Lots of people commented on my previous post that Ryushin Sensei was asked to leave Zen Mountain Monastery not because everyone at ZMM is a prude but because his conduct violated the monastic code. I wasn’t trying to address that aspect in my previous piece, but rather the way in which people uninvolved in ZMM’s business seemed to be taking the news.
But with that as a lunching point, I thought I’d try and explain what I think Zen is.
To me, Zen is a communal practice of individual deep inquiry.
Throughout history there have been people who were concerned about the deeper meaning of existence. There are many ways to try to figure that stuff out. Some study science, some study psychology, some study by writing books or poems, or by playing music or sports, and so forth.
Among those seekers, there is a certain class of people who try to understand the human condition by sitting very quietly and simply observing themselves in action. The Buddha was one of these.
The Buddha had his great revelation after he split from the group of five fellow meditators he’d been wandering with. After his great awakening he decided to try to tell those guys about it and maybe teach them how he’d come to the understanding he’d discovered. Those five guys became the world’s first Buddhists.
Everything that has come along since then in the realm of what we now call “Buddhism” is based on that series of events. We need to always remember how it began.
Although you can, and I think ought to, do zazen alone, that larger thing we call Zen Buddhism is a communal practice. It’s not something you do by yourself. And yet we have no doctrines and no belief system.
That’s kind of weird. Every church I ever visited was all about doctrines and beliefs. As far as I’m aware most Hindu temples, mosques and synagogues are too. In fact there are a number of forms of Buddhism where they are very concerned that all members share a common set of beliefs and can recite the basic doctrines of their form of Buddhism on cue.
But my teachers never made any effort to get me to memorize doctrines or creeds or to make me believe what they believed. Noticing this has led me to form a different sort of vision of what we’re doing when we participate in this practice.
When we come together to sit on our cushions and stare at the walls, we don’t look to anyone else to frame our experience for us. We don’t, for example, do guided meditation sessions in which a leader tells us what to focus on or how to breathe. We are left to discover for ourselves whatever it is we might discover.
It’s just as if we’ve climbed up to the top of a mountain or entered a deep cave to get away from all distractions and focus on ourselves. But – very significantly – we are not on the top of a mountain or deep in a cave, and we are not alone. Instead, we’re in a temple, a rented yoga studio, a house, or wherever we’ve found to gather. And we are with a group of others who are similarly interested in this kind of deep inquiry into what it means to be human.
We don’t try to impose what we find on each other. Even the person who leads the group does not try to impose what she or he has discovered on anyone else there. We regard every person’s unique experience of themselves to be fully and equally valid.
However, in order to establish a space that is somewhat like what one would find if one were to climb to the top of a mountain or enter a deep solitary cave by oneself, we have to set up some rules about how to conduct ourselves within the space we have chosen to do this.
Very basically, we have to be quiet and respectful so that everyone involved can get on with the business of studying themselves.
That, to me, is the ultimate objective of any Zen space – to provide as adequate a place as possible for people to sit quietly together and look deeply into themselves. The people who come to such spaces come because they want two basic things. They want to search within themselves and they want to do this with others, not alone.
Unlike any other religion I know of, the rules in Zen are strictly about how to conduct ourselves in the spaces in which we gather together to work on ourselves.
To take what seems to be a favorite example, let’s look at the Buddhist ideas about homosexuality. For many religions, homosexuality is forbidden as a sin. For Buddhists, homosexuality is only addressed in terms of how homosexual activities can be disruptive in shared spaces where people come to study themselves.
There are no rules saying that you can’t have gay sex. There are only rules saying that you can’t have gay sex while undergoing meditation training in a communal setting and only because that activity makes all kinds of weird noises and potentially sets up uncomfortable social interactions. Furthermore, it’s not just homosexual sex that’s disallowed in these settings; all types of sex are similarly against the rules. But once you leave that setting you can do whatever you like.
Every other rule that we establish in our communal spaces of individual deep inquiry is established for the very same reason; to make sure everyone involved can focus on what we’ve all come together to focus on.
An interesting thing happens when we do this together. Without ever getting indoctrinated into a common set of beliefs, we find that we start to align with each other, like magnetized pieces of metal. You begin to discover that all human beings are very, very similar. You discover that your most fondly held belief systems are actually entirely superficial, no matter how deep they appear to be. You discover that what is truly important is shared with everyone and everything you encounter.
