Spiritual Alternative # 6: Mahamudra Buddhism

The central meditation tradition of the Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism is Mahamudra, which is also common to the Sakya and Geluk schools, but not the Nyingma.  Its characteristic or distinguishing practice is deity yoga, or the practice of visualizing oneself as a deity of one’s choice (or, more accurately, that one’s guru considers appropriate) in order to undermine one’s ordinary sense of separate individuality, and in order to transcend ordinary awareness and realize one’s intrinsic buddhahood (which exists at least in potential form in all sentient beings).  There are two stages of deity yoga, otherwise known as anuttara yoga tantra or highest yoga tantra.  The first is the generation stage, where one begins visualizing oneself as a deity (and engages in multiple yogic practices).  The latter is the completion stage, where one fully realizes oneself as a deity, and where one realizes the clear light of the void or mind of clear light, which is (at least the initial) realization of the wisdom and awakening of a buddha. 

There are six stages or yanas that precede anuttara yoga tantra in the Mahamudra, starting with the yanas of the shravaka (“hearer,” i.e. one who hears the teachings of the historical Buddha, then puts them into practice and becomes and arhat, or one who comes to awakening and is not thereafter reborn according to the Theravada) and the pratyeka (a solitary practitioner who achieves the insight of a buddha, but does not teach it to others).  At these stages, the adept practices mindfulness and concentration meditation, which are the principal forms of meditation in the Theravada tradition today, and in all “Southern” schools of Buddhism historically.  Next comes the Mahayana or Bodhisattvayana, the Vehicle of the Bodhisattva, or the vehicle of the one who vows to become awakened out of compassion for all sentient beings.  The basis of this is bodhicitta, the mind of awakening, which includes both the sincere vow to become awakened for the benefit of all sentient beings, as well as a profound realization of the meaning of shunyata or emptiness (explained below).  After this come the three “lower” tantric vehicles, kriya, charya, and yoga tantra.  At these stages, the adept performs various rituals and purificatory practices, and is initiated by a qualified guru into the tantric tradition.  Meditation on and devotion to various deities, the practice of reciting mantras, the use of ritualized hand gestures (mudras), and the ritualized use of depictions of the external and internal cosmos (mandalas) are common at these stages.

Mahamudra Buddhists also strive to recognize the clear light of the void or mind of clear light in the intermediate state that Tibetan Buddhists believe exists between death and the next rebirth, and in dreams.  In these states, the physical body gives way to the subtle or astral body, and this body is not solid like the ordinary physical body.  One who is trained properly can recognize the Buddha-Nature upon leaving the physical body, whether in sleep or just after death, and can either prevent further rebirths for themselves or choose their next rebirth to benefit sentient beings caught in samsara.  Beings who are not properly trained, and not prepared for death, will find themselves gravitating toward a particular mode of existence based on their past actions (i.e., they will continue to be subject to the law of karma and rebirth in the six realms of existence: that of the gods or angels, that of demigods, that of humans, that of animals, that of ghosts, and that of hell-dwellers). 

Like Dzogchen, the Mahamudra approach is complex, with multiple stages of realization, elaborate rituals, and a heavy focus on secrecy (at least prior to the twentieth century).  It is very sophisticated, being based (at least ultimately) on a careful experiential examination of the nature of consciousness (insofar as something as seemingly non-interchangeable between minds as interior experiences of consciousness can be examined “carefully”), although as usual with traditionalist organizations like the Sakya, Kagyu and Geluk schools, the authoritarian nature of the guru-disciple relationship and of monasteries and meditation centers mean that abuses occur and the transformation of consciousness has not always been the primary goal of those claiming to follow the Mahamudra approach.  (This latter statement is, of course, true of all forms of organized religion, spirituality, philosophy, and consciousness-transformation.)  If one seeks to practice the Mahamudra, it is necessary to undertake practice with a guru, as initiation by and devotion to a qualified guru is one of the most important components of all tantric traditions.  However, in choosing a guru, one should be very cautious, ensuring that one is well-acquainted not just with the outer behavior of one’s potential guru(s), but what is really in their hearts.  It is too easy for these relationships to become abusive to justify any other approach.  Be that as it may, the Mahamudra is a profound approach to the transformation of consciousness, and it can lead to the same dazzling awareness of (or rather, awareness as) one’s intrinsic buddhahood, as Zen and Dzogchen.    

