an unconscious and unintelligent
existence.
b. At a higher level of self-awareness, one begins to look
upon the preceding level with some degree of criticality.
Here, one realizes that one’s behavior thus far has been
stupid and unseemly, and one makes some effort to
improve and correct it. This is a start of spiritual
consciousness, tending towards a more wholesome
understanding of who one is.
c. In a later stage, one realizes the distinction between: the
non-phenomenal soul on the one hand, and the
phenomenal body-mind complex on the other. As this
realization develops, and one dissociates oneself more
and more from the body and mind, and one associates
oneself progressively more with the soul – one’s value
system and behavior patterns are radically changed.
SELF AWARENESS 21
d. But even the latter evolution is not final, because the soul
one identifies with there is the individuated soul, whereas
one has to eventually realize the universal soul; or, as
some prefer to put it, the non-soul (i.e. non-individual
soul). Although the individual soul is already realized to
be non-phenomenal, it is still restrictive in scope; only
when such limits are transcended, one attains true self-
awareness.
For monotheists, this last stage corresponds to full
consciousness of God; for Buddhists, it signifies
enlightenment, realizing the Buddha-mind or emptiness.
Thus, meditation proceeds by broadening and internalizing
consciousness, tending gradually towards a holistic
consciousness and a deep understanding of self.
The problem of identifying with one’s real self could be
viewed as a linguistic problem, to some extent. When you
feel pangs of hunger, do not think “I am hungry” but think
“my body is emitting pangs of hunger”; or when you feel
some emotion, do not think “I am sad (or happy)” but “my
mind is manifesting waves of sadness (or happiness)”.
Likewise, in similar circumstances – use language with
precision, or at least be peripherally aware of the more
accurate description of experience. Avoid bad habits, and do
not confuse linguistic shortcuts with phenomenological
formulations.
22 MORE MEDITATIONS
MEDITATION ON THE SELF 23
4. Meditation on the self
Why (as is evident in the course of meditation) are inner and

outer silence and stillness so difficult to attain? Because
through our imagining visual or auditory phenomena (e.g.
daydreaming or humming a tune), or indulging in emotions
(such as joy and sadness, or physical feelings), or intending
non-phenomenal thoughts (including attitudes, resolutions,
likes and dislikes, and other postures of the will), or thinking
verbal thoughts (mentally or out loud), or engaging in various
bodily actions (in pursuit of sensations or other causes of
mental events) – we are constantly producing mind.
This compulsive production of mental content could be
considered as the main way we generate and perpetuate our
ego (or false self). Without such mental furniture, the ego
effectively disappears, leaving behind a gaping hole. That is,
to even momentarily stop such mental production, achieving
24 MORE MEDITATIONS
silence and stillness, is to come in contact with the

underlying true self7 sought in meditation.
All our inner and outer babbling and restlessness is, in this
perspective, just a pretext to obtain and maintain the
(illusory) comfort and security of having a more substantial
‘self’. The insubstantiality and elusiveness of the true self
seems somewhat frightening to us, and so we work hard
trying to produce a more substantial and manifest expression
or substitute.
Meditation on the (true) self is daring to venture out into the
empty internal space of egolessness. It is the adventure of
inner space travel, more daunting perhaps than outer space
travel.
Rather than dismiss the self on ideological grounds (as some
people do, wishing to seem profound or fashionable), it is
important to meditate on the self. This meditation consists in
observing how we actually regard our self.
The sense of ‘I’ or ‘me’ is perhaps first of all physiological –
consisting of the inner and outer sensations I have of ‘my’
body, including touch sensations, smells, tastes, sounds and
sights. At first, I naïvely associate myself fully with these
sensations. I do not regard them as objects relative to some
more central self; they simply are me. I cannot at first
7
This is often referred to by Buddhists as the non-self, or
more paradoxically still as the non-existent self. But it would be
more accurate to characterize it as the non-phenomenal self, to
distinguish it from the phenomenal self (self in the sense of ego).
conceive of me as someone other than the person associated

with this body, this face, this voice, this way of moving, and
so on. It is only at a later stage, by means of intellectual
reflection, that I can reject that instinctive view as
inadequate. I may for instance argue that a person can lose an
arm or leg, yet still remain the same person.
I may then look for my self within more psychological
aspects of my experience. Most of us attach great importance
to our emotions and valuations; they feel like true
expressions of our deeper self. Our desires and fears, our joys
and anger, and so on, all seem to intimately describe us. Yet,
as we go through life, we may realize that all such self-
expressions are not indispensable; we may change emotions,
appetites and affections, yet still consider we are the same
person somehow.
We may then seek to identify more precisely with our
cognitions and volitions. By cognition, is meant the relation
we have to apparent objects, whatever their status or nature
seem. By volition, is meant the force through which we seem
to determine physical actions (moving arms and legs, making
facial expressions, etc.) and mental actions (imaginations,
thoughts, valuations). But even here, if we reflect
philosophically, we soon realize that although such acts may
be expressions of some deeper self, they cannot be equated to
it, because they noticeably vary in orientation and content.
The effective self must therefore be something more
‘abstract’. But this abstraction cannot be in the way of a
26 MORE MEDITATIONS
concept, for a concept would not suffice to explain how I

know myself to be the author of particular actions at a
given time – a concept can only declare me the occasional
author of kinds of actions. Therefore this abstraction must
be assumed and recognized to be something non-phenomenal
that is directly experienced. Hence, the idea of apperception
or intuition of self.
Once this idea is philosophically understood, as here
explained, one can with an effort of attention, become more
conscious of one’s actual intuitions of self. These intuitions
are generally present in everyday consciousness, but being
very fine they require particular attentiveness. The most
effective way to learn to notice the precise focus of self is in
the course of sitting meditation, when one is maximally calm
and contemplative.
Note well here: our knowledge of the self is direct and
experiential; philosophical analysis only serves to eliminate
inappropriate or incoherent views about the self, which
interfere with our positive intuition of it. We intellectually
disown what cannot logically be the self, so as to open the
door to refined discernment of the self.
Thereafter, meditating on the self more precisely, one will at
first identify it as the Subject of cognitions and the Agent of
volitions (including valuations); this is an individual self. At
a higher or deeper stage, if one perseveres in meditation and
other virtues, one may realize and get to contemplate the
universal self (or so we are taught by many traditions).
On the basis of the preceding insights, I would recommend

the following as an effective meditation on the self8:
Turn your gaze on yourself; with eyes open, with eyes
closed.
Anything phenomenal you see, hear, sense or feel is
not you.
Think, without words: “this is not me”; move on from
it.
What is left? Look for yourself. Do you find anything?
This meditation could be characterized as a ‘method of the
residue’. It consists in eliminating from consideration sensory
or mental experiences that cannot rightly be identified with
the self (since it is non-phenomenal); we are then left only
with the intuitive experience of it. Practice of this technique
increases one’s sensitivity to apperception, teaching us to be
aware of something always present in us to which we usually
pay little attention because we are blinded to it by the more
noticeable phenomenal percepts.
8
This exercise is comparable in effect to the “original face”
koan.
28 MORE MEDITATIONS
VARIOUS REMARKS ON MEDITATION 29
5. Various remarks on meditation
Attention and intention. Cognition may be said to have two

aspects: attention, the experiential, receptive aspect; and
intention, the rational, active aspect. Thus, perception and
intuition are attentive, whereas conception, proposition,
argument and evaluation are intentional. Both of these
cognitive acts involve an effort, i.e. some willpower by the
one cognizing (the Subject); but the volition involved is
different in each case.
The effort of attention is twofold – an effort to cognitively
adhere to some object(s), and an effort to avoid distraction by
other objects or purposes. Thus, this effort has both a positive
component and negative component; its Agent (the Subject)
is in a sort of tension: pushing in one direction and pulling in
an opposite direction. The effort of intention is likewise or
even more complex, involving diverse mental projections and
manipulations, and sundry acts of will and valuation.
30 MORE MEDITATIONS
Meditation tends towards pure cognition – that is to say,

cognition without volition. This means that when we
meditate, we gradually diminish intention and opt for
attention; moreover, our attention slowly becomes effortless,
i.e. we become established in it in the way of a natural place
to be. At that stage, there is no paradoxical tension between
cognition and volition, and we are peaceful observers. This is
called contemplation.
In the context of meditation, everything is merely part of the
scenery. You may feel pain somewhere, or some impatience
may unsettle you, or many thoughts may assail you – but you
remain unaffected. You do not cling to passing sensations,
feelings, imaginings or discourses. You transcend all such
phenomena, and focus on the here and now. You remain
aware and conscious; you maximize such alertness and
mindfulness.
The crux of meditation is presence of mind, or more
accurately put présence d’esprit (presence of spirit). That is
to say, meditation is generating self-awareness; it is being
aware of your self – being fully present as a self (spirit, soul),
while sitting or moving. This does not mean to say being and
doing “self-consciously” (artificially, awkwardly), but is to
be contrasted to being and doing “unconsciously”, i.e.
performing absent-mindedly, without mindfulness.
The nature of mind. An outcome, or the outcome, of

meditation has been described (using Buddhist terms) as
knowing or resting in “the nature of mind”. This somewhat
cryptic phrase seems to mean: “what mind really is”.
Thus, enlightenment is or comes about through lucid
awareness of the mind or mentality as such as it naturally is,
i.e. its essential character whatever changes occur; or it
consists in recovering the natural state of mind, i.e. the
spiritual position or posture in which consciousness is
effortlessly full and optimal.9
The superlative consciousness concerned is moreover
described as the “ground of consciousness” or “pure
consciousness”. By this is meant that it is always present in
the background of or underlying all ordinary consciousness –
only, we must be sufficiently alert to notice it. Meditation is
thus an effort to awaken consciousness to what is already
present, rather than an attempt to produce something absent.
Furthermore, this way of viewing is said to be “non-
dualistic”. As used in Buddhism, the expression “dualistic”
seems to refer to our tendency to oscillate between yes and
no. Some say: “it is”, others contend: “it is not”; today I
think: “it is”, tomorrow I may think: “it is not”. This sort of
fatiguing decision-making seems to aim at finding out the
9
The masters insist that this experience is “nothing special”.
Enlightened mind “is” ordinary mind and vice versa; they should
not be viewed dualistically.
32 MORE MEDITATIONS
truth, i.e. reality – but in fact (according to Buddhists) it

distracts us from what is already evident right under our nose.
Another interpretation of non-dualism is made with reference
to the Subject and object of consciousness. Ordinarily, we
distinguish these three aspects of any event of appearance;
but in enlightenment, we are told, this distinction disappears
and all existence seems like one thing. Subject (i.e. that
which experiences), object (i.e. that which is experienced)
and the consciousness relating them merge together into the
single and unique One. Thus, meditation is often described as
a way to get away from dualistic thinking.
Subject and object as one. Actually, I have experienced

something close to such unification of subject and object in
meditation. What one experiences is not so much the subject
becoming the object or vice versa – it is not an equation of
individual things, as the wording might lead one to think –
but rather the impression that the whole field of one’s
awareness (at that time, ‘here and now’) is a single,
continuous event. In this single field, the sensations of one’s
body (which are powerful components of one’s sense of
separate selfhood) are experienced as being objects just as
any sight or sound one is currently experiencing.
Simultaneously, everything in this field of awareness is
experienced as imbedded in one’s consciousness of it,
including ‘oneself’ (which in this context has no particular
location).
Evidently, in such a state of consciousness, the idea of self

becomes more diffused, or may disappear or even be
forgotten. We no longer feel the ordinary strong attachment
to the bodily sensations and mental impressions; these are all
seen and felt as mere little bubbles of experience in the
unitary field of awareness. All thoughts, worries, pleasures
and the like appear as momentary attention-grabbing events
in the essential unity of experience. Thus, the various
components of the false self lose their weight, and the
apparent self is seen not to be the real self. What we
ordinarily cling to as our self is understood to be an illusory
self with a particular location, not to be confused with the
more all-embracing real self.
With this positive experience in mind, it is easier to
understand seemingly paradoxical statements made by Zen
masters and others, to the effect that the self “both is and is
not” or “neither is nor is not”. The illusory self is indeed
experienced in ordinary consciousness, but in a higher state
of consciousness it is seen not to really be the self, i.e. to be
an illusory appearance. Thus, it is and it is not – it is
phenomenally, but it is not ‘noumenally’. This simply means
that the intuited self is more real than the phenomenal self.
Moreover, the real self cannot properly be said to be or exist,
because it does not exist in the way of a delimited individual
entity, but in a more diffuse manner underlying all
consciousness. However, it cannot be said not to be or exist,
because there is indeed something there that experiences and
wills and values. Thus, it neither is nor is not.
34 MORE MEDITATIONS
Cultivate a sense of wonder. In sitting meditation (zazen or

other ways), we encounter our spirit (or soul), in relation to
mind (at an early level of meditation, when thoughts and
fantasies are still present) and then alone (when mind is
transcended). In moving meditation (such as the kinhin
walking meditation, Tai Chi or Yoga), we experience the
ability of spirit to move matter as well as mind.
One should always reflect on the miracles of consciousness
and will; these powers of ours, however limited in scope,
should never fail or cease to fascinate us. Our spirit is not
divorced from mind and matter, but interacts with them.
Somehow, cognition shows us some things, while volition
allows us to affect some of them.
Through volition, we have some degree of power, not only
over our mind, but also over our body. Volition is a causal
relation between spirit, on the one hand, and the mind and
body complex it animates, on the other (although we
colloquially describe this, imprecisely, as “mind over
matter”).
By cultivating a sense of wonder in regard to our possession
of consciousness and will, we can learn to steady and
concentrate our attention on consciousness and our energy in
will, which efforts are the essence of both sitting meditation
and moving meditation. These are the most direct means to
ever deepening self-understanding, and self-mastery.
We should also be constantly aware of the powers of mind

and matter over our spirit – that is to say, how these domains
may (causatively) affect and/or influence us. Affecting means
something causing, while influence refers to the experience
or idea of something causing. In either case, causation
(determinism) is involved; but in affectation the cause
directly has its effect on us, whereas in influence, the same
cause has its effect on us indirectly, via our awareness of it to
some degree.
We should also in this context note the powers of different
individual souls to affect and influence each other, at least
through the medium of matter and mind (physical force,
verbal discourse, etc.), and possibly even (keeping an open
mind on this issue) more directly, by means of telepathy and
telekinesis.
Meditate instead of thinking. Most of us, most of the time,

use thought as a sort of self-entertainment. We find it hard to
bear idle moments, and use thought as a distraction to furnish
our minds. Many of us regard having a blank mind as a waste
of time, and feel obliged to occupy our minds with thought. If
we are at the toilet, driving a car or waiting in a line, we keep
busy thinking, unable to stay quiet inside. If other people are
around, we may chat with them, engaging as it were in
collective entertainment.
Instead of thus using thought as a pastime or mind-filler, use
meditation. Meditation can occupy you just as well, and at
36 MORE MEDITATIONS
the same do you good. Thus, in everyday life, whatever you

are doing, try and get into the habit of meditation:
consciously feeling you body, watching your breath or your
thoughts, mindfully reciting a mantra or a psalm, etc.
To meditate, one has to remember to meditate; so this effort
of memory is primary. When you sit down to meditate,
always remind yourself that you are sitting down to meditate,
and then keep reminding yourself of that intent when you
find your mind straying. If you sit without such conscious
resolve, it will likely take you much longer to actually begin
meditation.
Practicing meditation even after you get up from your sitting
meditation will greatly improve your next sitting meditation,
and is moreover a major goal of sitting meditation. Here
again, even if you have generally resolved to practice
meditation in everyday life, it won’t happen if you forget
your resolution. Therefore, remind yourself again and again.
Meditation on velleities. Self-knowledge is achieved by

meditatively observing not only our thoughts and actions, but
(more subtly) our velleities in thought and action. Velleity is
starting but unfinished volition. Often, we are unaware of our
own valuations. But we can discover them indirectly through
observation of our velleities.
For instance, I express my desire for a girl I met by clinging
to her image in my mind; or more forcefully, by imagining
myself putting my arm around her and kissing her, and so on