Practicing Zen simply means to come together in this spirit and learn how best to allow each other the proper space to find it for ourselves. We have rules and codes of conduct, but only in order to allow the space for this individual inquiry and never to try to impose a belief system or way of life upon anyone else.
* * *
Every Monday at 8pm I lead zazen at Silverlake Yoga Studio 2 located at 2810 Glendale Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90039. All are welcome!
Every Saturday at 9:30 am I lead zazen at the Veteran’s Memorial Complex located at 4117 Overland Blvd., Culver City, CA 90230. All are welcome!
Plenty more info is available on the Dogen Sangha Los Angeles website, dsla.info
* * *
I really need your kind donations in order to keep doing this blog. Every little bit helps. Thank you!
And yet we have no doctrines and no belief system.
How do the 4 noble truths fit in? Right View? 8 fold, etc?
Maybe you see these as suggestions?
“How do the 4 noble truths fit in? Right View? 8 fold, etc?”
As far as I am concerned all of the above are great sounding ideas which need to be examined by practice to see if they hold water or not. This examination is an ongoing process.
Every time you notice that you are suffering you establish truth number one. When we notice that we are trying to escape this suffering we establish truth number two. And so on…
I suspect that if you treat them like eternal facts they will die as truths.
Cheers.
Still, Right Speech happens off the cushion. I think there’s a bit more to it than what Brad is putting forth – practice in daily life. But maybe Zen is only what happens on the cushion with a group of people keeping it chill for each other?
“Every time you notice that you are suffering you establish truth number one.” — Alan Sailer (and Brad Warner by agreement)
Truth numero uno is that life is suffering. But it’s not true. In life there is suffer but there is also satisfaction. The Buddha, or whoever, just made a religion out of one aspect of life and you bought it hook, line, and sinker. You are believers, being that you believe the narrative.
“satisfaction” falls under the definition of dukkha.
Case and point, Zen Buddhist believe that “satisfaction” falls under the definition of dukkha, others do not. Indeed most do not. And this is only the first Buddhist belief that Zen Buddhists believe in, there are many others in Buddhist doctrine.
I find religious people are often confused about what they believe. I imagine that’s because their beliefs are so ingrained that they don’t even seem like beliefs after awhile, or perhaps in the case of Zen, someone of authority tells them that they have no beliefs, so they come to believe that they have no beliefs. Also contributing to the confusions is that few understand the purpose of religion is essentially to fulfill our natural desire for meaning. Everything else, like
“communal practice of individual deep inquiry,” supports the essential purpose of providing a structured system of meaning. And a communal practice of individual deep inquiry is not unique to Zen, by the way. Many religions include contemplative practices.
Many outgrow their need to be spoon fed meaning via a religious system of meaning. Others can make a career out of it.
Zafu said:
“case in point, Zen Buddhism believe that satisfaction falls under the definition of dukkha, others do not. Indeed most do not.”
Really…? 🙂
You are going to have to back that whopper up…
Zafu, what of the proposition that Zen proposes to free the practitioner of the need to have meaning?
It’s not clear what I have to backup, Shodo. Could you please clarify?
Yes, mink-foot, there are many beliefs in Zen, such as the belief that Zen frees the practitioner of the need to have meaning? Tell me, has it freed you of the need for meaning?
You claim that “satisfaction” doesn’t fall under the definition of dukkha in “most” Buddhist schools.
I do not feel a need to find meaning. Meanings come and go. I have lost the belief that the universe, life, and everything, must have a meaning, since “meaning” is a construct forced upon a reality rich enough to accept it, but which is still there without it.
“Belief” does not apply. It’s more like relaxation.
I think one problem is the varying meaning of the word “belief.” Brad shoots from the hip a lot. I believe he meant that Zen has no creed that must be believed in order to enter the fold. Of course, there are lots of beliefs involved – we are humans with a human mental apparatus of which beliefs about our reality are an important element by which to regulate our behavior, just to survive. One big one, without which entering Zen would likely not happen, is that there is something worth our time and effort in this practice. And part of the practice is to allow our beliefs to show themselves, to examine them, and to ask if they have any reality to them. Our relation to beliefs changes – for one thing, we don’t take them so seriously, and definitely not as Eternal Truth!
And that’s eternally true!
You don’t feel a need for meaning, aye, minkfoot?
This must be an example of Zen individual deep inquiry.