Buddhists in the celibate Geluk lineage, which is the only celibate lineage of Tibetan Buddhism, and is the lineage headed by the Dalai Lama, consider the Madhyamaka school of Buddhist scholasticism, specifically its Prasangika branch, to be the most profound philosophy of Buddhism.  The Madhyamaka will be discussed in greater detail in the section devoted to it, but the basic idea of it is that all phenomena, or all components of the world, as well as all transformations of those phenomena or components of the world, are empty of self-existence, or own-being, or intrinsic existence.  In other words, because they are produced by various causes and conditions, and because they themselves serve as causes and conditions of other phenomena, they cannot be said to possess a permanent underlying essence or a persistent basis of identity.  Phenomena are experienced, and can be said to exist in a relative sense because they are experienced, but if one analyzes phenomena, it is clear that they are always changing, never the same from moment to moment.  In the practice of Geluk Buddhism, which includes both the Mahamudra meditation and training in Madhyamaka-Prasangika philosophy, this emptiness (Skt. shunyata) is identified with the clear light of the void or mind of clear light, which is thus considered ultimately no different than phenomena themselves.  However, for a being caught up in samsara, phenomena appear real, and cause future rebirths, even if these rebirths are seen to be like the fleeting images of dreams to the awakened mind. 

Tibetan Buddhists, like most tantric practitioners and many other practitioners of traditions with origins in South Asia, use meditation and similar practices to cultivate magical and paranormal powers called siddhis that yield benefits to oneself and others in this lifetime.  One who attains such powers is known as a siddha.  The use of magic and paranormal powers has historically been central to the practice of Tibetan Buddhism, of both the popular and monastic varieties.     

Spiritual Alternative # 5: Dzogchen Buddhism

This is one of the major meditation traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, and is affiliated primarily with the Nyingma school, though it is also the primary approach of the heterodox Bon tradition, which combines Buddhist elements with an indigenous pre-Buddhist form of Tibetan spirituality, and is also used in the Kagyu tradition (along with Mahamudra).  It is a Mahayana and Vajrayana (or tantric) tradition. 

The basic premise of Dzogchen (or “The Great Perfection”), which is common to all Mahayana traditions, is that all sentient beings are always already enlightened buddhas and simply need to recognize it.  Dzogchen is premised on the belief that all sentient beings have the mind of clear light or intrinsic awareness, and this is the true nature of every sentient being, i.e. the buddha-nature of every sentient being.  The mind of clear light or intrinsic awareness is really none other than the awareness which each and every sentient being has right now, in the present moment.  Dzogchen’s aim is to recognize that one already abides in or as this intrinsic awareness, and that this occurs effortlessly.  This recognition is not even a form of meditation according to many Dzogchen masters. 

All objects of consciousness arise within the mind of clear light or intrinsic awareness, which reflects all things that arise within it but does not become caught up in them.  Samsara and nirvana, or the cycle of endless death and rebirth and release from this cycle, which are set in opposition to each other in pre-Mahayana Buddhist traditions, both arise within the mind of clear light or intrinsic awareness.  The mind of clear light perceives both, and both are in fact manifestations of the mind of clear light.  Every sentient being has this intrinsic awareness and simply needs to recognize it to manifest his or her basic buddhahood.  It is not an underlying unity like the Brahman of the Advaita Vedantins or the One of the Neoplatonists.  Rather, it is non-dual, which is to say, beyond all dualities and dualistic notions, including any notion of the One as opposed to the many or Brahman as opposed to Maya, whether from a relative or an absolute perspective.

Although the above is Dzogchen’s basic premise, and in theory it is permissible simply to rest in one’s true nature, the mind of clear light, which is one’s inherent buddhahood, there are eight other “vehicles” (Skt. yanas) besides the ninth and highest vehicle, Dzogchen (Skt. Atiyoga), that one can use to achieve the progressive realizations of wisdom and awakening according to the Nyingma tradition.  In fact, the Nyingma holds that it is best to first practice the lower eight vehicles, ideally in order, before being introduced to the “effortless” ninth vehicle of Dzogchen itself. 

The first three vehicles are non-tantric, with the third being the Mahayana proper, and the first two consisting of the vehicle of those who come to know the Buddha’s teaching by hearing or reading about it (known as the Shravakayana, which includes the Theravada), and the vehicle of solitary buddhas (Pratyekayana).  In these two stages, the adept practices mindfulness and concentration meditation, which will be discussed in greater detail in the section on the Theravada. 