(progressively indulging in more detailed fantasies). This is a
first degree of velleity – in thought. I may thereafter choose
to put these thoughts into action. For example, I may
communicate my desire to the girl by chatting her up and
eventually offering her a light kiss, and observing her
reaction (whether she draws back decisively or lightly kisses
me back). This is velleity in action; it is a tentative
exploration that may end up with a full commitment to the
desire.
During meditation, and in life in general, one should be alert
to such less than explicit mental and physical activities – and
not focus exclusively on the more obvious events.
Meditation as alchemy. We should not, out of a desire to

universalize meditation, forget its ethical aspect, i.e. the fact
that it improves individuals, makes them more virtuous,
orients them to higher values. I have in mind, when saying
this, certain sublime Buddhist teachings, but it is obviously a
more general truth.
 Manifold desires, sexual lust, power lust, greed for
money and belongings, dependencies on people or on
substances, bad habits, compulsions, obsessions, and all
other forms of attachment and “selfishness” are slowly
turned into non-attachment and unselfish helpfulness.
38 MORE MEDITATIONS
 The anger and hatred, the coldness and enmity, which

emerge from the actual or potential frustration of desire,
are gradually replaced by serenity, loving-kindness,
warmth and peacefulness. When one is essentially content
and secure, one is never lacking or afraid, impatient or
short-tempered.
 Ignorance, delusion and foolishness eventually become
enlightenment, liberation and wisdom. The source of
desire and frustration is a fundamental ignorance; it is a
tragic error at the very beginning of our existence, by
which we misapprehend its true nature. We then attach to
the surface of things, and fail to notice their deeper unity,
and thus get sucked into the vortex of samsara.
Meditation is a sort of alchemy, a cauldron wherein gross
materialism is transmuted into spiritual purity and elevation.
Its ultimate purpose is to return us to the nirvana that is our
natural heritage.
Poetry in motion. In the individual practice of a Tai Chi

form, an attitude I find valuable to adopt is that of a wave of
water in motion. I imagine my whole body as a wave of
seawater, swelling, flowing, ebbing, moving back and forth
continuously every which way, twisting and turning,
suspended momentarily then breaking onto the rocks at the
shore, pulling back, sweeping round from another direction,
pounding the rocks again, on and on, without end, never quite
repeating the same move, always sticking close to the rocks,

enveloping them, caressing them, wearing them down.
Nevertheless, all movements should be very slow and
conscious.
When fighting an actual adversary (or many), I do not view
him (or them) as represented by rocks, because rocks are too
still and tough. Rather, I view the opponent as a swimmer in
the sea that I am. I imagine this bad swimmer desperately
trying to stay afloat in the rough sea of my Tai Chi. The
waters surge all about him, drag him down into the depths,
throw him up in the air, turn him this way and that, never
leaving him the time to breathe or rest, till he finally gives up
and thankfully drowns.
This self-image of water in motion is very valuable in Tai
Chi training or combat, because it well induces in us the full
and empty, the continuity, elasticity and reactivity, the
inevitable power, the adhesion, and many other such
characteristics of masterly Tai Chi. In some circumstances,
this water might become even more insubstantial, and we
identify rather with a cloud of smoke – something elusive,
ungraspable.
The Tai Chi master Yang Ch’eng-fu used the same image
when he wrote: “If the ch’i is not blocked it is like the sea
wind which blows up waves and billows. … The whole body
is as one ch’i.”10
10
See Wile, pp. 102-103.
40 MORE MEDITATIONS
Such holistic approach to Tai Chi is greatly enabled by the

regular practice of sitting meditation. The mind must be
empty of distracting thoughts to be capable of assuming such
watery identity; and it must be capable of sustained
concentration to make the image last for an hour or so. The
body must be profoundly calm before it can muster the
energy of a flowing wave, an irresistible tsunami.
Moreover, meditation gives us maximal sensitivity to the
states and intentions of the opponent, so that we can judge his
condition and predict his next moves correctly.
MENTAL HEALTH 41
6. Mental health
Just as our physical health is defined with reference to the

human body, and its various members, organs and systems,
as the optimum condition and function of that body – so in
the case of mental health. Mental health is the optimum
condition and functioning of the psyche.
The psyche, the subject-matter of psychology, is of course a
very large concept. It includes to some extent the body, since
our mental life is largely psychosomatic, and since the body
is the substratum of the so-called mind; especially, our
mental health depends on the healthy condition and
functioning of our nervous system, including the brain and
the sense organs. On a less physical level, the psyche has two
main domains, the spiritual and the mental (in a narrow sense
of the term).
By the spiritual domain, I mean the soul, and by the (narrow)
mind I mean the mental phenomena that occur (as it were)
around the soul. With regard to those mental phenomena,
42 MORE MEDITATIONS
they are perceptible (to various degrees) things or events, like

thoughts, dreams and emotions. They are, strictly speaking,
outside the soul. They can be experienced and manipulated
by the soul, but their existence depends on the nervous
system too; and indeed, sometimes they are entirely products
of the nervous system.
The soul is the true self, that which constitutes a person
within us. The soul may be active or passive relative to
mental phenomena and relative the physical aspects of the
psyche (i.e. the nervous system). The soul itself has three
obvious faculties11 or powers, namely cognition (intuitive,
perceptual, logical and conceptual), volition (our will) and
valuation (our values). The core issue in mental health is the
health of the soul, although the issue is wider than that.
Mental health refers mainly to the correct functioning of the
three faculties of the soul. It has three components,
corresponding to these three faculties. These are of course
closely interrelated, each requiring both the others to
function. Mental health has degrees. The degree of overall
mental health is proportional to the degrees and combinations
of degrees of health in these three areas of human endeavor.
 The faculty of cognition is at its best when it is well
prepared and trained to know the surrounding world and
how to deal with it. That is certainly true and important,
11
The term ‘faculties’ should not be taken to imply that the
soul contains entities or departments – it merely refers to
capabilities to cognize, to will and to value.
MENTAL HEALTH 43
but the main cognitive health issue is self-knowledge.

This is achieved by introspection12 and self-observation in
action. Without a lucid, profound and extensive
knowledge of one’s own inner workings (motives,
desires, fears, emotions, capabilities, etc.) and outer
behavior, one is bound to feel imprisoned or lost in
strange territory.
 The faculty of volition, likewise, has to be maintained for
maximum efficiency in dealing with mental and physical
phenomena. But the essence of health in relation to it is
self-control (in the best sense of the term, not implying
oppression), i.e. getting into the habit of doing what needs
to be done (energy) or not-doing what needs to be
avoided (restraint). This is essential to self-trust and self-
confidence. For it is clear that if one allows oneself to be
at the mercy of every passing fancy, impulse, urge,
obsession, compulsion, bad habit, one will soon
experience great anxiety, for anything might happen
12
Note that ‘introspection’ has a widening circle of meanings.
The deepest level of meaning is the self intuitively aware of itself
(i.e. of the soul), and of its cognitions, volitions and valuations. The
next level is the self aware (perceptually and conceptually) of the
mental phenomena in its mind (in the narrow sense), i.e.
memories, imaginations, verbal thoughts, moods, etc. The third
most superficial level of meaning is awareness (again, perceptual
and conceptual) of its bodily phenomena, i.e. physical sensations,
visceral sentiments, the sights of its body in different postures and
positions, and so forth. All these levels are significant – but in
ethical judgment, it is intuitive introspection that has the most
impact.
44 MORE MEDITATIONS
anytime. Without discipline one becomes one’s own

worst enemy.
 The faculty of valuation is properly used when or insofar
as one’s values are conducive to life, to self-knowledge
and to self-control. This may be called self-value (in the
best sense of the term, not implying egoism or egotism,
selfishness or vanity). Clearly, if one has twisted values,
contradictory values, an inclination to perversion of some
sort, and so forth, one will soon become confused and
ultimately bring about one’s own self-destruction.
Thus, briefly put, the three most spiritual aspects of mental
health are self-knowledge, self-control and self-value. These
are spiritual, because they concern the soul (or spirit or self),
the core of our psyche or mental existence. When the Subject
of cognitions, the Author of volitions and the Valuer of
valuations is appropriately looked after, he or she is healthy
and the rest follows. If the self’s faculties are on the contrary
neglected, the opposite occurs. We may thus speak of
spiritual health – or in the opposite case, of a sick soul.
This is one aspect of mental health, its most intimate aspect.
Of course, mental health does not only refer to how we take
care of our soul, but to the full range of survival conditions
and tasks. We need to improve our general cognitive abilities,
e.g. by studying inductive and deductive logic, by being
attentive, by remaining sober, and so on. Our capabilities of
action will be improved by controlling our diet and our sex
life, by staying physically fit, and so forth.
MENTAL HEALTH 45
In short, without going into details, mental health relates to a

wide range of inner and outer behavior patterns. It is
therefore closely related to what we call ethics, the study of
what is conducive to life. A person who cultivates mental
health gets inner equilibrium and self-respect as reward, and
achieves happiness, or at least basic contentment. Whereas
the opposite person, sentences himself or herself to much
inner conflict and self-contempt, and ends up suffering
considerably.
Moreover, although the primary task of mental hygiene
relates to oneself, this has a strong impact one one’s social
relations. That is to say, a mentally healthy person will
naturally treat other people with respect and consideration,
since that is the way he or she is used to dealing with himself
or herself. On the contrary, a mentally unhealthy person will
have many inter-personal conflicts, and suffer fear, anger,
hatred, and similar negative emotions as a consequence.
Thus, mental health begets both dignity and decency. And
inversely, mental sickness spoils life for self and others.
Mental health is ennobling; mental sickness is debasing.
When one has mental health, the ongoing task is to maintain
it and increase it. When one lacks it, the first task is to obtain
it, i.e. to cure oneself of mental sickness. A very powerful
way to obtain, maintain and improve mental health is
meditation. Through meditation, one gets to really know
oneself, gets to really take charge of oneself, and gets to
46 MORE MEDITATIONS
really see for oneself what is good and what is bad in life,
right and wrong in behavior.
BEHOLD THE MIND 47
7. Behold the mind
Judging by a collection of essays attributed to

Bodhidharma13, the latter’s teaching of Zen meditation was
quite introverted. He keeps stressing the futility of physical
acts and rituals, and stresses the necessity of “beholding the
mind”, to achieve enlightenment/liberation. This message is
repeated throughout the volume in various words. For
instance:
Responding, perceiving, arching your eyebrows,
blinking your eyes, moving your hands and feet, it’s
13
The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma, consisting of four
essays. Like the translator, Red Pine, I assume their author is
indeed Bodhidharma; but who the genial author(s) is/are, is
ultimately not very important: some human being(s) had this
interesting teaching to transmit to us. I notice that D. T. Suzuki, in
his First Series of Essays in Zen Buddhism, (pp. 178), mentions six
(not just four) Bodhidharma essays as quite well-known and
popular in Japan today. While acknowledging the Zen spirit of all
those essays, Suzuki considers only two of them as likely to have
been written by the first patriarch of Zen.
48 MORE MEDITATIONS
all your miraculously aware nature. And this nature

is the mind. And the mind is the buddha… Someone
who sees his own nature finds the Way… is a
buddha.” (P. 29.)
The implication here is that buddhahood (ultimate
realization) is not something far away, like the peak of a high
mountain difficult to climb. It is something close by,
attainable by a mere change of outlook. That is, the
separation between samsara and nirvana is paper-thin: on one
side, you are in samsara, and on the other, in nirvana. In his
words:
Seeing through the mundane and witnessing the
sublime is less than an eye-blink away. Realization is
now. (P. 113.)
The transition is not to be achieved by elaborate external
deeds, but by acute attentiveness. Thus, he states:
People who seek blessings by concentrating on
external works instead of internal cultivation are
attempting the impossible. (P. 95.)
Even so, in view of the ambiguity of the word “mind” the
advice to behold the mind remains somewhat difficult to
understand precisely. For “mind” (to my mind) in the largest
sense includes every aspect of the psyche:
1. The real self (or soul or spirit), which stands as
Subject of all acts of consciousness (i.e. awareness of
any sort) and the Agent of all acts of volition (will)
BEHOLD THE MIND 49
and valuation (valuing or disvaluing anything). This

‘entity’ is without phenomenal characteristics
(“empty” in Buddhist parlance), and so intuited
(apperceived) rather than perceived, note well.
2. The faculties or inner acts of that self – viz.
consciousness, volition and valuation. These
intentional expressions of the real self are also in
themselves devoid of any phenomenal aspects, and so
intuited rather than perceived. Here, we must
carefully distinguish between the fact (or relation) of
consciousness and the content (or object) of
consciousness14, as well as distinguish the Subject
who is conscious from the particular act of
consciousness. And similar distinctions apply to
volition and valuation.
3. The illusory self (or ego), a collection of body and
mind phenomena that the real self habitually
delusively (at least partly delusively) identifies with
itself. This composite ‘entity’ includes a multiplicity
of changing mental phenomena (i.e. mental
projections, memories, imaginations, concepts, verbal
descriptions, emotions) and physical phenomena
(sensations, sense-perceptions, physical feelings), and
is ordinarily confused with the real self. The ego is
14
There is no awareness without content (i.e. object); one is
here aware of another act of awareness whose content is in turn
something else.
50 MORE MEDITATIONS
constantly crystallizing in our mental outlook, if we

do not work hard to oppose this seemingly natural
tendency15.
4. The physical infrastructure of the psyche and its
workings; i.e. the nervous system, including the brain,
spine and nerves, the physiological characteristics of
humans that are involved in sensory, motor and
emotive functions. This is one sense or aspect of the
term “mind” as colloquially used; it is sometimes the
intent of the more specific term “unconscious mind”.
It is appropriate to refer to these physical structures
and events as pertaining to the mind, insofar as they
apparently constitute the interface between the
material and the mental and spiritual domains; the
mind is supported and fed by them and acts on the
body and the world beyond it through them.
Note the difference between the last two of these factors of
the psyche. The third refers to inner phenomena, a private
subjective self-perception (which thereafter may have social
ramifications), whereas the fourth refers to objective
15
Meditation is precisely the most effective tool for
overcoming our built-in tendency to ego formation. Even so, one
may at any moment fall back into old ego habits; for example, the
other day a young woman looked at me in a certain way, and I
found myself flattered and captivated.
BEHOLD THE MIND 51
phenomena (knowable only from the outside, even for the

