Question
Hello, Master,
I admit I was somewhat surprised by your Fukanzazengi, which connects Zen with the Big Bang theory.
The Big Bang theory does not have the status of a scientific theory, because it elaborates on something that cannot be objectified. It is a so-called speculative theory that accounts for a number of facts without being able to claim more. Let us say it is the best theory at the moment… In fact, I do not see the point of making such a connection.
Of course, there is the principle of emptiness, whose significance science is discovering
through recent developments in quantum mechanics and relativity.
On this subject, I think science has not yet drawn all the implications of this principle governing everything for its epistemology, and that in this area dialogue remains difficult and encounters much dogmatism.
Science still seems very entangled in subject-object duality.
It also seems important to point out that the universe is not born
from the manifestation of emptiness.
Emptiness is an aspect of things and has never ceased to be…
We cannot conceive of what existed before the singularity
we call the Big Bang, and nothing allows us to assert that the Big
Bang was the beginning of time.
For that, we would have to know the nature of time, which, from a scientific standpoint, is still far from the case… Anyway, there is much to say on the subject. In fact, I wonder whether mixing science and Zen is really necessary…
Best regards,
Mumyo
Answer from Master Kosen
Clearly, at least for now, you have understood nothing about Zen, science, or the fusion that can occur between them. This is hardly surprising when we consider the teachings you are accustomed to hearing from your Zen masters, to which you have already conditioned yourself, just as they have. You know? Those teachings you hear again and again in your suburban château, which do not surprise you even “a little” and are now nothing more than the sound of the same bell ringing in empty skulls.
The Fukanzazengi of the Future presents, in a new and instructive way (although it is already two years old), among other things: the birth of Buddhism; the transmission of the patriarchs down to Master Deshimaru; the practice of fundamental postures and their evolution since very ancient times; the brain’s biological activity during various meditative exercises; the constitution of matter; and also—and this is one of the points that plainly escaped you—that the singularity at the origin of the universe’s manifestation is none other than original consciousness.
The universe exists only because you are conscious of it.
You do not understand the connection between Zen and the Big Bang theory?
That is only natural, since, as I have just told you, the issue is not associating the sterile Zen you follow with a “speculative theory that cannot be objectified,” but the fundamental, original integration of mind and matter.
What, then, do your teachers teach you?
Science is not, as you seem to claim, a staging of “statuses,” fashions, epistemological principles, or dogmas. Science consists of hypotheses, experiments, and results. The frame of reference that allows us to evaluate their consequences or truth depends, fortunately or unfortunately depending on the case, only on us. The “developments in quantum mechanics” you mention add to this approach the hypothesis that the original intention of the research or researcher may determine the results or their manifestation—again, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on the case.
In fact, you do not experience the significance of matter as mind and mind as matter because your consciousness has decided otherwise. Your universe is emptiness, and so is your Zen… without form, without flavor, and without even a good teacher to remedy it. Certainly not the “best at the moment,” to borrow your words with a touch of humor.
You continue with a little polemic about the “principle of emptiness that governs everything,” your wish to point out that the universe does not arise from its manifestation, and that it is ultimately only one aspect of reality, which has always existed among the others, I presume.
You then wish to say that we would need to know the nature of time to determine whether it was born with the universe, and that if it was, we could not conceive of what existed before it existed—is that right?—while stressing that this is important.
If any science is entangled, and not only in the subject-object relationship, it is yours.
Time is inherent in the creation of matter and the separation between subject and object. As suggested, among others, by Garnier Malet:
http://www.garnier-malet.com/
Étienne Klein: http://nicol.club.fr/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c5.htm, or Lachière-Rey:
http://www.decitre.fr/livres/Au-dela-de-l-espace-et-du-temps.aspx/978274…
time may exist only within our consciousness, and therefore may not exist absolutely. This was also brought to light by Master Dogen in the Uji chapter of the Shobogenzo, and confirmed by recent experiments on photon entanglement. The priority of research would then be to determine the nature of our consciousness in order to evaluate the reality of both our beings and the universes in which they are integrated.
Understand that, in essence, this is neither about the Big Bang nor about the emergence of human consciousness, but about the existence of mind through all its manifestations. The Big Bang theory is indeed one theory among many. You can certainly argue that the universe’s birth never occurred by rejecting Hubble’s law and the consequences of the Doppler-Fizeau effect on it, and invoking the CREIL effect:
http://cosmosgate.free.fr/index.php?page=creil. The universe would then be unborn and static, and awakening would simply be the original condition.
Would that harm a true understanding of Zen and the manifestation of mind? Certainly not; quite the opposite.
Master Deshimaru said: “The spirituality of the future will emerge from zazen practice and the evolution of science.”
I suppose your teachers do not see the need for such a teaching either.
Kosen