In the third vehicle, the Mahayana, the adept cultivates the bodhisattva vow and begins the journey to full buddhahood by going through the ten stages (or bhumis) of the bodhisattva path.  The bodhisattva path and bodhisattva ideal is the defining feature of the Mahayana, of which all extant Tibetan traditions are part (note that some schools of Tibetan Buddhism add several more bhumis to the basic list of ten). 

The next three vehicles are the “outer tantric” vehicles.  Here, the adept uses mantras, mudras, the contemplation of mandalas, ritual empowerment by gurus (instruction by a guru is also necessary in the vehicle of Dzogchen, according to most Nyingma masters), dream yoga, etc. 

The next two vehicles are “inner tantric” vehicles, and consist of contemplating oneself as a deity, of visualizing oneself as a deity, ultimately seeing the contingency of one’s own sense of identity and all phenomena.  The highest vehicle, again, is Dzogchen itself.

Dzogchen, like other Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions, accepts the traditional Buddhist cosmology of six realms of rebirth for beings within samsara, who are reborn again and again until they become awakened to their true or inherent nature as buddhas.  While all of this occurs within the pure effortless awareness of the mind of clear light or intrinsic awareness, it still seems like concrete reality to sentient beings trapped in samsara because they ignorantly identify with the objects of this awareness rather than recognizing their true nature as this awareness itself.  Thus, it is still important for such beings to engage in wholesome or moral behavior (in order to obtain a more favorable rebirth), and it is important for them to practice Buddhism in order to realize their true nature, eliminate ignorance, and develop the perfections of a bodhisattva. 

Dzogchen has a very sophisticated and detailed account of the process of awakening, and some of its teachings are simple and straightforward, while others are complicated and nuanced.  The tantric practices of the Nyingma are quite complex and difficult, but the basic practice of Dzogchen is simple in theory, though very few people actually recognize the mind of clear light or intrinsic awareness in practice.  After all, if it were really easy to do this, virtually anybody who heard and understood this teaching intellectually would become a fully awakened buddha very quickly, and would not simply be, like all other sentient beings, a buddha who has not yet realized his or her true nature. 

Needless to say, most people who hear Dzogchen teachings and understand them intellectually do not quickly become fully awakened buddhas, and Dzogchen is only fully useful for those who have already practiced extensively in at least some of the eight lower yanas.  However, it can be partially useful for everybody, since it is possible to recognize the mind of clear light or intrinsic awareness as the perceiver or space of cognition behind any experience that one has at any time.  But again, there are few who can recognize it as such all the time or even most of the time (or, heck, even some of the time). 

To my mind, Dzogchen and the traditions in which it is found are full of contradictions.  They teach that the supreme goal is to effortlessly abide in the awareness one already has, because this is none other than the awareness of a buddha, but also feature extraordinarily complicated paths of multiple stages of spiritual development chock-full of elaborate rituals and hierarchical esoterism.  I know I will be accused of misunderstanding Dzogchen, as well as the Nyingma, Kagyu, and heterodox Bon traditions, but I honestly do not see any way for these conflicting facets of these traditions to be reconciled. 

I also do not believe in the law of karma or the multiple realms of rebirth, either literally or figuratively, since I have yet to encounter convincing evidence for the existence of either.  (There is some evidence for rebirth, and some evidence for post-mortem existence, but nothing that convinces me that either is a reality.  Furthermore, none of these accounts provide evidence for the law of karma, or the view that the morality or immorality of one’s past and present actions determine the circumstances of one’s future births, and that the morality or immorality of one’s past actions have determined one’s present circumstances.)  

Interlude # 2: Introduction to the Tantric Traditions

Tantric traditions are based on a class of South Asian ritual and meditation manuals known as tantras.  The basic idea of all tantric traditions, whether they are Buddhist, Hindu, or Jain, is to use ordinary states of mind, specifically states of desire, in the process of becoming awakened.  In most Buddhist and Hindu traditions, and in both major Jain monastic traditions, the renunciation of the ordinary life of desire is considered a prerequisite for committing oneself to the path of awakening or liberation.  However, the tantric traditions seek to use desire on the path of awakening rather than renounce it altogether.