body’s owner).16
Now, when he recommends our “beholding the mind”
Bodhidharma is obviously not referring to the third aspect of
the psyche, the perceived (phenomenal) aspect; the ego is
(rightly) the bête noire of the Buddhist.
He does sometimes seem to be referring to the fourth aspect
of mind, the mystery of the mind’s wordless power over the
body; for instance, when he states that no deluded person
“understands the movement of his own hands and feet,” or
more explicitly put:
…every movement or state is all your mind. At every
moment, where language can’t go, that’s your mind17.
16
In this regard, it is important not to confuse the latter
‘objectivity’ with an exclusive standard of truth, as do certain
modern “scientists”. Such Behaviorism, advocated under a pretext
of positivism or radical empiricism, is a non-scientific ideological
stance that would more accurately be described as narrow or
extremely materialist. It is epistemologically fallacious, because its
proponents deliberately ignore a major portion of common personal
experience (viz. introspective data), and formulate their theories on
the basis of an arbitrary selection of experiential data (viz. physical
phenomena). Really, what this anti-phenomenological doctrine
signifies is that the convenience of certain low-level laboratory
technicians is to be elevated to the status of a philosophy of mind!
The psychological motive behind this doctrine is an ailment that
afflicts more and more people nowadays: it is a deep personal fear
of introspection – i.e. of confronting the mental and spiritual
aspects of one’s psyche.
52 MORE MEDITATIONS
But mostly, Bodhidharma seems to be referring to either the

first or to the second of the above-listed factors – i.e. to the
intuited (non-phenomenal) aspects of the psyche.
If you can simply concentrate your mind’s inner light
and behold its outer illumination, you’ll dispel the
three poisons and drive away the six thieves once and
for all. And without effort you’ll gain possession of an
infinite number of virtues, perfections and doors to
the truth. (P. 113.)
Sometimes, his emphasis seems to be on the real self; as
when he writes: “No karma can restrain this real body” (p.
21), “Awaken to your original body and mind” (p. 31); “Your
real body has no sensation, etc.” (p. 39), or further
(emphasizing the non-phenomenal nature of the real self):
The buddha is your real body, your original mind.
This mind has no form or characteristics, no cause or
effect, no tendons or bones… But this mind isn’t
outside the material body… Without this mind we
can’t move. The body has no awareness. (P. 43.)
Sometimes, it seems to be on the acts of consciousness, and
the related acts of volition and valuation, of that real self; for
example:
17
P. 23. This makes me think of Tai Chi, which is a
meditation on movement, on the relation between the mind and
physical movement. Similarly in Yoga.
BEHOLD THE MIND 53
Language and behavior, perception and conception

are all functions of the moving mind. All motion is the
mind’s motion. Motion is its function… Even so, the
mind neither moves nor functions, because the
essence of its functioning is emptiness and emptiness
is essentially motionless. (Pp. 43-44.)
All this gives me the idea of a meditation consisting of
‘awareness of awareness’. In this meditation, one focuses on
the one who is aware (oneself) and/or on the fact of
awareness (as distinct from its content). Whatever material or
mental18 phenomenal objects come to our attention, we
simply ignore them and rather pay attention to our being
conscious of them. The objects come and go during the
meditation, but the Subject and consciousness endure and are
focused on persistently.
It may be suggested that the emphasis ought to be on the
awareness rather than on the one aware, for there is a danger
in the latter case that one may get fixated on an ego
representation of self rather than on the real self. Moreover,
my experience is that meditative insight seems to hit a peak
when the impression of self seems to disappear; one seems to
face the surrounding world unburdened by an extraneous
presence. Thus, even if the self is not really absent (since it is
18
In the narrower sense of ‘mind’ – referring to phenomenal
events (memories, imaginations, dreams, verbal thoughts, etc.)
only. Note in passing that the term ‘mind’ colloquially also often
refers to the mindspace, the presumed extension in which mental
phenomena occur.
54 MORE MEDITATIONS
being conscious), it is best to behave as if it does not exist.

For this reason, we should describe this exercise more
narrowly as meditation on awareness.
Be mindful of the miracle of your being aware, or of your
awareness as such, whether directed outward or inward.
Bodhidharma says: “Buddha is Sanskrit for what you call
aware, miraculously aware”19. The sense of wonder when
observing consciousness is, he clearly suggests, essential to
enlightenment20. Cultivate this wonderment. Don’t take
consciousness for granted, making it invisible to itself.
19
Verbatim from the present translation; on p. 29.
20
It is interesting to note in passing how far this viewpoint is
from the view of some Buddhists (more ‘Hinayana’ in outlook,
perhaps) that Enlightenment is the actual extinction of
consciousness (and volition and all other aspects of selfhood). For
Bodhidharma (a ‘Mahayana’ teacher), the purpose of it all is to
reach a summit of consciousness, not unconsciousness. The
difference is perhaps due to a different reading of the twelve
nidanas doctrine (on the chain of causation of samsaric existence).
According to that, the first three causes in the chain are ignorance,
actions and consciousness; these clearly refer respectively to lack
of spiritual understanding, acting in accordance with such
incomprehension, and the narrow and delusive consciousness
emerging from such action. It is not consciousness per se which is
the problem (as some seem to think), but the limited and limiting
consciousness of ordinary existence. The solution is therefore not
the annihilation of consciousness, but its maximal intensification
and expansion. Thus, consciousness as such is not a disvalue, but
a value. (In accord with this divergence in interpretation, the
Hinayana branch tends to regard Emptiness as nothingness,
literally a negative, whereas the Mahayana branch stresses the
positive meaning of it, as the “Buddha-nature” underlying all
things.)
BEHOLD THE MIND 55
Realize the marvel that one thing (you) can see another
(whatever you look at, including yourself). Wow! How can
such a thing be?
At first, such meditation requires effort; but one can
eventually reach an effortless level of concentration that may
be characterized as contemplation. Note well that the true
object of such meditation on awareness itself is not
phenomenal – it has no visual or auditory or tactile or
gustatory or olfactory qualities. It is truly spiritual and purely
immaterial, and is for this reason likened to a transparent
empty space.
Of course, it is not much use to take note of one’s awareness
just momentarily; one has to persevere in that effort for some
time. At the same time, one should beware of making this a
“gaining idea”21, i.e. of letting such effort become a
distraction in itself. One cannot grab hold of results in
meditation, but must proceed gently, with some detachment.
I have personally tried such meditation on awareness
repeatedly lately, and it seems to be an effective way to
discard passing perceptions, fancies and thoughts, and attain
a more dilated and contemplative state of mind. Although I
cannot yet claim to have had the lofty experience of
beholding the mind that Bodhidharma recounts, I have found
it worthwhile.
21
Advice often given in his books by a modern disciple of
Bodhidharma, Shunryu Suzuki.
56 MORE MEDITATIONS
FOUR FOUNDATIONS AND CORE PRACTICE 57
8. The four foundations and the core

practice
In practice, meditation on awareness has to be combined with

four lesser meditations, which serve as takeoff platform and
supporting pillars for the main intent. These four foundations
(as I shall call them) are body awareness, breath awareness,
thought awareness and awareness of surroundings.
At first, concentrate on your body:
 Posture: stable seat, straight back, stretched spine,
chin down, shoulders back and down, open chest,
stomach relaxed out, hands in the “universal mudra”.
 Tonus: relaxed yet alert body, immobile without
stiffness, no tension around lips and eyebrows, or in
neck.
58 MORE MEDITATIONS
 Sensations: touch sensations on skin and inside the

body, physical feelings and psychosomatic emotions,
tastes in mouth, smells in nose, bodily sounds.
Next, become aware of your breathing:
 Let it go at its own pace; don’t interfere with its speed
or trajectory. If you find yourself breathing mostly
through only one nostril, let it be, that’s natural.
 Feel the air go in, follow it as far up your nostrils as it
goes, then follow it down through your nose and out
of it all the way. Again, the next cycle, patiently on
and on.
After a while, notice your thoughts:
 Are you thinking in any way, whether through
memories or imaginations of sights and sounds,
through emotions, through verbal discourse, or
through wordless intentions, decisions, plans, hopes,
fears, and such? Just notice the fact, without
classification or other comment.
 Thoughts may be voluntary, or impersonally
produced by your brain (cerebral). The former require
an effort, while the latter occur spontaneously. You
may legitimately actively think for a while, to give
yourself meditation instructions or learn lessons from
current experience; but know when to stop that, i.e.
stop it as soon as possible. As for involuntary
thoughts (cerebrations), they may carry on as
background noise throughout a meditation session, or

they may calm down eventually; just watch them
without encouraging them or getting upset by them.22
 Allow thoughts to run a bit, but keep them on a short
leash. You don’t want them to take control of you, but
you cannot take control of them in a violent manner.
Rather, let them pop up for a moment, but do not let
them run wild: bring them to heel at the first
opportunity and maintain mastery.
Now, pay attention to external stimuli, the context you are in:
 The sights before you. Ideally, you are facing a wall
or some natural scenery, so that what you see does not
stimulate thoughts, but rather can be used to divert
your attention away from your thoughts. To look out
has a steadying effect. If your eyes get tired (they feel
hot, red), just shut them for a while, and instead look
inwards.
 The sounds around you. Sounds made by your family
or neighbors, mechanical sounds in your home,
sounds of traffic in the city, sounds of water, birds
22
Of course, it helps considerably to have a coherent
lifestyle. In general, one should try to limit one’s sensory inputs to a
minimum. If one lives in very exciting circumstances, one will
naturally be assailed by numerous flashy and noisy thoughts, and
one’s mind will require a lot of work to calm down. For this reason,
many seekers become hermits; it just makes meditation so much
easier! In any case, a serene lifestyle is essential.
60 MORE MEDITATIONS
and insects in the country. Hear them all with equal

attentiveness; they usually disappear eventually. They
too can be used to counterbalance thoughts.
 Other sensations. The breeze or sunshine on your
face, the air temperature, the smells around you, and
so on.
These four meditations are merely foundations for the fifth,
main meditation, which is meditation on awareness,
remember. The four foundations are material or mental23
(perceptual and/or conceptual) meditations, whereas the main
meditation is a purely spiritual (intuitive) one. However,
awareness of awareness is not possible without some prior
awareness of something other than awareness; hence, those
prior meditations. But don’t get stuck in the preparation: do
go on and make the extra effort of meditation on awareness!
Thus, we here propose a meditation program or package. One
begins with the four lower meditations, giving one’s full
attention to each one in turn, and then learning to do them all
in rapid sequence or at once (more or less). Every so often
one returns to each of them in turn: checking one’s posture is
in order, assuring contact with the breath, verifying one is not
involved in runaway thinking, and anchoring oneself in one’s
surrounds.
When one feels ready, one changes gear and begins the
meditation on awareness. This becomes one’s main focus;
23
I use ‘mental’ here again in the narrower sense of the term.
but even so, one remains peripherally conscious of the four

foundations at all times. On average, let us say (without
intending statistical precision) that the main meditation will
take up 60% of one’s attention, while the four lesser
exercises will take up 10% each. Thus, although the
meditation on awareness is the core practice, the four other
meditations ensure one gets to it and stays on course24.
Meditation on awareness is a sophisticated form of
meditation on the here and now. The four foundations center
us in the here and now of body-mind and surroundings, while
the core practice takes us deeper, into the here and now at the
spiritual level. It is introspection par excellence. It is what
Lao-tzu has described as25: “There is no need to run outside
for better seeing… rather abide at the center of your being.”
Note that to be here and now, one should always peripherally
be alert to moments when one is not here and now. Ideally,
one should focus wholly on the here and now. But in
practice, one often swerves away from it, carried off by
passing sensations, emotions and thoughts. Successful
meditation depends on one being quickly aware of such
moments of distraction, when one is no longer focused on the
present tense. As soon as one notices such change in
direction of consciousness, one should gently pull back one’s
24
When thoughts run wild, as often happens, make every
effort to focus on the other three foundations, with the emphasis on
breath awareness. The latter is crucial to steady zazen.
25
According to Bynner’s translation of the Tao Te Ching (v.
47).
62 MORE MEDITATIONS
attention where it belongs. Thus, awareness of the here and

now has two components: a positive one and an equally
important negative one; both are needed to stay the course.
Consciousness of consciousness is experienced as
consciousness within consciousness. That is, one is adding
awareness to awareness, intensifying one’s attention as much
as one can. This practice of mindfulness should be carried
over from sitting meditation to everyday life. Every
sensation, every motion, every intention should be lived with
erect attention, as if one is about to perceive in it the secret of
all existence. This is, I think, what Bodhidharma prescribes in
order that we “behold the mind”.
TRANSCENDING SUFFERING AND KARMA 63
9. Transcending suffering and karma
Bodhidharma makes clear that causes within this world

cannot produce effects outside it; the Absolute can only
conceivably be reached independently of the relative. Thus,
the key to overcoming suffering and its underlying bad karma
is not to be found in external rituals and deeds aimed at merit,
but through an internal change of mind.
He insists that “invoking buddhas, reciting sutras, making
offerings observing precepts, practicing devotions, or doing
good works” are useless; only by “seeing [your buddha-]
nature” can you “attain enlightenment”. As he explains:
If you attain anything at all, it’s conditional, it’s
karmic. It results in retribution [i.e. reward or
punishment]. It turns the Wheel [of karma]… Unless
you see your nature, all this talk about cause and
effect [i.e. acquiring religious merit] is nonsense. (P.
17.)
64 MORE MEDITATIONS
Thus, Zen meditation is not a way to change something, to

annul our bad karma and its consequent suffering, but a way
to awaken us to something that is already ever-present,
something beyond karma, i.e. our “buddha-nature”. This is
liberating, for:
Once a person realizes his original nature, he stops
creating karma (p. 41). That which is truly so, the
indestructible, passionless dharma-self, remains
forever free of the world’s afflictions (p. 93).
It follows that: “The essence of the Way is detachment” (p.
47). In his Outline of Practice26, Bodhidharma describes how
this spiritual path is treaded. He refers to “reason and
practice”. By reason, he means meditations that “turn from
delusion back to reality”; while by practice, he means:
“suffering injustice, adapting to conditions, seeking nothing
and practicing the Dharma” (p. 3)27. All four of these
practices are about detachment, or non-attachment.
26
This essay is also reproduced (differently translated) in
D.T. Suzuki’s First Series of Essays on Zen Buddhism (pp. 180-
183), under the name “Meditation on Four Acts”. Suzuki considers
it probable that this essay was indeed written by the master.
Moreover (pp. 183-186), he shows clearly how it was derived,
sometimes word for word, from the earlier Vajrasamadhi Sutra. But
he goes on to show the novelty in Bodhidharma’s presentation,
which made the latter’s version a specifically Zen document.
27
At first sight these “four all-inclusive practices” seem
intended to parallel the Buddha’s “four noble truths”, viz. the fact of
suffering (i.e. that existence is suffering), the cause of suffering (it
is due to attachment), the cure of suffering (removing the cause,
becoming unattached), and the way to the cure (the prescribed
1. “Suffering injustice”: when you encounter some hardship