If you were honest, that would express a lack of beliefs.
To be honest, I am not honest.
Neither have I a lack of beliefs, although I believe strongly in disbelief.
Now, why would not needing to find meaning express a lack of beliefs?
“To be honest, I am not honest.”
Religious folk can’t afford to be honest. 🙁
Religious folk can’t afford not to be honest. Thus the frequency of flameouts. Crashing and burning can be said to be a true beginning of the religious life.
You have not exposed yourself very much. You wouldn’t believe what a bunch of nosy assholes populate these comment threads
The satisfactions of life never last, and that’s what makes them lead to suffering. Almost as soon as we are satisfied, we are trying to hold onto that satisfaction, fearing its loss, and plotting new satisfactions. Satisfaction produces dissatisfaction, and thus, is dukkha.
This is not a doctrine to believe, it’s a truth to be observed and confirmed over and over again in oneself, until it sinks in strongly enough that we get the point and stop craving satisfaction as if that were the point of our lives. We begin to see that the craving for satisfaction is something to be rid of, rather than fulfilled. And that’s where the 8-Fold path comes in – not as a path of fulfillment, but a path of release from the craving for satisfaction.
What Alan Sailer said.
The monastic rule at ZMM is based on the precepts.
Im sure that all Buddhist monasteries do.
I always especially enjoy sesshin because I can be completely and totally alone with a whole bunch of other cooperative people who all without exception seem to be making a real almost superhuman effort to just leave me alone!
What about chanting old poems, lists of dead people’s names, and hitting a wooden fish? Where does that fit in?
Addressing that would have put this article way over the arbitrary 1000 word limit I have set for this blog. And I already went over that by about 200 words anyway.
These activities, as far as I’m concerned, are all about establishing atmosphere. When people do activities together they feel more like a community. So we chant and hit wooden fish and burn incense, etc. The active stuff, with all its movements and coordination, helps bond the group.
This is one of the reasons some people involved in Zen don’t like to translate the sutras. Even in Japan, the versions they use of things like the Heart Sutra, Enmei Juku Kanon Gyo, Daihi Shin Darani, etc. are mostly unintelligible to those who chant them.
We chant dead people’s names to further emphasize that our community is larger than the immediate group of people who happen to show up that day but extends back thousands of years and will, we hope, extend into the future as well.
For that matter, the hierarchies present in Zen temples that people so struggle with in our country are also intended just to maintain the atmosphere necessary for practice. People get upset when some random guy at the library says “shush” to them, but if the librarian does it we understand that they are empowered to shush us.
As groups grow this gets more complex and jobs are more specialized. Still, I think we always should remember what the bottom line is. And to me, the bottom line is that we are trying to establish a space for personal inquiry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JWXNPaLSkA
This x 10000000000000000000.
Oh nuts! Brad posted something I can’t disagree with in any way. Nothing to rant about. Suppose I’d better start practising zazen again. 🙂
“And to me, the bottom line is that we are trying to establish a space for personal inquiry.” – well said.
re: atmosphere, obviously you can’t win ’em all, but some number of people are put off by the atmosphere created by chanting.
Aren’t the Japanese versions of some of those chants attempts at pronouncing Sanskrit? Historically, was that to preserve the magic of chanting in Sanskrit? A dharani is a magic spell.
Yeah. You sure can’t please everybody! But we can try to create a nice space anyhow.
As for the Sanskrit and the idea of chanting magic spells, in Japan these days that aspect had been pretty much lost. Same in the American places where they chant these spells.
Nice post. Very straightforward and simple.
The wooden fish is cool. I was under the impression that was the main draw of Buddhism… right? (that and the crazy stories about magic pebbles and remote islands infested with rabid dogs)
Rabid dogs!? Who gives a thok!
If the rules in the monastery are established to provide space for each to engage in self enquiry, then what is the problem with Ryushin Sensei having sex with a woman outside the monastery?
How does Ryushin Sensei having sex outside the monastery effect other’s self enquiry?
Hojin and Ryushin Sensei were joined in a spiritual marriage by the former abbot. If one of the partners in the spiritual union is altered or self transformed through self enquiry that is not part of that spiritual tradition, is that union still valid?
My initial response (below) was to your first question. You also asked, “Hojin and Ryushin Sensei were joined in a spiritual marriage by the former abbot. If one of the partners in the spiritual union is altered or self transformed through self enquiry that is not part of that spiritual tradition, is that union still valid?”