This does not mean that the tantric traditions encourage self-indulgence.  Rather, what they really do, at least in theory, is to encourage people to transcend base desires using the wisdom at the heart of every one of them.   The wisdom of the Buddha and the Buddha-Nature, or in the tantric Hindu context, of Shiva-Shakti and one’s true identity as Shiva-Shakti, exist in all situations, including those involving sensual desire, and can be realized in all situations, including those involving sensual desire.  It is this insight that the tantric traditions seek to utilize in the pursuit of wisdom through desire. 

Other major practices of the tantric traditions include secret rituals and initiation ceremonies, complete dedication to one’s guru as equivalent or identical to a deity or a buddha (depending on the tradition, though Tibetan Buddhism includes both), elaborate visualization practices (of deities and other important beings), the use of mandalas (or maps of the cosmos) and yantras ( or geometric designs representing deities and concepts), the use of mudras (or stylized hand gestures – though this word also refers to “parched grain,” one of the five taboo substances discussed below), and the use of mantras (best translated as “sacred phrases”).

Ritualized sex is part of the tantric traditions of Buddhism and Hinduism, at least in theory (and often in practice as well), but it is not the central practice of any form of tantrism, whether Buddhist or Hindu (and it is absent in Jainism, the tantric tradition of which is of the extreme “right hand” variety).  However, sexual intercourse is one of the five things that were traditionally taboo for monks and mendicants to do in South Asian society, along with consuming alcohol, eating meat, eating fish, and eating parched grain, all of which tantric practitioners did and still do either literally or symbolically.  These five taboos are known as Panchamakara, or the “Five M’s” – because they all begin with that letter in Sanskrit.  Antinomian behavior, which consists of engaging in the “Five M’s” as well as other taboo activities, is part of many tantric traditions.  It is very prominent in the Kagyu tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, as well as in the Kapalika and non-tantric Pashupata traditions of Shaivism and the tantric Kalikula traditions of Shaktism, all of which can safely be categorized as “left-hand” forms of tantrism (with the Pashupata simply being a form of “left-hand” cremation-ground asceticism rather than left-hand tantrism). 

However, other tantric traditions, such as the Geluk sect of Tibetan Buddhism headed by the Dalai Lama, the popular Shaiva Siddhanta tradition of Southern India, the householder tradition of monistic Shaivism that is usually known as “Kashmir Shaivism” (and which is based on Kapalika or “Cremation-Ground” Shaivism, but no longer incorporates that element of the Shaiva tradition in practice), and the Srikula traditions of Shaktism, discourage antinomian behavior almost entirely (or even altogether), allowing it only for the most advanced practitioners, and even then only on rare occasions.  These “right hand” tantric traditions interpret the “Five M’s” symbolically, and often go out of their way to discourage antinomianism among their practitioners, especially their monastics and priests. 

Tantric practices are part of all the following traditions: Shingon Buddhism (which is the oldest school of tantric Buddhism, and is still popular in Japan); Tendai Buddhism (as a minor element of the tradition, and only in Japanese Tendai, not Chinese Tiantai); the four major schools of Tibetan Buddhism – the Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya, and Geluk (as well as the minor schools of Jonang and Kadampa); Bon, the heterodox tradition of Tibetan Buddhism that mixes tantric Buddhist elements and indigenous Tibetan elements; the Newar tradition of Buddhism in Nepal (which I will not cover in this series); Kapalika (or “Cremation Ground”) Shaivism; Kaula; Kashmir Shaivism, which is also known as Trika; Shaiva Siddhanta; Natha Yoga or Siddha Siddhanta; Shiva Advaita; Vira Shaivism or Lingayatism; Kalikula Shaktism; Srikula Shaktism; and some esoteric traditions of Jainism.  Some reform movements within Hinduism and Buddhism also have tantric overtones.  Aurobindo’s Integral Yoga has a metaphysic that is similar to Advaita Vedanta in some ways, but it is (at least in theory) more life-affirming and world-affirming (even though, by Western standards, it is still quite ascetic, as it encourages extreme moderation in most sensual activities as well as celibacy), and this element of it seems to derive from tantric traditions more than Advaita Vedanta.  The Ramakrishna Mission / Ramakrishna Math and its American branch, the Vedanta Society, while it is based principally on Advaita Vedanta, has its roots in a guru (Ramakrishna) who was originally, and while alive never ceased to be, a devotee of Kali, and a tantric adept of the right-hand variety (baseless claims by some psychoanalytically-inclined scholars about his mystical experiences being the result of repressed homosexuality and pedophiliac tendencies notwithstanding).    