that seems unfair to you, tell yourself that somewhere in
your history (it does not matter just where) you must have
deserved it somehow. In this way, you neutralize the
suffering that believing you are being unjustly treated
gives. You transcend the academic and fatiguing issue of
justice or injustice, and remain internally unaffected by
relatively external circumstances.28
2. “Adapting to conditions”: this does not refer to external
adaptations to conditions, but again to an attitude of
willingness to make do with any currently existing
conditions or eventual changes of conditions. In this way,
one is not at the mercy of favorable or unfavorable
circumstances, but remains at all times mentally (i.e.
eightfold noble path). But while the two sets are obviously
associated, they are not identical. The Buddha’s foursome consists
of three descriptive items and one prescriptive item; whereas,
Bodhidharma list is altogether prescriptive (with three negatives
and one positive).
28
Note that I (unlike Bodhidharma) do not believe that
universal justice necessarily exists. I agree however that one
should strive to be as indifferent to the issue of justice as one can,
because to get locked up in such concerns is definitely a spiritual
retardant. Notwithstanding, the pragmatic wisdom of unconcern
with justice for oneself ought not be taken to imply that one should
be indifferent to justice for others. The latter concern would fall
under the fourth heading here, that of “practicing the Dharma”. One
should obviously neither afflict other people with unjust acts, nor
(as far as possible within one’s power) allow third parties to so
afflict them.
66 MORE MEDITATIONS
more precisely, spiritually) prepared for and able to cope

with whatever life dishes out.
3. “Seeking nothing”: is a virtue based on the realization that
you open yourself to negative experiences when you are
dependent on positive experiences. Everything in this
world that appears desirable comes together with other
things that are undesirable. You may for a while find
satisfaction in certain people or possessions; but sooner or
later, these will turn into less pleasant experiences, since
all things are impermanent. All data considered, it is more
pleasant to remain aloof and serene.
4. “Practicing the Dharma”: seems to refer to altruistic
attitudes and acts. But even here, non-attachment is
stressed, in order that egoism or egotism does not result
from them. The aim is to transcend the distinction
between self and other, to work for the good of all.
Thus, these four practices can be described as different forms
of non-attachment. Not getting worked up over one’s
supposed deserts; not preferring this to that, but being well
able to deal with whatever comes; not pursuing sundry
material and social things, thinking foolishly that one will
find happiness by such means; and, on the positive side,
being helpful to others.
Non-attachment saves one and all from suffering. It is
attachment that ties us to karma and causes us to suffer; by
non-attachment we immediately transcend this finite world
and get to live our life from the infinite perspective of our
buddha-nature (i.e. in nirvana). This buddha-nature is, of

course, empty “like space”29.
29
P. 43.
68 MORE MEDITATIONS
BEHOLD THE SOUL 69
10. Behold the soul
Although Bodhidharma, as indicated earlier30, seems at times

to refer to a self in the sense of a soul, we can safely presume
that, as an orthodox Buddhist, he did not literally believe in a
soul. If asked who or what is beholding the mind, he would
probably have answered ‘the mind’. Therefore, when I here
bring up the question of soul again, I do not mean to impute
such belief on him, but merely speak on my own authority as
an ‘independent’ philosopher.
As also earlier indicated, I do agree that it is wise not to
directly meditate on the self in the sense of soul. The reason
being that it is easy for us unenlightened people to confuse
our real self with our illusory self. The illusory self is so
overwhelmingly present to our consciousness that we cannot
easily ignore it. Thus, while hoping to soar meditatively, we
may easily get bogged down in a low level of consciousness!
30
In the first section of the present chapter.
70 MORE MEDITATIONS
For this reason, I suggested that in our attempt to “behold the

mind” we meditate on the fact of our awareness rather than
on the person being aware. This is, I think, valid in the early
stages of the meditation, at least, till we reach a relatively
high level of consciousness.
But since I have reason to believe in the existence of a soul, I
must consider such meditative restraint to be a temporary
“expedient means”, rather than an absolute no-no. It seems
therefore legitimate to now suggest that, once one has
reached a certain degree of peace of mind and meditative
intensity, one may well turn one’s attention on one’s self in
the sense of soul.
This, then, would be a sixth aspect and latest stage of our
proposed meditation on awareness: eventually becoming
aware of oneself being aware. One should do so, not only
because awareness is logically inconceivable without
someone being aware, but also because this true sort of self-
awareness is indeed subtly present in all our exercise of
awareness, in everyday life and during meditation, and ought
therefore to be acknowledged and concentrated upon.
To summarize: Bodhidharma’s advice to “behold the mind”
seems vague and impracticable, in view of the ambiguity of
the term “mind”. Of the various senses of the term, he
probably meant ‘the fact of consciousness’ and/or ‘the one
being conscious’. Granting which, his advice was, more
precisely put, to behold the beholding and/or to behold the
beholder. I suggested, to avoid developing ego, to begin by
BEHOLD THE SOUL 71
the first of these types of awareness, and at a later stage

attempt the second.
The Buddhist idea of a “non-self” (anatman) being at all
aware is, to my mind at least, logically unthinkable. Such so-
called non-self is tacitly reified, even as it is claimed null. To
say we have no real self at the core of our consciousness (and
volitions and valuations) is to imply us to be mere inanimate
objects. To claim that something truly absent may be aware
(and will and value) is to deny that certain objects have such
power(s) specifically, i.e. while other objects lack such
power(s).
To deny that “we” each have a soul, i.e. that we are souls, is
to turn us into mere things, or more extremely, into nothings.
It is then discursively inappropriate to use “we” (or any other
noun or pronoun) – yet those who make such claims continue
to use such language. They either are not aware of the
paradox involved in doing so, or contradiction does not
bother them.
Buddhists claim that at the moment of enlightenment, the self
(i.e. the apparent real self, not to mention the more gross
illusory self) is extinguished. They claim that enlightenment
is, precisely, the occurrence and experience of such
extinction of the self. After that, “one” exists as a non-self
(“in” nirvana), if at all (i.e. not at all, when “one” reaches the
final stage, parinirvana). But such ideas are logically
impossible to defend.
72 MORE MEDITATIONS
For the question arises, how do we know about such

extinction? Not from our own experience, since we have not
yet become enlightened. Therefore, merely by hearsay31. If
so, who told us? Buddhists claim: the Buddha told us (first,
and then perhaps other teachers who attained bodhi). So well
and good – but if upon attaining enlightenment his apparent
(real as well as illusory) self was fully extinguished, then he
was no longer there and could not report anything to us.
If, alternatively, he returned and carried with him the
memory of his enlightenment experience, then he was not
quite extinguished. For, to return, and to speak of some past
experience, implies some sort of continuity, i.e. excludes true
extinction (which logically implies a radical break with
existence). In short, the very idea of an extinction of self
being reported by a witness to us after the fact is paradoxical
and untenable.
The idea of extinction can only be discursively accepted as a
‘third party’ hypothesis, a conceptual projection by some
onlooker, a mere theory or speculation. It cannot consistently
be upheld as a first person account based on direct experience
of actual obliteration. This being the case, the strict Buddhist
31
Hearsay of course has some logical value, but it does not
constitute knowledge in the strictest sense. It serves to confirm a
hypothesis, but cannot definitely prove it. For even if what the
witness says he experienced happens to be absolutely true (in
God’s eyes, say), it does not follow that his sincere belief in it is
logically unassailable; and even if it were, it does not follow that we
(other people) can take his say-so as fact.
BEHOLD THE SOUL 73
idea of a non-self does not withstand logical scrutiny, and

must be firmly rejected. For there is a more consistent
alternative postulate, namely that we each have a soul, that
we are souls.
There has to be a residue of some sort upon enlightenment,
else we would not know about it. This does not however
mean that the residue is an ongoing individual self; it suffices
that the residue be the grand common Self, of which every
individual self is but a tiny spark artificially delineated by
ignorance. When this illusion of separateness collapses,
enlightenment occurs, the individual self disappears but its
underlying universal personhood remains.
To show the logic of this conception of enlightenment, an
analogy can be made with a raindrop falling back into the
ocean. As soon as it plunges into the larger body of water, the
drop effectively disappears as an individual drop. The drop is
immediately ‘one with’ the sea. Even so, it can conceivably,
for a very brief while at least, be retrieved intact.
Similarly, the remnant of spiritual existence can initially
report its enlightenment experience, although ultimately all
its boundaries dissolve and it fully merges with its Source.
That Source we may call God, following our traditions.
Buddhists would call it Buddha-nature, Buddha-mind or
original-mind; Hindus would call it Brahman; and each other
religion has its name(s) for it. The name is not so important, I
think, as what the word is intended to refer to; I am not so
74 MORE MEDITATIONS
concerned with religious traditions as with their underlying

significance.
In truth, when Buddhists pursue liberation from the karmic
world, they do not seek total annihilation, absolute death32.
They rather seek something they call happiness or nirvana. It
is an existence, a ‘higher life’ of some sort, though not one
subject to the suffering of samsara. Nirvana is certainly
something beyond, free of and devoid of all phenomenal
characters and events; but that does not mean it is totally
nothing, a nihilistic non-existence. It is, let us say, a purely
spiritual existence (whatever that means).
Reaching such conclusion, I realize that my thinking on this
subject is closer to ‘high’ Hindu philosophy (such as Advaita
Vedanta) than to Buddhism. I can never accept the “avatar”
idea, so pervasive in Hinduism (as in Christianity), the idea
that God can and does incarnate in human or other forms. For
me, as a rational philosopher, this is a logically untenable
notion; the whole cannot become a part. But many ideas in
Hindu philosophy are indeed profound and reasonable.
32
If so, those who do not believe in rebirth could just commit
suicide and be done with this world, without needing to meditate
and change their behavior.
THE BUDDHIST NO-SOUL THEORY 75
11. The Buddhist no-soul theory
One of the major and distinctive theses of Buddhism is the

theory of “no-soul” – (or anatta in Pali, anatman in Sanskrit).
This is part of a larger thesis that nothing has a real essence,
the individual soul or self being here conceived as a special
case of the concept of essence, i.e. as the essence of a person.
The Buddhist no essences doctrine arose in reaction to a
thesis, labeled “Eternalism”, which was apparently normative
in Indian philosophy at the time, that ‘things’ consist of
eternal, unchanging ‘essences’, substantial and causally
independent entities. Similarly, with regard to the special
case of souls.
The Buddhist no essences doctrine was based on the
assumption that the belief in such “essences”, including in
particular the belief in souls (as the essences of our bodily
and mental existences), is the root cause of our imprisonment
in samsara (i.e. our fundamental ignorance and suffering), so
that its abandonment would put us in nirvana (i.e. enlighten
and liberate us).
76 MORE MEDITATIONS
There has been a theory very similar to Eternalism in

Western philosophy, namely the “Monadology” of Gottfried
Liebniz. This was of course an extremist ontological idea,
due to a simplistic reading of predication as stating that the
predicate is literally “contained in” the subject. That is, that
whatever is predicable of anything must be “part of its
nature”, and therefore inextricably intrinsic and peculiar to it
– so that the world is composed of a multiplicity of eternal
substances each of which is an island onto itself.
Opposite such inaccurate philosophy, the Buddhist counter-
theory would indeed prima facie appear to be a laudable
improvement. But, I submit, the Eternalist theory serves
Buddhism as a convenient philosophical ‘red herring’. It is
surely not the commonsense or scientific worldview (which
are effectively ignored by Buddhism); and the Buddhist
rebuttal constitutes another extremist position (in the opposite
direction), which altogether denies the reality of any essences
by allegedly reducing everything in the world to an infinite
crisscross of mutual dependencies (the co-dependence or
interdependence theory).
Although Buddhists would protest that their thesis is not the
opposite extreme, viz. Nihilism, but a middle way between
those two extremes, it is hard to see how we might
reasonably not judge it as an extreme view. It is true that
there are two, nay three, Buddhist positions in this context.
One, attributed to the Theravada branch, of ultimately a total
void (extinction in meditation); another, attributed to the
mainstream Mahayana branch, of an ultimate original ground

(an underlying universal spiritual substance of sorts, albeit
one piously declared ‘void’ or ‘empty’); and a third, claimed
by Zen adepts, of neither this nor that, i.e. fence-sitting
between the previous two positions (hence, more ‘middle
way’ than them).
Of these three, the said mainstream Mahayana option would
seem the least Nihilistic, in that it admits of some sort of real
existence – viz. the existence of the “original ground”.
Logically, however, this Monist thesis (to which I personally
tend to adhere) should logically be classed as an Eternalist
philosophy of sorts, since the original ground is beyond
impermanence. Impermanent appearances continuously
bubble forth from it, but it is everywhere and ever one and
the same calm fullness. Thus, the other two Buddhist theses,
which are more clearly anti-Eternalist, can reasonably be
viewed as Nihilist rather than middle way.
The commonsense view (to which most of us adhere,
consciously or not) is rather noncommittal on such issues. It
is truly a middle way, without prejudice. It does not draw any
such general conclusions offhand. It neither reduces
everything to independent substances nor reduces everything
to mutually dependent non-substances, but remains open to
there being perhaps a bit of both these extreme scenarios
present in the real world, and other options besides. At a
more scientific level, this common view becomes the “laws
of nature” approach – the idea that there are various degrees
78 MORE MEDITATIONS
of being and forms of dependencies, which (in the physical

domain, at least, and possibly in the mental domain to some
extent) are best expressed through quantitative formulas.
In such ordinary viewpoint, there seems to be some concrete
‘substance(s)’ in the world, but not everything is reducible to
this concept. Furthermore, substantial things need not be
individually permanent, but change is possible from one form
to another. However, Physics does assume as one of its basic
premises a law of conservation of matter and energy – i.e.
that the total quantity of physical substance is constant.
Moreover, that which is impermanent lasts for a while.
Things that exist must exist for some time (some more, some
less) – they cannot logically be so impermanent as to “exist”
for no time at all.
Anyway, the concept of essence is certainly not, in our
commonplace view, equated to that of substance. Essences
are rarely substances, but usually structures or processes that
seem to be generally and exclusively present in the
phenomena at hand, and so are used to define them. Essences
are usually abstractions, i.e. rational insights or concepts,
rather than concrete percepts or objects of perception.
Abstraction claims validity of insight without claiming to be
literally within reality; though it depends on a Subject to
occur, it in principle correctly interprets the Object. One
cannot deny abstraction as such without resorting to
abstractions – so such a skeptical position would be logically
untenable.
In the Buddhist view, in contradistinction, the apparent or

alleged essences of things are conventional, or even purely
nominal, and souls are no exceptions to this rule. By
“conventional” (and all the more so by “nominal”) is here
meant that we, the people who believe in essences or souls,
project this idea onto reality, whereas reality has in fact no
such thing in it. In Buddhist epistemology, people ordinarily
use their mind conventionally (or under the bad influence of
words) in this manner, projecting onto reality things that are
absent in it.
How (we may ask) do we know that reality is not as it
appears to the ordinary mind? We know this, according to
this theory, through enlightened consciousness. Thus,
Buddhist epistemology, while invalidating ordinary
consciousness, affirms the optimistic idea that we can
transcend it and see things as they are. This can, incidentally,
be compared and contrasted to Kantian epistemology, which
likewise claims our phenomenal knowledge to be imperfect,
but distinctively puts the perfection of ‘noumenal’ knowledge
beyond our reach. While this theory of Immanuel Kant’s is
inconsistent with itself, the Buddhist theory is not so in that
respect.
Still, note well the difference between ordinary
‘abstractionism’ and Buddhist conventionalism or
nominalism. For the Buddhists, as in Kant, our minds invent
abstractions without any objective support; whereas in
ordinary rational epistemology, abstraction is an act of
80 MORE MEDITATIONS
rational insight – i.e. it does record something objective,

which is not a pure figment of the imagination.
In addition to the said epistemological explanation or
rationalization of its no-soul thesis, Buddhist philosophers
propose various ontological claims and arguments.
According to them, all things, including apparent souls, lack
essence, because they are impermanent and discontinuous.
They say this can be readily observed, and that in any case it
can be logically argued – as well as being evident to anyone
who is enlightened.
With regard to observation, they claim (much like David
Hume later) to have looked for a soul everywhere within
themselves and never found one. The soul is therefore (to
them) an illusion of conventionally minded people – who are
deluded by their ego (bodily and mental appearances of
selfhood) into believing that there is something (i.e.
someone) at the center of all their experience and thought.
But we must note that this is of course not a pure observation
of an absence of soul, but a generalization from a number of
failures to positively observe a soul. The generalization of
negation could be right, but it does not have quite the same
epistemological status as a positive observation. There is
nothing empirically or logically necessary about the no-soul
claim. At least, not from the point of view of an
unenlightened person; and it is hard to see how an
enlightened person could avoid equal reliance on
generalization.
Moreover, we can fault their inference and larger argument

by pointing out that it is absurd to look for the soul in the
phenomenal realm (i.e. with reference to perceived sensible
qualities, like sights, sounds, odors, savors, tactile feelings,
whether mental or physical), if the soul happens to be a non-
phenomenal entity (something intuited, which has in itself no
phenomenal aspects).
It is worth additionally clarifying that, though our soul is a
non-material, spiritual substance at the center of a multitude
of mental and physical phenomena, it is not their “essence”
or defining character. Our soul is “us”, our self – the subject
of our cognitions and agent of our volitions and valuations. It
is an intellectual error to try and identify us with things that
are only associated with us. We are not one with or part of
our minds and/or bodies, but something beyond them, though
in their midst, cognizing and interacting with them in various
ways.
With regard to impermanence, Buddhists apparently consider
that, since our soul always has an apparent beginning (our
birth) and end (our death), it is necessarily illusory. In their
view – reflecting the general assumption, it seems, of ancient
Indian philosophy, what is temporary (or passing) is
necessarily illusory; only the permanent (or eternal) is real.
Moreover, in their view, nothing is eternal – by which they
mean, surely, that nothing phenomenal is eternal; for they
certainly believe in the eternity of enlightenment or of the
underlying “nature of mind” or “ground of all being” – even
82 MORE MEDITATIONS
if they affirm this universal substratum to be ultimately