I guess their marriage is still valid since I would imagine it was registered with the state of New York or wherever they were married.
You asked, “If the rules in the monastery are established to provide space for each to engage in self enquiry, then what is the problem with Ryushin Sensei having sex with a woman outside the monastery?”
I wonder that myself. So I can’t answer for the folks at Zen Mountain Monastery.
My guess is that they would say that everyone who goes to ZMM agrees that while they are there they will either be celibate or faithfully monogamous. Ryushin broke that rule. And, what’s worse, his wife (his ex-wife eventually, I assume) also lives at the monastery. So what he did created a very tense atmosphere at the monastery.
That explains why he was asked to leave in the most practical terms. It does not, however, explain why people who were completely uninvolved are getting all emo about it.
Also, ZMM may have a different idea from me about what the purpose of their rules is.
What are moral actions?
What are immoral actions?
What does morality have to do with overcoming suffering?
Is Zen related to the intention of overcoming suffering?
What do moral actions have to do with Zen?
I think real morality is about causing as little suffering to others as possible. When we cause others less suffering we can expect to suffer a bit less ourselves. There’s no magic to this.
I see it as connected to the delusion of self. Immoral acts come from wanting things to be different or not wanting what is, to suit this unexamined self. Moral behavior is the outer practice that lays the foundation for inner practice, looking at the mind before actions. It’s like cutting the branches before cutting the trunk to get to the roots.
Guan Yin said to Sudhana: “Sudhana, what do you think? Should someone accept a teaching as true simply because it is found in a book reputed to be holy?
Sudhana said: “No, Compassionate One! Books are written, compiled and translated by human beings. No book ever fell from the sky in perfect form. Countless books from ancient times contain views conditioned by ancient cultures, which can no longer be applicable today. Following a book simply because it is reputed to be holy is an abdication of personal responsibility. Why seek truth when it is already written in a book?
Guan Yin said to Sudhana: “Well spoken indeed! Now Sudhana, what do you think? Should someone accept a teaching as true because it has been uttered by a ‘Master’ reputed to be holy?
Sudhana said: “No, Compassionate One! People are often regarded as ‘Masters’ because their followers need an authority figure to obey. One man’s ‘Master’ is another man’s ‘Mister’. Regarding the words of a ‘Master’ as infallible and beyond questioning is an abdication of personal responsibility. Why seek truth when it has already been settled by the ‘Master’?
Guan Yin said to Sudhana: “Well spoken indeed! Now Sudhana, what do you think? Should someone reject a teaching because it is not found in a book reputed to be holy?
Sudhana said: “No Compassionate One! To reject something as untrue simply because it is not written in a book reputed to be holy is a fallacy of reason. Truth can be found everywhere. If a teaching is true, it does not matter where it is found or how it has been presented. The wise discern truth from various sources just like a bee gathers nectar from different flowers. Rejecting a teaching as untrue because it is not found in the holy book of one’s preference is an abdication of personal responsibility. Why investigate something when everything I need to know is already written down in a holy book?
Guan Yin said to Sudhana: “Well spoken indeed! Now Sudhana, what do you think? Should someone reject a teaching because it has not been uttered by a master reputed to be holy?
Sudhana said: “No Compassionate One! To reject something as not true simply because it was not uttered by a master reputed to be holy is a logical fallacy. Truth can be found everywhere. If a teaching is true, it does not matter who has spoken it. Rejecting a teaching as not true because it was not spoken by the master of one’s preference is an abdication of personal responsibility. Why investigate something when one’s ‘Master’ already has the ‘ultimate truth’?
Guan Yin said to Sudhana: “Well spoken indeed! Sudhana, do not accept a teaching simply because it is found in a book reputed to be holy or has been uttered by a master reputed to be holy. Do not reject a teaching simply because it is not found in a book reputed to be holy or has not been uttered by a master reputed to be holy. For what is regarded as holy is often simply a matter of unthinking tradition or even acquired prejudice. When, after rational investigation and methodical practice, you yourself know that a teaching accords with reason and is conducive to happiness for oneself and all — then accept that teaching!
– http://thegospelofguanyin.wordpress.com
Interesting. This appears to be a variation of the Kalama Sutta.