Interlude # 1: Buddhist Modernism and Buddhist Traditionalism

In analyzing any tradition of Buddhism, it is important to be mindful of the difference between traditionalist and modernist presentations of Buddhism (see David McMahan’s excellent book on the subject for a more detailed overview). 

Modernist presentations tend to demythologize the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, as well as the traditional cosmology that (according to all three Asian-language canons) he taught.  Instead, they present the Buddha as “merely human” rather than a “teacher of gods and humans” who possessed various supernormal powers such as the ability to fly while seated in the lotus posture and the ability to walk on water, and they interpret the traditional cosmology consisting of multiple realms where a sentient entity can be reborn in each new lifetime nonliterally. 

Modernists also tend to present Buddhism as fully in accord with modern science, and as empirical in its own right.  They (by giving modernizing interpretations to texts such as the Kalama Sutta) present it as highly individualistic, as something to be accepted or rejected based on whether or not one’s experiences confirm its teachings.  They deemphasize the importance of monasticism and the monastic community while trying to appeal more to laypeople living busy modern lives.  They emphasize meditation and philosophy or doctrine, and they present Buddhism as the tradition most consistent with secular humanist values. 

In true Protestant fashion (some scholars of Buddhism, notably Richard Gombrich, even refer to Buddhist Modernism, or at least the most popular segment of it, as “Protestant Buddhism”), Buddhist Modernists almost take it for granted that Buddhist texts, especially the sermons of the Buddha, have the final say on matters of practice and doctrine (despite frequently distorting these texts for the sake of their modernist agenda; then again, traditionalists have also tended to do the same for their agenda).

On the other hand, traditionalist Buddhists tend to emphasize the importance of the monastic tradition of Buddhism, including the observance by monks of the traditional rules of monastic conduct, the vinaya.  If the Pali Canon is to be trusted, Siddhartha Gautama believed that renouncing the everyday life of a householder or other layperson was absolutely essential in order to have a chance at becoming liberated from the cycle of rebirth in this lifetime.  As a corollary, most traditionalist Buddhists hold that the best that laypeople can hope for in their next lifetime is a more favorable rebirth, which they can gain by engaging in meritorious conduct, such as ritualistic acts of devotion towards stupas or pagodas and statues of the Buddha, chanting mantras, and above all, providing the means of sustenance to monks. 

In general, traditionalists believe that the Saha world-system with its multiple netherworlds or hells or places of great suffering, the realm of the hungry ghosts at or just beneath the surface of the earth, the realms of animals and humans on the earth’s surface, the realm of the demigods just above the earth, the heavens of the realm of desire well above the earth, the heavens of form far above the earth, and the formless realms beyond, literally exists.  One is reborn again and again in these realms as long as one continues to generate new seeds of rebirth by acting in the world based on one’s desires and attachments.  While there is no permanent self, since all the components of what is conventionally called the self are themselves always changing from moment to moment and lifetime to lifetime, rebirth still occurs for all who are caught up in the endless cycle of death and rebirth, or samsara. 

All of this happens quite literally according to traditionalists, and the graphic depictions of torment in the hells, as well as the graphic depictions of the pleasures of the heavens, refer to post-mortem states that literally exist.  As for the Buddha, traditionalists do not regard him as a mere human in any tradition, including Theravada and Chan/Zen.  He is the “World-Honored One,” the “Thus-Come One,” the “Teacher of Gods and Humans,” with the ability to perform many wondrous and miraculous deeds.  To call him merely human in a traditionalist Buddhist context would be quite ludicrous, even though that is how most Modernists see him.  He is not a god, but is rather greater than any god.        

Many Western Buddhists, and even Westerners generally, believe that Buddhist Modernism is the “real” Buddhism, and that the more mythological aspects of the tradition are meant to be interpreted nonliterally, or even that they are not part of Buddhism at all, but represent pre-Buddhist cultural baggage from societies where Buddhism later became established. 

In reality, the predominant narrative of Buddhist Modernism was developed jointly by a handful of (mostly lay) Asian Buddhists and Western Orientalists and Theosophists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and represents a definitive break with all earlier interpretations of Buddhism.  This narrative has been the primary (and in most cases the only) narrative about Buddhism that Westerners have heard, and it is through this lens that most Westerners, especially Western Buddhists, have interpreted the whole tradition. 