“empty”.
But this viewpoint can be contested. To be real is to be a fact,
i.e. to occur or have occurred. How long or short this fact is
or was or will be is surely irrelevant to its status as a fact. An
illusion is something that is or was thought to be but is not or
was not. To identify reality with eternity and illusion with
impermanence is to confuse two separate issues. I have never
come across a convincing argument why such equations
ought to be made. Surely, one can imagine eternal illusions
and transient realities. Thus, we should consider that the issue
of the soul’s persistence, i.e. whether the soul is eternal or as
short-lived as the body and mind evidently are, has nothing to
do with its reality or illusion.
The Buddhist argument against the soul also appeals to the
general idea of discontinuity, i.e. the idea that everything
changes all the time, and so nothing can ever be pointed to as
“one and the same thing” from one moment to the next. This
idea is presented as an observation – but it is clearly a mere
hypothesis, an abstraction extrapolated from an observation.
Given the observed fact of change, one can equally well
suppose that some sort of continuity underlies pairs of
moments. Since all we actually experience are the successive
moments, the issue as to whether some residue of each
moment is to be found in the next is open to debate. Thus, to
speak of discontinuity is already to assume something beyond
observation.
Furthermore, even given a seeming discontinuity, we cannot

draw a definite conclusion that there really is discontinuity –
let alone that this is true in all cases. Discontinuity is an
abstraction from experience; it is not a pure object of
experience. Additionally, the concept of universal
discontinuity remains always somewhat open to doubt,
because it is an inductive assumption – at best, a mere
generalization. Moreover, the internal consistency of this
concept is unsure, since it implies a permanence of
discontinuity across time. That is, if we regard abstraction as
necessarily implying some sort of continuity (whether of the
object or of the subject), the concept of discontinuity is self-
contradictory when taken to an extreme.
This insight is especially pertinent in the case of the soul,
which is here both subject and object. We could not possibly
claim to know for a fact that the soul is discontinuous (i.e. a
succession of discrete momentary souls), because such a
statement claims for the soul to the ability to transcend
discontinuity sufficiently to see that the soul is discontinuous.
That is to say, to make such a claim, the soul (as subject)
must be present in the time straddling two or more of its
alleged merely momentary instances or segments (i.e. the
soul as object). This is clearly a self-contradiction. Thus, the
Buddhist argument in favor of the thesis that the soul is non-
existent does not survive serious logical scrutiny.
Another Buddhist claim regarding the soul is that it is subject
to “dependent origination” or “conditioning” – i.e. that its
84 MORE MEDITATIONS
actual existence, as a unit of being, as a fact – is impossible

in isolation, is only possible in relation to all other things
(which are themselves similarly interdependent). However,
this theory – that everything in the universe could only exist
in the presence of everything else in the universe, and that a
smaller universe (holding just one of those things, or some
but not all of them) is inconceivable – is just a speculation; it
is not proved in any way.
Moreover, we could again ask whether this theory is
consistent with itself. If it is, like all sublunary things,
something dependent or conditioned – and it surely is so,
notably with reference to human experience and thought –
how can it be claimed as a universal and eternal truth? Any
claim that the relative is absolute seems paradoxical and open
to doubt. There has to be something absolute to anchor the
relative on. To claim everything dependent on everything
else and vice versa is still to claim this big soup of
interdependent things to be an independent thing. And if this
in turn is not an irreducible fact, something else must be.
There is no way to be an absolute relativist!
The belief that something can be “both A and not-A”, or
“neither A nor not-A”, seems to be the essence of all
mysticism (in the pejorative sense). The claim to make no
claim is itself a claim – there is no escape from this logic. To
claim that everything is illusory is to claim this as a fact – i.e.
as something that is not illusory. To claim there is nothing,
no person, at the core of our being might seem superficially
at first sight logically possible, i.e. not self-contradictory –

until we ask just who is making the claim and to whom it is
addressed. Inanimate objects are not concerned with such
issues. A non-self can neither be deluded nor realize its
delusion. Any occurrence of cognition, valuation or volition
implies a self.
86 MORE MEDITATIONS
BUDDHIST HISTORICITY 87
12. Buddhist historicity
Buddhism emerged in northeast India about 6th or 5th Cent.

BCE. It did not, of course, emerge in a cultural vacuum. India
already had a rich religious culture, based on the Vedas and
Upanishads, which gave rise to other religions, notably the
Hindu.
It seems to be historical fact that Buddhism was founded by a
man called Siddhartha Gautama, though historians disagree
as to the exact dates of his life; most of them, in India and the
West, suggest he lived in 563-483 BCE, others, in Japan,
suggest 448-368 BCE.33
Whatever the case, it seems reasonable to assume that
Buddhism began with this single man’s teachings, and over
time expanded and evolved. It does not follow, of course, that
all the stories that have come down to us concerning him are
33
According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
88 MORE MEDITATIONS
historically true, nor that all statements made in his name

were indeed made or implied by him.34
More significant philosophically is the issue as to whether
this man’s claim of “complete enlightenment and liberation”
is true or not. No historian can ever answer that question. It is
not inconceivable that such a metaphysical experience and
event is humanly possible, but it would be hard to prove or
disprove it. The one claiming such “Buddha” status can only
be truly understood and justified by another person with the
same privilege; and all others can only take it on faith, or
refuse to do so.
It is as with any witness – the witness was there and saw and
heard what he claims; but others, who were not present, have
still to decide whether or not to believe his say-so. His
testimony supports but does not definitively prove the
hypothesis. We have to take into consideration the
possibilities that he misunderstood or deluded himself, or
exaggerated or lied to impress or manipulate others, or that
reports concerning him were or have become distorted. These
things do happen, even today; and in olden days, the
boundary between fact and fiction was perhaps more tenuous
still.
34
The following illustrates of the inaccuracy of transmission
of information by tradition: Dogen writes at one point (p. 242): “It
has been twenty-two hundred years since the Buddha’s pari-
nirvana”; assuming this is not an error of translation or a
typographical error, and considering this text was written in 1246
CE, Dogen was mistaken by some 500 years!
Notwithstanding the speculative presuppositions, it seems

fair for us to still conventionally call this man the “Buddha”
(meaning the enlightened one). Insofar as the doctrine of
Buddhism depends on faith in certain metaphysical
possibilities, it must be regarded as a religion. Even so, it
includes some very philosophical insights and discussions,
and so may also be regarded as a philosophy.
This philosophical tradition is very broad and varied, and
subject to very divergent interpretations. I do not claim to
know more than a small fraction of this field of study, but
nevertheless feel justified in sharing my reflections
concerning the little I do know. For a start, this could be
viewed as a record of one man’s gradual assimilation or
rejection of Buddhist ideas. But moreover, I feel impelled to
comment by virtue of the original and extensive logical tools
I bring to bear.
I have sometimes been criticized concerning my
criticism of Nagarjuna’s philosophy, through
arguments that I did not exactly represent it. But my
answer is always this: though I cannot vouch that my
arguments are perfectly applicable to Nagarjuna’s
philosophy as it really is, I stand by my arguments
with regard to their applicability to the ideas I
presented under the label of ‘Nagarjuna’s
philosophy’. From a philosophical point of view, my
arguments are interesting and valid, even if from a
90 MORE MEDITATIONS
historical viewpoint some issues may be left open. In

any event, historians have varying interpretations, too.
Philosophy is concerned with ideas, and the issue of
who precisely proposed them and when exactly is not
so important. A philosopher (X) may represent,
analyze and criticize an idea, without having to be
absolutely accurate as to whether his formulation of
the idea is exactly identical to its original formulation
by some historical person (Y). So long as we
understand that it is the idea as here and now
represented that is being considered and discussed,
the account given is philosophically respectable.
Historians may debate whether X’s account
corresponds exactly to Y’s initial idea, and to what
extent X’s discussion is relevant to Y’s philosophy,
but this is historical debate, not philosophy.
Concerning the credibility of Buddhism, we may also ask
questions from the specific point of view of Judaism (and its
derivative religions: Christianity, Islam and their derivatives
in turn). A crucial question would be: if the claim of
Buddhism to enlightenment and liberation is true, how come
such a major human breakthrough to spirituality was never
predicted or mentioned in the Jewish Bible and later books?
Another question would be: if the Buddha went so high, how
come he did not meet or mention meeting God?
These are of course questions for those who choose to adhere
to Jewish (or Christian or Moslem) beliefs, for the Buddhist
would simply regard the failure of the Judaic traditions to

foresee or notice the Buddha’s attainment, or the failure of
the Buddha to acknowledge God, as a problem of theirs and
not of his.
Personally, I prefer to keep an open mind in both directions,
and emphasize the positive teachings on both sides, rather
than stress conflicts between West and East. It is a historical
fact that different segments of humanity have evolved
spiritually in different ways – and that may well be God’s
will. Our evolutions are still ongoing, and we may yet all
come to an agreement. We can surely learn from and enrich
each other, and the current historical phase of globalization
can profit us all spiritually.
92 MORE MEDITATIONS
ABOUT BUDDHIST IDOLATRY 93
13. About Buddhist idolatry
I am comforted in my conviction that Buddhism is not

originally and intrinsically idolatrous35 after reading some of
Mu Soeng’s historical comments, like the following.
35
Note that my use of this epithet is not intended to
disparage Buddhism as a whole or Buddhists in general. My
concern over “idolatry” is of course an expression of my Jewish
roots and values (starting with the first two of the Ten
Commandments). I admit frankly that I find such behavior patterns
silly and extraneous. Nevertheless, I also have great respect and
admiration for the more essential Buddhist beliefs and practices.
When I read the stories or writings of past Buddhist teachers, I am
readily convinced they are great souls, deeply moral and profound
in their spiritual achievements. Moreover, my opposition to idolatry
does not prevent me from appreciating the artistic value of
Buddhist statuary and temples, some of which (notably, Angkor) I
have visited. Perhaps, then, we should say that Buddhism (like
Christianity) merits respect in spite of the forms of idolatry
(deification of people and worship directed at statues) that have
become attached to it. Certainly, Jews at least should always
remain vigilant and be careful not to get drawn into anything
suggestive of idolatry.
94 MORE MEDITATIONS
For the Sthaviras, the Buddha Shakyamuni was a

historical personage—a great teacher but not a
divinity. The Mahayanists, however, saw the Buddha
as a transcendental principle rather than a mere
individual in the phenomenal world. (P. 19.)
This confirms that the deification of this flesh and blood
teacher is a late event in Buddhist history – occurring a few
hundred years after the fact. It should be pointed out and
emphasized that such deification was logically in
contradiction to the essential message of Siddhartha Gautama
(the founder of Buddhism).
Why? Because the message of this teacher was that he, a
mere human being, was able to transcend samsara (the
domain of karma) and attain nirvana (the domain of
freedom). If it turns out that this apparent man was in fact not
a man at all, but a “god” intending or predestined to save
mankind, then the practical demonstration of the possibility
for humans of liberation from the wheel of birth and death
would not have been made!
If, as later Buddhists depicted him, he was a god, then his
essential existential condition was not comparable to that of a
man, and it could well be argued that his achievement could
not be replicated by other men. The whole point of his story
is that an ordinary human being can by his own intelligence
and effort, even without the supervision of an accomplished
teacher36, develop understanding and overcome all suffering

forever. To change that story is to miss the point.
Some, of course, would argue that, though he was not a god
incarnate at birth, he became “divine” upon attaining
buddhahood, and more so at the end of his life (when he
entered parinirvana). This scenario was also, however, a later
interpretation of events, motivated by devotionalism.
…the rise of devotionalism in Mahayana. …around
the time of the beginning of the common era, in north-
western India, under Greek and Mediterranean
influences, Buddha statues were sculpted for the first
time. In early Buddhism, as in the contemporaneous
Upanishad literature, we find that the idea of a
personality cult was frowned upon. In ancient India
the veneration of a holy person took the form of
worshipping a memorial shrine (stupa) rather than a
physical image. (P. 91.)
Originally, Buddhism was not a religion of devotion, but of
morality and meditation. It did not consist in worship of the
Buddha (as a god or later still as God), or of a multitude of
Buddhas, but in following his example (as a successful
spiritual explorer and teacher). Moreover, the adoration of
36
See the Dhammapada, v. 353: “I myself found the way.
Whom shall I call Teacher?” The author (i.e. the Buddha,
presumably) adds: “Whom shall I teach” – suggesting this
attainment is not something that can simply be taught, like
mathematics or English.
96 MORE MEDITATIONS
statues (as a specific form of devotion) representing the