“When, after rational investigation and methodical practice, you yourself know that a teaching accords with reason and is conducive to happiness for oneself and all — then accept that teaching”
What is” accords with reason”. Is reason just merely what seems sensible because it agrees with the way we have been conditioned.
And should we chase or seek happiness? Happiness in terms of what, satisfying egoic goals?
Clearly
Happiness is overrated. There’s a reason the Bodhisattva waits in “The Heaven of the Contented.”
Watching this video brought up several thoughts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoxmiVdYxLA
Are these people creating a space for personal inquiry?
About thirty years ago, whenever you came across a chirpy, clichéd, “uplifting” song when you were spinning the dial crossing Iowa, you knew it was “Christian music” before any mention of Christ. When the message is more important than the art, æsthetics suffers. They’ve gotten better at it lately, I think, though I usually come across it lately only by accident, and the advent of cheap mp3 players eliminates much of my radio exploration. Most traditional Buddhist music is pretty good, but stuff that tries to be hip is pretty obvious. On the other hand, if it’s fun to make, it’s fun to watch, even if it is propaganda.
Any group of people in Vermont long enough tends to look like a hippy commune.
Interesting interview with Kenneth Folk on BATGAP.
Awakening to groundstate(s) of the universe. Mr. Folk began his journey by meditating while on 4 hits of acid.
Swing and a miss!
Looking up Folk led me to this:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/americanbuddhist/2013/09/kenneth-folk-vs-the-speculative-non-buddhists.html
Which, in turn, led me to look up the usage of x-Buddhist and Non-Buddhist.
I don’t think I would have any bigger hole if I never heard of any of it.
One who feels that one is blessed, cannot be realized. As long as there is an idea of virtue or of religious merit, there are no hopes of Self-realization. -Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
zafu wrote:
“Truth numero uno is that life is suffering. But it’s not true. In life there is suffer but there is also satisfaction. The Buddha, or whoever, just made a religion out of one aspect of life and you bought it hook, line, and sinker. You are believers, being that you believe the narrative.”
Of course, no one knows what the Buddha said for sure. Regardless, assuming the early Pali texts are a pretty accurate record – and so say most (non-religious) experts – the Buddha did not say “Life is suffering”. The Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, the earliest written record of the Noble Truths in the canon, has neither “Life is suffering” nor “Everything is suffering”, or any Pali equivalent. It says:
“Suffering, as a noble truth, is this: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; association with the loathed is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what one wants is suffering – in short, suffering is the five categories of clinging objects.”
Elswhere the Buddha elaborates on the nature of this suffering/dissatisfaction. But nowhere does he say “Life is suffering.” The point he’s making is not that life is one long, relentless encounter with misery, but that aspects of experience – arguably, aspects of all experience – are unsatisfactory/displeasing. I think it’s a fair point to make.
If you want to see what the abhidhamma made of the upÄdÄnakkhandha, the (five) ‘clinging groups’ go here:
http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/g_m/khandha.htm
If you want to see what Zen makes of the the five clinging groups go, for example here:
…wait for it…
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/heartsutra.html
WTF! WordPress won’t let me post a link to the Heart Sutra. Tells me it’s a duplicate comment and I’ve already said it. I really don’t believe I have. So – Heart Sutra. Find it you want to.
– and now it shows up! …One relentless encounter with misery :/
Thanks Anon! I was blissfully unaware of that quotation, although this was the way the whole “life is suffering” thing was explained by both of my teachers.
Another way of looking at it is the Five Remembrances:
I am of the nature to grow old;
There is no way to escape growing old.
I am of the nature to have ill health;
There is no way to escape having ill health.
I am of the nature to die;
There is no way to escape death.
All that is dear to me and everyone I love are of the nature of change;
There is no way to escape being separated from them.
My deeds are my closest companions;
I am the beneï¬ciary of my deeds;
My deeds are the ground on which I stand.
[from the Boundless Way liturgy]
It’s not so much that Life is Suffering, but that suffering is unavoidable, thus satisfaction is impermanent. And this is the great motivator for taking up the Buddha’s prescription for how to deal with it.
In the KwanUm School, the Heart Sutra in English contains the lines, “The Bodhisattva depends on Prajanparamita/and the mind is no hindrance./Without any hindrance/no fears exist/Far apart from every perverted view/one dwells in Nirvana.”
For me, this indicates that without any effort, the mind is already no hindrance. Because of this, no fears can exist. “Every perverted view” means that any view we hold is a perversion of reality. So depending on Prajnaparamita means not clinging to any views.