I do not wish to condemn this narrative or say that it is “wrong,” especially since I strongly prefer Buddhist Modernism to nearly all forms of Buddhist Traditionalism, even if Buddhist Modernism distorts the historical teachings and practices of Buddhism to a greater degree than Buddhist Traditionalism.  I merely wish to point out that it is a recent innovation, and generally does not agree with many of the literal words that the Buddha allegedly spoke. 

It is, again, true that traditionalist forms of Buddhism have also distorted the Buddha’s literal words, but it has generally been to a lesser degree.  Moreover, these forms tend not to be as concerned with strict adherence to the original words as Modernist forms, though of course they have been at least somewhat concerned with it.

Buddhist Modernism has been the primary lens through which most forms of Buddhism have been interpreted in the West, as well as in lay scholarly and intellectual circles in many Asian Buddhist countries.  It has been particularly significant in interpretations of Theravada, Chan/Zen (which, owing to D.T. Suzuki’s influence, is often not even regarded as a form of Buddhism in Western countries), and Tibetan Buddhism in the West. 

Many of the individuals who first or most famously presented the teachings of these traditions to Western audiences (particularly Henry Steel Olcott and Anagarika Dharmapala in the case of the Theravada, Soen Shaku and D.T. Suzuki in the case of Zen, and the Fourteenth Dalai Lama and his Western supporters in the case of Tibetan Buddhism) intentionally cut out or interpreted nonliterally the less “rational” aspects of their respective forms of Buddhism (which all of them have certainly had historically) to make them more appealing to Westerners reared on the scientific method and Enlightenment values like reason, freedom, and equality.

In the end, one could even make the argument that the novel presentation of Buddhism provided by modernists is in fact quite traditional, since one of the central emphases of the Buddha’s teachings in the Pali Canon and many Mahayana texts is the importance of adapting one’s teachings to the needs and abilities of one’s audience.  Traditionalists would likely counter that modernists bend the tradition far more than the Buddha himself would have allowed.  However, that is a debate for another time.

Spiritual Alternative # 3: Zen Buddhism

Zen Buddhism (which is known as Chan in China, where it originated; Son in Korea; and Thien in Vietnam, and is based on the Sanskrit word dhyana, which is usually translated as "absorption" in modern English, but sometimes simply as "meditation"), according to its practitioners, is, as famous proponent of Zen Buddhism Masao Abe translates it, "[a]n independent transmission outside the teaching of the scriptures, [d]irectly pointing to man's Mind, [a]wakening of one's (Original-) Nature, thereby actualizing one's own Buddhahood" (attributed to Bodhidharma, founder of the Chan/Zen tradition, who is depicted as the transmitter of this tradition from India to China, and not its founder, in traditional Zen accounts).  However, like all traditions Zen Buddhism has a history.  It is not an ahistorical essence or a “wafting cloud in the sky” (D.T. Suzuki, An Introduction to Zen Buddhism, p. 41), at least not in practice.  

Zen Buddhism has definitive practices: zazen or seated meditation, of which there are several kinds (see The Three Pillars of Zen by Philip Kapleau Roshi, pp. 31-44, 141-142), and contemplation of koans, or non-logical statements designed to snap the mind out of its ordinary modes of cognition, at least after several years of intense practice, including some preliminary training in seated meditation.  It even has formal rituals, such as the chanting of sutras and the performance of funerals by Zen Buddhist monks (see The Other Side of Zen by Duncan Ryuken Williams and Soto Zen in Medieval Japan by William Bodiford for information on how such aspects of Zen Buddhism developed in Medieval Japan).  

Zen Buddhism has a rigid code of discipline (more rigid than most other forms of monastic Buddhism, in fact - see The Zen Monastic Experience by Robert Buswell and The Empty Mirror by Janwillem van de Wetering for Western accounts of contemporary Zen monasticism, the former in Korea and the latter in Japan; see The Baizhang Zen Monastic Regulations for a sample of some of the rules and regulations that Zen monks have historically been expected to follow).  It is very hierarchical and very traditional, as the mind of awakening has allegedly been passed from master to disciple for many generations, and respect for and obedience to one’s master is still expected in East Asian Chan/Son/Zen/Thien training.  (I will note here that there is one feature of Zen Buddhism that has been over-emphasized by those who see Zen as an exotic, foreign practice, and under-emphasized by those with a mere philosophical interest in Zen Buddhism: the use, by Zen masters, of the keisaku or kyosaku, or a stick used to hit disciples in order to help rouse them to awakening.  I will not go into details about this here.)