Buddha and other figures in the Buddhist pantheon was, it
seems, a possibly separate and still later phenomenon.
It may be, as the above quotation suggests, that idolatry was
not a religious behavior pattern indigenous to India, but one
imported from the West. One might have assumed idolatry to
have been an older cultural habit in India (in view of its
ubiquity there today), but historians have apparently37 not
found evidence in support of such a hypothesis. However, it
remains true that in regions of Asia farther north and east,
Hindu or other forms of idolatry may have preceded the
arrival of Buddhism, and that Buddhism merely
accommodated them.
In this regard, we must probably distinguish the geographical
movements of Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism.
Mahayana Buddhism, being itself relatively more idolatrous
from its inception, would merge more readily with
preexisting local idolatries; whereas, Theravada Buddhism,
although relatively less idolatrous originally, would rather
begin by tolerating the local customs it encountered, by
37
According to Mu Soeng’s account. Note that in my
Buddhist Illogic, chapter 10, I assumed that the worship of statues
in India antedated the advent of Buddhism. In any case, idolatry is
a wide concept not limited to the worship of statues. It includes all
forms of polytheistic worship, and even the idea of an incarnation
of a unique God. In this sense, at least, the religious culture of
India (viz. Vedism) that preceded Buddhism was certainly
idolatrous.
considering them as among the human foibles that it had to

deal with to gradually effect liberation.
Here, we can quote Stephen Batchelor38 with regard to Tibet
in the ninth century, to illustrate the movement and
adaptation of Buddhism:
Padmasambhava’s presentation of Buddhism through
the medium of tantric deities and forces struck a very
sympathetic and receptive chord within the minds of
the Tibetans. The subsequent widespread popularity
of tantric practice can probably be attributed to the
innate spiritual disposition of the Tibetans to respond
more readily to religious truths that are embodied
and personified. In this way the teachings of
Buddhism came alive for the Tibetans and ceased to
be mere abstract ideas and doctrines. (P. 48.)
Each people or culture, at a given time in history, has its
particular spiritual predispositions. These will somewhat
determine what they will accept in the way of imports, and
how they will interpret it, and what they will disregard or
reject. This too can be illustrated with reference to Tibet.
Thus, Batchelor writes:
The Tibetans seem to have been entirely unaffected by
the teachings of … the two great doctrinal traditions
which flourished across the border in China. Neither
were they aware of the commentarial tradition …
38
In his Introduction.
98 MORE MEDITATIONS
prevalent in the Theravada schools of Sri Lanka and

South-East Asia. Yet the most remarkable instance of
the Tibetans’ resistance to other forms of Buddhism is
found in their reaction to the attempted introduction
of the Ch’an (Zen) school from China during the
eighth century. (P. 64.)
The above criticism of Mahayana has perhaps an exception in
the case of Ch’an (Zen) Buddhism. Although the modern Zen
meditation centers I have seen all had statues of the Buddha
on display, the philosophy of Zen is essentially non-
devotional or even anti-devotional. This can be textually
confirmed, for instance by the following extract from the
Bloodstream Sermon traditionally attributed to
Bodhidharma :39
But deluded people don’t realize that their own mind

is the buddha. They keep searching outside. They
never stop invoking buddhas or worshipping
buddhas… Don’t indulge in such illusions… Even if a
buddha or bodhisattva should suddenly appear before
you, there’s no need for reverence. This mind of ours
is empty and contains no such form… Why worship
illusions born of the mind? Those who worship don’t
39
The reputed Indian founder of specifically Ch’an Buddhism
in China (c. 490-528 CE). Some modern scholars attribute this
sermon to later monks, perhaps “of the Oxhead Zen School, which
flourished in the seventh and eighths centuries”, according to Red
Pine, the translator, though he accepts the traditional attribution
(see his Introduction).
know, and those who know don’t worship. (Pp. 25,

27.)
This passage clearly reasons that attachment to religious
visions, and all the more therefore to representations, is
antithetical to the core Buddhist belief. In the Breakthrough
Sermon, replying to the question as to whether “casting
statues” and other such external practices apparently taught in
some sutras are of any use to achieving enlightenment, the
Zen master answers that these are mere “metaphors”; he
explains:
The Tathagata’s sublime form can’t be represented by
metal. Those who seek enlightenment regard their
bodies as the furnace, the Dharma as the fire, wisdom
as the craftsmanship, and the three sets of precepts
and six paramitas as the mold. They smelt and refine
the true buddha-nature within themselves and pour it
into the mold formed by the rules of discipline. Acting
in perfect accordance with the Buddha’s teaching,
they naturally create a perfect likeness. (Pp. 95-96.)
Note well the phrase “within themselves”. Repeatedly, he
insists on the redundancy and uselessness of any such
external works and deeds; the essence of the Way is working
on oneself, from the inside.
Even today, some Buddhists, at least some Zen teachers,
seem to eschew idol worship. Note for instance Shunryu
Suzuki’s statement:
100 MORE MEDITATIONS
In our practice we have no… special object of

worship. … Joshu, a great Chinese Zen master, said,
“A clay Buddha cannot cross water; a bronze Buddha
cannot get through a furnace; a wooden Buddha
cannot get through fire.” (P. 75.)
BUDDHIST MESSIANISM 101
14. Buddhist messianism
Mu Soeng also writes:

The notion of past Buddhas was most likely accepted
even during the lifetime of Shakyamuni…. By first
century C.E., …the notion of past and future Buddhas
seems to have been well established. We can only
speculate what influence the concept of world savior
to come (sayosant), from the Persian religion of
Zoroastrianism, might have exercised on these
developments. (P. 55.)
With regard to the idea of a world savior, i.e. the messianic
idea, I would not agree that it was probably imported. It is
intrinsic to Buddhism, in the way of a prime given, that
Buddha Shakyamuni40, by finding his own way to Realization
(assuming he did), and then preaching that way to others,
40
This name simply means “the Sage from Shakya”,
referring to his place of origin.
broke the ground for all humanity and showed them a way to
salvation. By definition, his achievement (if it indeed
occurred) is extraordinary and of universal significance.
The story goes that he could have been satisfied with his own
personal escape from samsara; but out of compassion
(karuna) for other sentient beings, he chose to put off his
final departure (parinirvana) so as to help them out first. We
may therefore consider him as an unselfish person, one
wishing to save others, and admit that Buddhism from its
inception had ambitious soteriological motives.
This does not mean that Shakyamuni’s breakthrough was
necessarily unique. There is no logical reason to exclude that
there may have been past Buddhas before this one or that
there would be future ones after this one. On the contrary,
granting that Shakyamuni’s achievement was ‘natural’ (in a
large sense, allowing for the transcending of immanent
nature, i.e. of physical and mental identity), we would expect
past and future Buddhas to be possible and likely.
Shakyamuni may have been the first, or there may have been
others before him whose existence and whose possible
teaching may not have left a historical trace. As for future
Buddhas, the very fact that Shakyamuni taught implies that
he considered that others could also attain buddhahood.
In this perspective, the Mahayana ideal of the bodhisattva
appears like a perfectly natural development. By his own
altruism, in delaying his parinirvana to teach, the Buddha
gave the example of this practice. However, in time the
bodhisattva ideal was perhaps taken to extremes. As Mu

Soeng points out:
The bodhisattva was thought to embody not only a
spirit of compassion but also one of voluntary
suffering. At times, the resolve of the bodhisattva was
expressed in almost Christian terms. The idea of the
suffering savior may have existed in some form in the
Middle East before Christianity arose, but it did not
appear in Buddhism until after the Christian era. The
suffering bodhisattva so closely resembles the
Christian conception of God in the form of Jesus who
gave his life for others that we cannot dismiss the
possibility that Buddhism borrowed this doctrine from
Christianity, which was vigorous in Persia from the
third century C.E. onward. (P. 55.)41
There is (in my opinion) little in the original teaching of
Buddhism to justify this particular development. Though
Shakyamuni gave the example of altruism, he did not take it
to the extreme of personal sacrifice, i.e. of suffering greatly
41
The Christian trinity is another doctrine which has a very
close parallel in Buddhism, viz. the trikaya (three bodies of the
Buddha). The resemblance between “father, holy ghost and son”
(mentioned in Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14) and
“dharmakaya, samboghakaya and nirmanakaya” (see Mu Soeng,
pp. 89-90) is striking, although some differences can no doubt be
pointed to. Here again, whether there has been an influence either
way, or this is a similar response of the human intellect to the same
problem of unification, is a moot issue. Judaism, for its part, has no
recourse to a trinitarian concept of God.
for others. This notion could even be conceived as

antithetical to original Buddhism, which after all is intended
as a path for removing and avoiding suffering. Its teaching
was positive, intended to make people healthy and happy,
and not to cause them difficulties. The Buddha remained
serene all his life, according to reports.
We should perhaps here distinguish two ways of suffering for
others. A person wishing to help others may accept to suffer
incidentally or accidentally in this pursuit. The suffering
involved is not per se the means to the helpful goal, but only
an unfortunate side effect. For example, a war hero goes first
into battle, hoping to clear the way for his friends; he knows
he may get killed or wounded, but that is not his intention; on
the contrary, the more unscathed he gets through, the better
(for he can then carry on fighting).
More prosaically, one may carry an old lady’s shopping bag
to stop her suffering muscular pains. The Christian ideal is
not this – but rather one of “taking up the suffering of
others”. This means, not just relieving others’ burdens (which
cause them suffering), but experiencing their suffering in
their stead. Jesus on the cross is depicted as suffering in the
place of sinners, so they do not have to pay the price for their
sins. This is a distinctive concept of altruism, which I doubt
was originally intended in Buddhism.
I do not see how suffering as such can have any utility to
anyone. To free someone else of suffering one must
neutralize the causes of that suffering. Such intervention may
occasionally cause oneself suffering – and it is easy to

appreciate the virtue, value and beauty of such ‘selfless’ acts.
If one realizes the relativity and impermanence of this world,
one is not afraid of such personal sacrifice. But it is not one’s
suffering that relieves the person one helps, but one’s
effective action. The bodhisattva’s role is not to suffer, but to
be effective42.
42
Suffering when helping others is not necessarily proof of
unusual goodness; it is often just a sign of incompetence.
Sometimes risks are taken and may result in personal pain,
damage or destruction, but this is usually due to lack of skill.
Tragedy is usually indicative of some weakness and failure.
ASSIMILATING BUDDHISM 107
15. Assimilating Buddhism
The migration of Buddhism to the West is bound to produce

something new in many respects. Shunryu Suzuki43 admitted
as much when he said to his students: “Here in America we
cannot define Zen Buddhists the same way we do in Japan….
You are on your way to discovering some appropriate way of
life.”
This would not be a phenomenon particular to Buddhism, but
concerns any religion or cultural product. We can observe for
example the movement of Christianity into Africa, South
America and Asia. In each case, there are noticeable
differences from the European original. And indeed, even
among Europeans (and North Americans), Christianity has a
variety of expressions. The same applies to Buddhism in
Asia, and can be expected to apply to Buddhism in North
America and Europe.
43
P. 133.
How did Buddhism migrate westward? First, Europeans

came in contact with Buddhism (and other Oriental religions)
in Asia. Some there showed their curiosity and willingness to
learn, and eventually brought back some oral teachings,
practices and texts to Europe. They gave lectures, and wrote
articles and books, passing on Buddhist ideas. Documents
were translated, as conscientiously as possible, both by
Westerners and Orientals. Eventually, some Orientals came
to Europe and North America to teach in person.
Translation is impossible without some interpretation. Every
teacher carries a large part of tradition, but also a small part
of personal interpretation. Necessarily, when any religion or
cultural product arrives at a new region or country, it has to
mix somewhat with the local culture, resulting in a new
variation on the theme44. However purist the recipients try to
be, their vision cannot help but be colored to some extent by
their cultural antecedents. This is true of peoples – and it is
true of individuals.
Some individuals pick and choose what pleases them in the
import, while others try to go all the way and become
orthodox. But whatever external appearances suggest, what
goes on inside each individual is a commonplace process of
assimilation of new ideas. Each individual has to digest the
new outlook in accord with his or her personal psychological
and intellectual parameters. In some cases, some rejection
44
An interesting example, because of its overt and extreme
eclecticism, is the Cao Dai religion in Vietnam.
ASSIMILATING BUDDHISM 109
sooner or later occurs; in some cases, the individual finds his

or her needs largely satisfied.
My own writing on Buddhism can accordingly be regarded as
an account of my personal reactions, as a Western and Jewish
philosopher, and especially as a logician, to this incoming
wave of ideas, at a particular place and time. I am not
standing aloof on some pedestal. I make no claim to
superiority or omniscience, but simply share my thoughts –
frankly evaluating, criticizing, praising, rejecting, adapting,
and conflating as seems appropriate. Not liking to be fooled
or intimidated, I try not to take anything for granted; but I
keep an open mind and a humble willingness to learn.
I have certainly over time learnt a lot, and often been
pleasantly surprised and affected. I am always grateful for
any knowledge, wisdom or virtue transmitted to me.
Certainly, Buddhism – and the Orient in general – has a lot to
teach us. I do not however believe it is omniscient and
immune to feedback and correction. I do believe the
philosophical and spiritual confluence of East and West can
be of benefit to both sides; it is not a one-way street, either
way. With maturity, we can jointly evolve some common
understanding and direction.
ADDENDA 111
Addenda (2009)
1. Since writing More Meditations, I have been mentally

using the following awareness checklist in my meditations:
 BODY (verify/correct posture; and intensify body
awareness, including physical sensations and emotional
feelings).
 BREATH (in the nostrils and in the hara).
 THOUGHTS (all mental phenomena included, watch
them but also try to dampen them and eventually stop
them).
 SURROUNDS (the visual and auditory fields, touch
sensations and smells).
 THE FACT OF CONSCIOUSNESS (wonder at it).
 THE ONE WHO IS CONSCIOUS (one’s self – a non-
phenomenal object of intuition).
I may go through this checklist rapidly at intervals, while

using other techniques – or I may use it as my central
meditation technique. This may be done by focusing on each
item listed in turn – for the time of one breath, or three or ten
breaths or more. At the end of the series, try to merge all the
forms of awareness together, into one total awareness. Repeat
the process a number of times, till its beneficial effect – viz.
an increased degree of consciousness – is clearly felt.
These items correspond, of course, to the various aspects of
the ordinary “mind” (or rather: "psyche"), including
phenomenal experiences (physical or mental) and non-
phenomenal (intuitive) ones, and conceptual derivatives of all
these. It should be obvious that when I refer here to the
“self”, I mean the real self (which is entirely non-
phenomenal, i.e. purely spiritual), not the illusory self or
“ego” (which is largely phenomenal, though usually also
involves some degree of consciousness of the underlying real
self).
2. In meditation we want to focus on the here and now,

remember. One valuable technique is to arouse intense
alertness, like a hunter intent on spotting his prey or like a
hunted animal. A useful way to motivate such alertness is to
think of Zen stories where the meditator obtained sudden
enlightenment (satori) when some unexpected event
occurred, like some branch snapping. Thus, become watchful
of all individual sights, sounds, or other sensations, with the
ADDENDA 113
thought that any one of them might bring you the hoped for
flash of insight. In such case, no phenomenon is routine, but
each deserves your full attention.
This consciousness involves both open-mindedness and
concentration, i.e. both a wide field of attention and a
pinpoint awareness of eventual events in it. An interesting
aspect of it is that the watcher becomes ‘transparent’, in that
he forgets himself and is essentially unaffected by what
occurs around him (objectively or subjectively, i.e. in the
physical or mental surrounds), having resolved not to
interfere in the world process for a while. He is open to all
occurrences – not as one asleep, but as one who is extremely
awake (in a non-nervous, contemplative way). This self-
forgetfulness is valuable in that it effaces the superficial false
self, which is ordinarily so weighty a part of our experience.
The underlying true self is of course still in fact present, but
without overt self-consciousness.
Meditation is not something mechanical. There is no
technique, no formula that can be applied unthinkingly, that
will result in enlightenment. If there were, we would all be
enlightened by now. The essence of meditation is – always
remember – awareness, presence of mind (i.e. being oneself
consciously present). Techniques can only help us get into a
position facilitating such presence of mind, but sooner or
later that living effort is essential. Once you know this, you
go straight to it with greater ease. Awareness also means non-
attachment – i.e. not getting carried away by thoughts or
emotions that may arise. A light touch towards experience is