Still, the goals of Zen Buddhism are quite similar to those of Philosophical Daoism.  The primary goal of practitioners of Zen Buddhism is to transcend all limitations and dualities, including oneness or any concept of oneness (which is dualistic because it is exclusive of diversity or many-ness).  In principle, it is amoral, and only considers morality valuable if it aids one in practicing meditation and the other traditional practices of Zen.   

At the same time, it really is part of Buddhism, so it also (again, in principle) accepts the traditional cosmology of Buddhism, including its idea of continuous rebirth in the six realms of existence until awakening or buddhahood is realized.  That Zen Buddhists have historically been more likely to interpret these teachings nonliterally than other Buddhists (again, “more likely” – many, and probably even most Chan and Zen Buddhists historically interpreted these teachings literally, but that has changed in the last century, as it has for many “modernist” Buddhists in Asia and the West) does not negate the fact that they have been present in Zen Buddhism, as they are present in some of the Mahayana sutras upon which Zen Buddhism is based, such as the Lankavatara Sutra.   

In addition, Zen Buddhism is a Mahayana tradition, meaning it regards the bodhisattva, or the one who aspires to full buddhahood out of compassion for all sentient beings (the basis of this aspiration is known as bodhicitta, or the mind of awakening), as the ideal which all sentient beings should seek.  (Heinrich Dumoulin, a Catholic priest, made this point most forcefully in his book Zen Buddhism: A History, India & China (Volume 1) - not to be confused with Dumoulin's earlier edition of this work called A History of Zen Buddhism, which has Catholic triumphalist claims that are utterly inappropriate in a scholarly work on the history of a religion, even if they would not be objectionable in an apologetic work - fortunately, Dumoulin changed his approach for later editions.)

Zen Buddhism excels in its methodology.  Zazen, especially the form of it known as shikantaza (which is the practice of “just sitting” with the mind both fully alert and relaxed, without the aid of counting the breath or any other “crutch,” and is extremely difficult - Kapleau's Three Pillars of Zen, pp. 60-62, provides an excellent description of this practice), for those capable of it, as well as contemplation of a koan, are very effective means (at least for those who rigorously practice them for many years) for freeing the mind from its habitual tendency to set up dualities between likes and dislikes, and thus awakening a person to his or her original nature.  

To clarify, real Zen has the power to do this.  Armchair Zen, or the practice of sitting around discussing the “Zen of” every topic under the sun, or of identifying states of great joy or even occasional feelings of oneness with nature with Zen, while perhaps warranting nothing more than a light smile (and certainly not any kind of self-righteous condemnation), does not have the power to liberate the mind from all dualities, or, more accurately, to introduce a person to his or her original nature, to who he or she has always been but has not recognized before due to attachment to various likes and dislikes.  One does not need to remove these attachments; rather one only needs to recognize the buddha-nature of the mind, and upon the realization of this, likes and dislikes, which are lacking in any intrinsic existence or essential nature, will vanish of their own accord.  Still, it is better, at all stages of practice, to have as few attachments as possible, which I suspect is the rationale for the strict discipline of Zen monasteries historically.

The principal goal of Zen Buddhism, and specifically of the practice of zazen, is the realization or recognition of one’s true nature, of seeing into one’s mind and recognizing that one has always been a buddha, though one has not realized it before.  This is awakening or bodhi (the most complete form of which is known as anuttara-samyak-sambodhi), and it is known in Japanese as kensho or satori (the latter being a “deeper” realization of one’s buddha-nature than the former - see The Three Pillars of Zen, p. 409).   

The goal of Zen Buddhism is not just to experience kensho or satori once, but to constantly remain in that state no matter what other activities one engages in on a daily basis (The Three Pillars of Zen, pp. 53-56).  This actualization of one’s intrinsic buddhahood in all situations is known in Japanese as mujodo no taigen (Ibid.).  As an initial matter, the Zen Buddhist disciple must learn to concentrate the mind one-pointedly (this is called joriki in Japanese), keeping out all external distractions or attachments (Ibid.).  This type of concentration takes time to learn for almost all people, but it is just the first step in the process of awakening.  Although awakening occurs “instantaneously” when it happens, it takes several years of training before most people get to the point where they can actually have this “instantaneous” experience of awakening. 