necessary to remain free of its attractions, repulsions,
compulsions and obstructions.
3. When focusing on phenomena, keep in mind that they

are not the ultimate goal of meditation. Our field of ordinary
experience is of necessity limited. We see and hear our
immediate surrounds and thoughts, whereas the world out
there and within is huge. Meditation aims at the expansion
of consciousness – to infinity, if possible, i.e. beyond all
limitations. We aim to look past the immediate experience –
though not to its exclusion, i.e. while including it.
The realm of samsara is that of material and mental
phenomena and the realm of nirvana is the transcendence of
such phenomena. Thus, we need through meditation to
realize that consciousness of the phenomenal is limiting –
and learn to exist with a broader, hopefully boundless
outlook. One can continue to walk through the phenomenal
world and simultaneously be aware that this is only a small
space within infinity. The value of this outlook is that one
does not take the phenomenal world too seriously, not to get
entangled in it – it then appears as an illusory narrowing of
consciousness, beyond which one is able to look at all times.
4. We go through life with different and varying degrees

of consciousness. Different people have different breadth and
ADDENDA 115
depth of consciousness – and each one of us at different times

of one’s life likewise has changing degrees of consciousness.
When one is a baby, one’s “world” may be limited to the
taste of mother’s milk, the feel of her kisses and caresses, and
so on. As a child, we may be entirely focused on one’s
family, one’s best friend, one’s toys, one’s school teacher,
etc. Later on, as a teenager, one’s attention may be centered
on one’s girlfriend, on one’s studies, and so forth. After that,
one’s wife and kids, one’s job, one’s car and home, etc. In
each phase of life, one’s “world” is necessarily limited to a
number of things. We may of course have more theoretical
interests, like science or history or philosophy or religion, but
most people have this in relatively limited quantities.
Our degree of consciousness usually increases with time, but
sometimes it may decrease. If one takes up drugs or some
other vice, one may actually become a less conscious person.
So there are ups and downs, it is not all smooth sailing. There
is no inevitability of development or evolution. Looking back
on one’s life, one can easily see this. If one learns from one’s
mistakes and proceeds in a purposeful manner, one can
gradually direct one’s life so that it is a spiritually upward
mobile process. One can put one’s life in a broader context
that what is immediately perceived and desired by one’s
instincts or under the influence of various social forces. This
is expansion of consciousness.
5. Basically, in meditation our goal is to become

conscious of the reality underlying all phenomena – i.e. the
“ground of being” or the “nature of mind” (in Buddhist
parlance) or the “presence of God” (in a more Judaic
perspective). Thus, when we focus on some physical and/or
mental object(s), our interest in it/them is ultimately nil – we
are in fact trying to get beyond these phenomenal fields, to
look through them as it were. But to do so, we need to first
focus on the here and now, and stop being distracted by
passing thoughts and emotions.
Realization means getting in contact with reality. In principle,
realization is possible at any moment – and indeed, some
masters suggest that we are repeatedly throughout our
meditations, our days, our life and even our death, at least
momentarily getting such insight, but we are unable to notice
it, or if we do notice it unable to stay with it45. It usually takes
a lot of meditation practice to get to the stages where we are
able to notice it and stay with it. However, knowing that
realization is in fact so near can be very helpful – motivating
us and increasing our degree of awareness.
The motive behind our meditation is, by the way, very
important to its success. If we meditate out of unhappiness,
i.e. because our fondest earthly desires are repeatedly
frustrated, hoping that this activity will give us success in
45
See for instance: Sogyal Rinpoche, The Tibetan Book of
Living and Dying (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1994), chapter
21.
ADDENDA 117
life, we cannot expect to get very high. We must rather

realize that existence within the space of ‘samsara’ is
inherently one of suffering, i.e. that the very fact of having a
particular form and individual life is the source of suffering,
and that only existence in ‘nirvana’ can liberate us from such
constitutional suffering. These are two very different
attitudes, note well. The one is still egoistically inclined; the
other is indicative of a considerable spiritual elevation
already. The one pursues happiness; the other is beyond such
petty concerns: it is an expression of wisdom.
6. A very good formula for meditation, I have found, is

to imagine oneself already enlightened/liberated. Start your
meditation by saying: the Buddha that I am within is now
going to sit down and do what Buddhas like to do, i.e. sit still
and silent, fully aware, enjoying the here and now, devoid of
reminiscences, anticipations, worries, plans, or any such
mortal concerns. Amazingly, this approach very often works,
i.e. it helps one transcend one's usual concerns and thoughts,
and to concentrate on one's mediation object more easily and
for a longer time.
7. Prajna vs. Dhyana. Rereading D. T. Suzuki’s Essays

in Zen Buddhism, I am struck at how different his conception
of Zen Buddhism is. I must have noticed that during previous
readings, but this time round it seems more personally

significant. Due to a background in yoga meditation, I have
personally inclined to Soto Zen, the more meditative branch
of Zen, which teaches that if we sit in meditation, with the
right posture and techniques, and with the right attitudes, we
will naturally eventually break through to full enlightenment.
But D. T. Suzuki denies or doubts this result. He has more

faith in Rinzai Zen, which uses koans. He considers the Soto
way too passive, lacking in the necessary ‘spirit of inquiry’.
In his view, apparently, meditation (dyana) may bring about
inner tranquility and even many deep insights, which are
valuable preparations, but it cannot take us through the final
gate to true enlightenment. For this decisive victory (bodhi or
satori), a sharper sword is necessary, that of wisdom
(prajna). The latter is made possible through full-time intense
concentration on a koan under the guidance of an accredited
master. This is the more active Rinzai way. (Strictly
speaking, I would call this a meditation, albeit one of another
sort than that of the Soto sect.)
Philip Kapleau’s description of his difficult journey in The

Three Pillars of Zen (1965) comes to mind here as a modern
example. Personally, all my life I have considered having a
guru as unnecessary, arguing that if the Buddha managed to
find his way to enlightenment alone, without transmission
from a teacher, then in principle other people could too. Now,
rereading D. T. Suzuki, I’m wondering if such individualism
ADDENDA 119
has been wise. The trouble with relying on a teacher,

especially nowadays, is how to know if he is genuine?
8. Subject and Object. Pursuing D. T. Suzuki’s thought

further, I re-read his The Zen Doctrine of No-Mind, and found
it inspiring in the same direction. He often stresses here the
non-separation of subject and object, as for instance on p.
133:
The state of no-mind-ness refers to the time prior to
the separation of mind and world, when there is yet
no mind standing against an external world and
receiving its impressions through the various sense-
channels. Not only a mind but a world has yet to come
into existence.
It occurred to me, reading that page, that this doctrine can be
expressed in phenomenological terms. The phenomenological
stance consists in just experiencing, i.e. in taking appearance
as such, before any evaluations or theories concerning it are
attempted – i.e. before it is classed as reality or illusion,
matter or mind, or whatever. We could well say, as does Zen,
that the subject-object dichotomy also occurs after this
primary phenomenological experience – i.e. that it too is a
rational rather than experiential belief.
Our ordinary response to experience (whether inner or outer
seeming) is to immediately say “I am experiencing these
appearances” – whence the Subject of experience seems to us
inevitably implied by the very fact of appearance. Thus given

a subject experiencing it, the content of experience becomes
an Object. And since subject and object are distinct, a relation
between them, which we call Consciousness, has to be
assumed. Zen tells us that we can (and should) merely
experience appearance as such, without bringing a self into
the picture as the one experiencing.
Even if we must, to construct a coherent and credible
epistemology, admit that we each routinely experience our
self and its functions (cognition, volition and valuation)
directly through intuition, we can still make this consistent
with the said Zen insight by including all such intuitions of
self, consciousness, will and value as elements within the
field of appearance. They should not be regarded as standing
outside the totality of experience looking in, but as parts of it.
In that case, the interposition of a subject experiencing, the
consequent objectification of the content of experience, and
thirdly the assumption of an intermediary of consciousness to
link these two together, can reasonably be avoided.
Thus, the phenomenological stance, properly understood, is
not only prior to the reality-illusion distinction, or to the
matter-mind distinction, but even to the subject-object
distinction. The latter is rational construction, a hypothesis, a
supposition of reason with a view to explain things, and not
as we ordinarily think of it a primary experience, not a brute
incontrovertible fact. To momentarily experience the field of
appearance in such neutral fashion ordinarily requires an
ADDENDA 121
effort, but it is not too difficult. We stick to appearance as

such (including any sense of self and consciousness we might
have as part of it), and abstain from ratiocination as to
whether someone is experiencing this appearance and
through what medium that is made possible.
Of course, such momentary effort of purely
phenomenological experience is very far from the Zen satori,
which is supposed to be a permanent change in our way of
being, experiencing and thinking. The latter cannot be
obtained by a mere effort of will, but requires some sort of
complex exercise, which is presumably what the koan
meditation consists in. But we can still convincingly
philosophically assimilate the Zen idea of non-separation
between subject, consciousness and object, as here done.
SUPPLEMENTS 123
Supplements
A. From Phenomenology, appendix 1
Using Meditation
In the present essay46, my purpose is to introduce the reader
to what is meant by ‘meditation’ and how the practice of such
introspection affects one’s philosophical positions. I illustrate
below how phenomenological insights may be generated by
means of observations and reflections during or after
meditation. The conversations below are not intended as
lessons in meditation. They were not made in a single sitting,
but over many sessions47. Of course, the result of my own
46 These reflections were written in 1998, and recently edited

a bit for this publication.
47 For the record, my own first practice of meditation was in
1979, zazen with a Japanese monk known as Roshi who had a
center on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. I remember once so
exasperating this gentle teacher with my fidgeting during a sitting
meditations is not merely what is written below, but the

whole of the present book. Many of the issues treated in it
were really raised, clarified and resolved by such meditations.
Meditation is to a great many people something unknown or
that smacks of mysticism. But, as the sample discourse below
demonstrates, what goes on during meditation – in this case,
the technique of ‘breath-awareness’ – is very down to earth
and accessible to all. One is not turned into a zombie, but
remains quite conscious and even active. Meditation for
philosophical purposes obviously involves curiosity, asking
questions, seeking answers. Notice the kind of detail one
looks out for, and the kind of information one can draw from
it. An effort is required, but the emphasis is on observation
and memory, rather than on conversation (which can be done
later).
I sometimes find it hard at first to get focused on the
breath. So to try and generate and hold my attention, I
may ask myself what my purpose and belief in doing
it might be. But a mercantile attitude is
counterproductive. One may think, to begin with, “I
want to now meditate on my breathing,” so as to set
that he lost his cool and shouted at me: “DON’TA MOVE!!!” Over
the next few years, I was taught some excellent yoga meditation
techniques, including the lotus pose, pratyahara (accepting pain
and other disturbances), inner silence and breath awareness, but
all told practiced little. It is only in the last few years that my interest
has intensified, and I practice a sort of Zen meditation daily. I
cannot honestly claim to be very advanced!
SUPPLEMENTS 125
oneself on course and avoid mental dispersion, but

one should not hang on to this thought thereafter.
In general, meditation teachers recommend that we
avoid using meditation as a means to an end rather
than an end in itself. We are advised to go ‘above’ a
mere pursuit of psychic rest, calm, serenity (which is
what I often seem content with nowadays), or as here
of philosophical knowledge (which can get nervous
and verbose), or even of the greater ambitions of
‘illumination’ (the promise of oriental traditions that
meditation leads to a radical review of reality).
This is also true with reference to a particular object
of meditation, such as the breath. If I view breath-
awareness merely as a technique (akin to a
meaningless mantra or mandala) that will hopefully
propel me into concentration and samadhi, then my
interest in the breath itself is artificial. I therefore try
to think of the breath as something special, on a
biological and possibly on a metaphysical level (yogis
regard it as in itself revealing as to the ‘nature of
reality’).
The secret of success in breath-awareness meditation is to
enjoy it. This is not meant in the sense of taking pleasure in
it, but in the sense of having aroused one’s interest in it. Then
one is able to patiently watch one’s breath in all its details,
and persevere in this without especial effort for more than a
brief while.
Breath-awareness is primarily a tactile meditation, in that I

feel my body parts moving or the impact of air in different
parts of my nostrils. Of course, one may experience other
sensations, such as smells or sounds coming from the
environment, or be subject to all sorts of imaginations and
thoughts, but as one’s concentration on the breath increases
all these tend to fall away. Also, the end result of breath-
awareness is more mental than physical.
There is, at first or sometimes, an allied sound component, in
that I hear the sound of air passing through my nose; but as
my state-of-mind gets to be calmer, my breath gets to be less
and less noisy, till I cannot rely on its sound at all to remain
aware of it, but must concentrate on the touch and motion
aspects purely.
An error in such meditation is to accompany each in-breath
or out-breath with an internal sound (i.e. a sound in the head,
a mental sound). It is as if the will needs to ‘play a tune’ or
‘sing a song’ for the breath to happen. This is evidence that
you are not observing natural breath, but are interfering with
your will, and you do so in such case by mimicking the sound
of breath, as a means of producing breath.
I currently meditate with my eyes closed, to limit sensory
inputs and get more inward. But if I consider the experience
with eyes open, certain visual factors must be added to the
above. Primarily, I see the movement of my body with the
breath (rise and fall of my chest).
SUPPLEMENTS 127
Also, I visualize the breath going in and out of my nose48

and/or my abdomen. Such mental seeing or imaging is
perhaps less strong with eyes open than with eyes closed. But
in any case it constitutes the equivalent in the realm of the
visual, to the inner sound mentioned above. This too is an
error of meditation, in that the will is interfering with the
phenomenon, artificially adding things to it.
However, upon reflection, I must temper the above remarks
on errors of meditation.
First, to say that such internally generated sounds and sights
can themselves be taken as objects of meditation. If one can
stop them dead by willpower, so well and good: the
meditation is made easier by being limited to natural objects.
Often this is not feasible, and one must let the mind gradually
calm down: in such case, creations of the will are to be
accepted as a kind of natural object among others, and
observed without being perturbed, without ‘fighting’ them.
Secondly, it must be noted that such inner auditory and visual
appearances may not-be the work of a perverse will. They
may simply be a biological necessity, having to do with the
correlation between sense-modalities. To the tactile
sensations of breathing, in the absence of corresponding
48 It is worth recording that there are at least two

perspectives for visualizing breath travel in the nostrils. The
rougher way consists in ‘seeing’ the breath from the point of view
of an observer placed slightly on the side. As my meditation
progresses, I am instead ‘looking’ down the tubes of my nose, as if
I am placed at their confluence (the "third eye" location?).
physical sounds one needs mental sound substitutes, and in

the absence of corresponding physical sights one needs
mental image substitutes. Such equivalences may be a natural
product, a sort of ongoing ‘dictionary’ translating experiences
in the one sense-modality into experiences in the other.
But I must add that in my experience this parallelism
evaporates after awhile (in some cases it is absent from the
start, in some cases it comes and goes); so it cannot be an
absolute need, but rather simply a tendency; i.e. we must
admit that pure tactile experiences are possible, without
visual-auditory accompaniments whether physical or mental.
Also, the impression that the will is involved is often, though
admittedly not always, quite marked; so we must not
generalize either way, i.e. mental events are sometimes
willed and sometimes not.
Third, it should be noted that some yogic meditations involve
visualization or auditory imagination49 as positive techniques,
aids to meditation. Some such techniques may be inventions
of charlatans, but I can claim personal experience of effective
methods (e.g. in ajapa jap50, imagining ‘psychic’ breath
49 I would like to propose the term "auditorization" for

imagination of sounds (just as "visualization" is used for
imagination of sights).
50
I am referring here to Dynamic Meditation (and more
advanced Kriya Yoga techniques) as taught in the Scandinavian
Yoga and Meditation School by Swami Janakananda Saraswati
and his disciples Swami Nityabodhananda (my first wife, Nina) and
Hari Prem. For information, I am just an amateur occasional
SUPPLEMENTS 129
going from the muladhara energy center to that of agya and

back, and sounding so and hum as it does so). It follows that
interference of the will cannot be regarded as automatically
faulty, but may be used constructively.
In this context we must note that at least some Buddhists
seem to regard the willed/mental and natural/external as
ultimately one and the same. Their difference is an illusion;
everything is ultimately mental or everything is ultimately
physical, the distinction becomes meaningless. This may be
an experience at deeper intensities of meditation or it may be
a theory that seemed fitting to certain metaphysicians. In any
case, it calls upon us to temper our reaction to the
interference of will in meditation.
When I sit in meditation, I find it is best to ‘gradually become
aware of the breath’ (as my teachers have taught me). For if I
turn my attention to my breathing too suddenly, I produce a
stir in it, it loses its natural regularity somewhat and becomes
uneven. It is as if, almost inevitably, when we call upon our
cognitive power, we awaken uncalled-for volitions. I infer
that turning one’s attention is a very fine act of volition; if
done heavy-handedly, the volition is too strong and has an
impact on the object51. That is a defeat of the starting
intention, to concentrate on the breath.
practitioner of these techniques, having in the past attended a few

courses with those teachers.
51 It is a bit like the problem raised by Heisenberg with
reference to physical observations.
We must therefore learn, by trial and error, to be more

delicate, and will just enough for pure cognition and not so
much as to affect its object. The modification of the object
may consist in addition or suppression or a combination of
both (alteration). The infusion of imaginary sounds or sights
are examples. A more extreme example is thought about the
breath, which may totally erase all perceptual awareness of
the breath and carry us into some long discourse involving
verbal and dream elements, which may after awhile have
nothing to do with the original object of meditation (our
breathing here and now).
This brings us into the complexities of conflict between
thought and meditation. Ideally, meditation is free of the
interference of thought; it is empty-minded, serene
observation. In practice, one has often to contend with all
sorts of mental disturbances, and the trick then is to somehow
get into a position of observer of these ongoing thoughts.
Perhaps the way into the observer’s role is not so much to
place oneself above, but to reserve a little place (a modest
fraction of self) adjacent to the turbulent events. A
commanding position is not easy to get into; all we need is to
gain a foothold, to obtain a small observation platform. One
should not fight the thinking or hope to smother the thoughts,
but accept them and try only to at the same time be accepted
by them as a curious spectator. After a while, thought may
fade away, as if shy to be seen.
SUPPLEMENTS 131
The above needs some further clarifications. The interference

of will occurs especially when I try using the breath-counting
technique proposed by certain Buddhists. This technique is
useful, to force your attention on the breath immediately,
after which you can hold it there more easily. It happens that
such counting becomes divorced from the awareness of
breath, but that is not the main problem. Rather, the
disadvantage of such counting is that one usually (with very
rare exception) gets involved in control of the breath.
a) To make the breath more noticeable, one intensifies it or
exaggerates it.
b) There is also a tendency to lengthen one’s breath, so as to
make it healthier and calmer.
c) To fit it into one’s counting, one tries to make it more
regular, i.e. to make each breath as a whole equal in
length to the preceding (even if the in and out breaths are
of unequal lengths).
d) These distortions in tactile mode are exacerbated by inner
sounds and sights that parallel the willed breath, helping
to form it and direct it.
One must also avoid opposite reactions to these distortions,
like trying to make one’s breath more natural by making it
uneven! The goal is always to observe the breath as it is, in as
much detail as possible. If the breath is unnoticeable, that
absence is good enough to observe.
For these reasons, I have personally stopped using the breath-

counting method (though I am of course free to use it
occasionally if I feel like it52). I find it wiser to just let my
mind calm down by itself, and then gradually become aware
of my breath. This does not always work, it depends on my
energetic state (how rested and well-fed I am, and so forth);
but this dependence exists with the other method too. It
seems illogical to me to disturb my mind in an attempt to
calm it; it is like trying to stop turbulences in water or air by
waving your arms about. Though sometimes, admittedly,
jogging a bit improves one’s walking.
What ultimately makes breath noticeable and natural is the
increased concentration on it one eventually acquires. At
first, one is ‘distant’ from one’s breath; later, with skill, one
is right there ‘in the midst’ of it. The sense of ‘physical’
distance between the observer and the observed is an
expression of mental distance from one’s meditation. As
one’s concentration on the breath increases, one feels oneself
(the observer) to be placed in the nose or in the chest or solar
plexus, where the breath (the observed) is being watched.
Watching carefully, one notices the differences between
incoming and outgoing breaths. In my case (other people may
differ), my in-breath seems usually somewhat rougher, louder
and shorter than the out-breath. The former is more physical;
52 There may well be times when we are simply unable to

calm our thoughts without use of such a technique. Just because I
personally at this time find it more intrusive than helpful does not
allow me to discard it for all times.
SUPPLEMENTS 133
the latter is more mental. Furthermore, one should note the

differences in air intake or outflow between the two nostrils.
In my case, these are partly due to a broken nose; but yoga
teaches us that the use of our nostrils vary with the time of
day, for instance.
Note well the above remarks are not intended as a guide to

meditation. My own favorite guide is: Shunryu Suzuki’s Zen
Mind, Beginner’s Mind (NY and Tokyo: Weatherhill, 1973).
B. From Phenomenology, appendix 2
Feelings of Emptiness
There is another sense of the term “emptiness” to consider,
one not unrelated to the senses previously discussed. We all
have some experience of emotional emptiness.
One of the most interesting and impressive contributions to
psychology by Buddhism, in my view, is its emphasis on the
vague enervations we commonly feel, such as discomfort,
restlessness or doubt, as important motives of human action.
Something seems to be wanting, missing, urging us to do
something about it.
These negative emotions, which I label feelings of

emptiness, are a cause or expression of samsaric
states of mind. This pejorative sense of “emptiness” is
not to be confused with the contrary “emptiness”
identified with nirvana. However, they may be
related, in that the emotions in question may be
essentially a sort of vertigo upon glimpsing the void.53
Most people often feel this “hole” inside themselves, an
unpleasant inner vacuity or hunger, and pass much of their
time desperately trying to shake it off, frantically looking for
palliatives. At worst, they may feel like “a non-entity”,
devoid of personal identity. Different people (or a person at
different times) may respond to this lack of identity, or
moments of boredom, impatience, dissatisfaction or
uncertainty, in different ways. (Other factors come into play,
which determine just which way.)
Many look for useless distractions, calling it “killing
time”; others indulge in self-destructive activities.
Some get the munchies; others smoke cigarettes,
drink liquor or take drugs. Some watch TV; others
talk a lot and say nothing; others still, prefer shopping
53 These emotions are classified as forms of “suffering”

(dukkha) and “delusion” (moha). According to Buddhist
commentators, instead of floating with natural confidence on the
“original ground” of consciousness as it appears, a sort panic
occurs giving rise to efforts to establish more concrete foundations.
To achieve this end, we resort to sensory, sensual, sentimental or
even sensational pursuits.
SUPPLEMENTS 135
or shoplifting. Some get angry, and pick a quarrel

with their spouse or neighbors, just to have something
to do, something to rant and rave about; others get
into political violence or start a war. Some get
melancholic, and complain of loneliness or
unhappiness; others speak of failure, depression or
anxiety. Some masturbate; others have sex with
everyone; others rape someone. Some start worrying
about their physical health; others go to a psychiatrist.
Some become sports fanatics; others get entangled in
consuming psychological, philosophical, spiritual or
religious pursuits. Some become workaholics; others
sleep all day or try to sink into oblivion somehow.
And so on.
As this partial and disorderly catalogue shows, everything we
consider stupidity or sin, all the ills of our psyche and
society, or most or many, could be attributed to this vague,
often “subconsciously” experienced, negative emotion of
emptiness and our urge to “cure” it however we can. We stir
up desires, antipathies or anxieties, compulsions, obsessions
or depression, in a bid to comprehend and smother this
suffering of felt emptiness. We furnish our time with
thoughts like: “I think I am falling in love” or “this guy really
bugs me” or “what am I going to do about this or that?” or “I
have to do (or not to do) so and so”. It is all indeed “much
ado about nothing”.
If we generalize from many such momentary feelings, we

may come to the conclusion that “life has no meaning”. That,
to quote William Shakespeare:
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth (act V, scene 5).
Of course, we can and often do also react more positively,

and give our life more constructive meaning. I believe this
becomes possible once we are able to recognize this internal
vacuum when we feel it, and make sure we do not react to it
in any of the negative ways we unconsciously tend to react.
Once we understand that this feeling of emptiness cannot be
overcome by such foolish means, we can begin to look for
ways to enjoy life, through personal growth, healthy
activities, helping others, learning, creativity, productiveness,
and so forth.
Regular meditation is a good remedy. Sitting quietly for long
periods daily makes it easier to become and remain aware of
emotional emptiness when it appears. Putting such recurring
SUPPLEMENTS 137
bad feelings into perspective gradually frees us from them.

They just seem fleeting, weak and irrelevant. Life then
becomes a celebration of time: we profit from the little time
we have in it to make something nice out of it.
REFERENCES 139
References
Batchelor, Stephen. Ed. The Jewel in the Lotus: A Guide to the Buddhist
Traditions of Tibet. London: Wisdom, 1987.
Bodhidharma. The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma. Red Pine, trans. New

York: North Point, 1989.
Dhammapada, The. Juan Mascaro, trans. Harmondsworth, Mx.:

Penguin, 1973.
Dogen. Enlightenment Unfolds: The Essential Teachings of Zen Master

Dogen. Kazuaki Tanahashi, ed. Boston: Shambala, 2000.
Laotzu. The Way of Life. Trans. Witter Bynner. New York: Capricorn,
1962.
Mu Soeng. The Diamond Sutra: transforming the way we perceive the

world. Boston: Wisdom, 2000.
Paramananda (John Wilson). Change Your Mind: A Practical Guide to

Buddhist Meditation. Birmingham: Windhorse, 1996.
Suzuki, D.T. Essays in Zen Buddhism, First Series. (1949). Second

Series. (1953). London: Rider, 1970, 1980.
Suzuki, Shunryu. Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind. New York: Weatherhill,

1970.
Wile, Douglas. Comp. & Trans. Yang Family Secret Transmissions.

Rev. ed. New York: Sweet Ch’i, 1983.
(The above list is not meant as a bibliography, but simply details the
books referred to within the text.)
REFERENCES 141
Works by Avi Sion, to date
 Future Logic: Categorical and Conditional Deduction and Induction

of the Natural, Temporal, Extensional and Logical Modalities.
Revised ed. Geneva: Author, 1996.54 (454p.)
 Judaic Logic: A Formal Analysis of Biblical, Talmudic and
Rabbinic Logic. Geneva: Slatkine, 1997.55 (262p.)
 Buddhist Illogic: A Critical Analysis of Nagarjuna’s Arguments.
Geneva: Author, 2002. (65p.)
 Phenomenology: Basing Knowledge on Appearance. Expanded ed.
Geneva: Author, 2005.56 (144p.)
 The Logic of Causation. Rev. & exp. ed. Geneva: Author, 2003.57
(247p.)
 Volition and Allied Causal Concepts. Geneva: Author, 2004.
(175p.)
 Ruminations: Sundry Notes and Essays on Logic. Expanded ed.
Geneva: Author, 2005.58 (180p.)
 Meditations: A Spiritual Logbook. Geneva: Author, 2006. (76p.)
 Logical and Spiritual Reflections. Rev. & exp. ed. Geneva:
Author, 2008.59 (276p.)
All these works may be consulted on the Internet, at

www.TheLogician.net
54
First published by author in Vancouver, B.C., 1990.
55
First published by author in Geneva, 1995.
56
First published by author in Geneva, 2003.
57
First published by author in Geneva, 1999. The first edition
comprised only Phase I (Macroanalysis), whereas this edition also
includes Phase II (Microanalysis).
58
First published by author in Geneva, earlier 2005.
59
First published by author in Geneva, earlier 2008.

More Meditations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

More Meditations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

More Meditations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MORE MEDITATIONS

Avi Sion, Ph. D.

PROTECTED BY INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT CONVENTIONS.

More Meditations is a sequel to the author’s earlier work,

This book is drawn from the author’s larger work Logical

1. Go directly and keep going 7

1. Go directly and keep going

After preparing the environment for meditation so you will

soon as we sit we can reconnect with the higher form of

means, not ends in themselves. If you gaze at a candle, or

Meditation consists effectively in learning how to look

awareness. Sustaining does not mean clinging to some ideal

2. Breath and thought awareness

To meditate is to make a sustained effort to increase one’s

peripherally) of the rise and fall of your belly with every

from the effort of breath control, which involves physical will

memories, imaginations, thoughts, anticipations, dreams) but the

At that stage, it is possible, not only to instantly stop thought

The philosophical idea of Monism is of utility to meditation.

becomes wise to transcend all such separation, and view self-

4. Meditation on the self

Why (as is evident in the course of meditation) are inner and

silence and stillness, is to come in contact with the

conceive of me as someone other than the person associated

concept, for a concept would not suffice to explain how I

On the basis of the preceding insights, I would recommend

5. Various remarks on meditation

Attention and intention. Cognition may be said to have two

Meditation tends towards pure cognition – that is to say,

The nature of mind. An outcome, or the outcome, of

truth, i.e. reality – but in fact (according to Buddhists) it

Subject and object as one. Actually, I have experienced

Evidently, in such a state of consciousness, the idea of self

Cultivate a sense of wonder. In sitting meditation (zazen or

We should also be constantly aware of the powers of mind

Meditate instead of thinking. Most of us, most of the time,

the same do you good. Thus, in everyday life, whatever you

Meditation on velleities. Self-knowledge is achieved by

myself putting my arm around her and kissing her, and so on

Meditation as alchemy. We should not, out of a desire to

 The anger and hatred, the coldness and enmity, which

Poetry in motion. In the individual practice of a Tai Chi

repeating the same move, always sticking close to the rocks,

Such holistic approach to Tai Chi is greatly enabled by the

Just as our physical health is defined with reference to the

they are perceptible (to various degrees) things or events, like

but the main cognitive health issue is self-knowledge.

anytime. Without discipline one becomes one’s own

In short, without going into details, mental health relates to a

7. Behold the mind

Judging by a collection of essays attributed to

all your miraculously aware nature. And this nature

and valuation (valuing or disvaluing anything). This

constantly crystallizing in our mental outlook, if we

phenomena (knowable only from the outside, even for the

But mostly, Bodhidharma seems to be referring to either the

Language and behavior, perception and conception

being conscious), it is best to behave as if it does not exist.

8. The four foundations and the core

In practice, meditation on awareness has to be combined with