On the negative side, Zen Buddhism has a tendency to become excessively anti-intellectual, much as many other traditions (such as Advaita Vedanta) have a tendency to become overly-intellectual.  Unfortunately, it often happens that Zen Buddhists teach metaphysical doctrines, whether explicitly or implicitly, but immediately criticize others those who rationally examine or proclaim metaphysical doctrines (many of those who claim to follow the Advaitin sage Ramana Maharshi do the same thing).   

The problematic nature of this situation can best be addressed by accepting that on one level (let us call it that of the seeker, or one who is uncertain about the nature and goal of existence and is looking for answers) it is appropriate to analyze and evaluate any teachings, including the teachings of Zen Buddhism, to determine consistency, sensibility, and practicality, while on another level (let us call it that of the practitioner, or one who is committed to a particular tradition based on what he or she believes to be the certain, probable, or even possible nature and goal of existence), it is best, to put it bluntly, to shut up and practice what the tradition teaches so that one can make some real progress.   

This, of course, applies to all traditions, not just Zen Buddhism, but it seems particularly relevant to Zen Buddhism, since Zen (the “Buddhism” part is often dropped from its name in Western discourse, even though in its origins and in East Asia to this day it is plainly and explicitly a Buddhist tradition) is usually understood in the Modern West as D.T. Suzuki’s “wafting cloud,” that is, as beyond all concepts and speculation, and possible for any person to realize immediately, in the here and now, without years of dedicated practice under a qualified Zen Buddhist master.  (Of course, in theory Zen Buddhism teaches and has historically taught that it is possible to realize one’s true nature, to instantly recognize one’s intrinsic buddhahood at any time, but in practice very few people have ever realized their intrinsic buddhahood without first engaging in years of dedicated practice in zazen, the contemplation of koans, or both.)

RECOMMENDED READING:

The Three Pillars of Zen, by Philip Kapleau Roshi.  This is easily the best book on Zen Buddhism in the English language, as famous scholar of religion Huston Smith claimed.  I recommend it for those who wish to practice Zen Buddhism.  It gives some historical information about Zen Buddhism, but its emphasis is on the actual practice of Zen Buddhism.  

Zen Buddhism: A History, Volume 1 and Zen Buddhism: A History, Volume 2, by Heinrich Dumoulin.  These books describe Zen Buddhism and its historical development in the context of Mahayana Buddhism and the discourses (or sutras) that the Mahayana attributes to the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama or Shakyamuni.  The first edition, A History of Zen Buddhism, is less a scholarly work than a work of Catholic triumphalism, so is not the best resource for those who wish to learn about Zen Buddhism.  

Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation, by Zen Master Dogen, translated by Carl Bielefeldt.  These are comprehensive manuals of meditation by perhaps Zen Buddhism's greatest master, Dogen.  Most Zen masters have held that one should study under a living master, but these are probably the best instructions on meditation or anybody who wants to try to practice on their own (which is very difficult to do).  

Shobogenzo, by Zen Master Dogen.  This is a very advanced philosophical and theoretical text by arguably the greatest Zen master, Dogen.  It is for very serious students of Buddhism or comparative philosophy.  

Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch, translated by Red Pine.  This is probably the greatest theoretical introduction to Zen Buddhism, and it explains almost all of the theoretical foundations of the varieties of Zen Buddhism that have flourished in East Asia for over a thousand years.  

Manual of Zen Buddhism, with works translated by D.T. Suzuki.  This is Suzuki's greatest book, since it translates many of the texts that are and have long been central to Zen Buddhism.  Here, Zen Buddhism is not presented as a "wafting cloud in the sky," but as a tradition with a history, including texts it regards as significant.  

Zen and Western Thought, by Masao Abe.  I find Masao Abe's philosophical musings on Zen Buddhism, and his comparisons between Zen Buddhism and Western Philosophy, to be thought-provoking, but this is not the best place to start in learning about the practice, theory, or history of Zen Buddhism.
 
An Introduction to Zen Buddhism and Essays in Zen Buddhism by D.T. Suzuki.  In my opinion, the works of D.T. Suzuki are not a good place to start in learning about Zen Buddhism, especially not the practice or the history thereof.  Nonetheless, his works are philosophically engaging at times, and need not be dismissed wholesale.  

For Western accounts of the Zen monastic experience, see The Empty Mirror by Janwillem van de Wetering and The Zen Monastic Experience by Robert Buswell.

For information about the social aspects of Zen Buddhism and other aspects of it that have not been historically emphasized in the West, see Soto Zen in Medieval Japan by William Bodiford and The Other Side of Zen by Duncan Ryuken Williams.