Now that I’ve made my quota of mistakes for the day, I’ll shut up.
Interesting, sri-b.
FWIW, this is from an attempt I made to translate the Sanskrit Heart Sutra 3 or 4 years ago. Most likely, the extant Sanskrit version is a back-translation of a Chinese original (pretending to be a translation of a Sanskrit/Pali original?). I tried to make the translation word-for-word ‘literal’, but as I have no Chinese I can’t say how close the one might be to the other.
“Therefore, O Shariputra, by non-attainment, practising the prajna-paramita of the bodhisattvas, he dwells with mind unobscured.
Since there is no mental obscuration, (he is) unafraid, (he has) overcome delusion, (he is) grounded in nirvana.”
BTW… My understanding of what’s meant by “practising the prajna-paramita” follows that of my teacher, because it makes sense to me. It’s the practice of, the state in, zazen.
“For that matter, the hierarchies present in Zen temples that people so struggle with in our country are also intended just to maintain the atmosphere necessary for practice. People get upset when some random guy at the library says “shush” to them, but if the librarian does it we understand that they are empowered to shush us.”
That would be true, except that no one expects a librarian to teach anything about the great matter of life and death, whether by example or by direct instruction. Do you hold yourself out as a teacher with regard to the great matter of life and death, or not?
Me? No. Not really.
I would say that this what folks find disconcerting about a Zen master who is forced to take a leave of absence from his position as abbot, or who is unseated altogether: how can a person who acts in a way that is considered harmful to some members of the community be expected to offer something of the nature of the great matter to members of the very same community?
“My hand just moves. It’s will-less (ishinashini).” (from the Sasaki archive pg 5, here)
“how can a person who acts in a way that is considered harmful to some members of the community be expected to offer something of the nature of the great matter to members of the very same community?”
It is considered harmful out of ignorance. The ignorance is created by attachment, attachment to a spouse, attachment to a marriage, attachment to a life, attachment to a sex partner, attachment to a past that is expected to continue in the future, attachment to a sangha, attachment to friends in a sangha, attachment to an abbot or guru, etc.
Things arise and pass away. Spouses fuck other people. To expect otherwise is ignorance, and creates suffering.
When Ryushin Sensei upset the applecart, he created also the opportunity to for each to see their own attachments and suffering.
Mark Foote, it’s an interesting question. For example, I didn’t know Joshu Sasaki, nor did I study with him, but I am friends with a few people who did and who found tremendous benefit in his teachings. And yet others have accused him of being very sexually inappropriate. These accusations do not seem to be groundless. Same deal with Chogyam Trungpa.
In Buddhist philosophy we don’t regard a person as being an indivisible unit who travels through time & space doing stuff. Rather we regard a person as a temporary manifestation of causes & conditions. Moment by moment such persons arise and vanish. You don’t live for 115 years (like Sasaki) or 75 years or whatever. You live for a nanosecond and you’re gone forever.
Which I do not offer as an excuse for bad behavior. Responsibility still exists. Somehow I, now, am responsible for what another manifestation of cause and effect who answered to the same name as me 13 years ago did.
The upshot is, I think one can, and in fact many have, acted in ways that were considered harmful to some members of a community and yet offered something of the nature of the great matter to members of the very same community.
Ryushin Sensei:
“What is communicated when the hermit raises that staff and says, “When the ancients got here”? What is that reality? It has to be the reality of impermanence, selflessness and causality. Note that. Make that your body and mind, through and through. And then, don’t stay there. This was the beginning for those who came before us. They all got to that point. But then, when they got there, they kept on going. Because there is no power there. Because to remain fixed in that position is to sink into the poisonous sea. Because to speak from that position is to offer words that are commonplace, words that perpetuate the illusion, the ignorance, the unreality of trying to make things permanent. It is to perpetuate a sense of inherent self and to shirk away from the responsibility of attending wholeheartedly to causality.
Don’t stay in clarity; there is no strength there. Don’t become a salesperson for Buddhism, for Zen, for the Mountains and Rivers Order, for your own role in this grand scheme. Many of us, as soon as we get to that point, are eager to make a principle, an insight into some standard for the Buddhist teachings.”
“My hand just moves. It’s will-less (ishinashini).” (from the Sasaki archive pg 5, here)”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaTR46iU1Do
Brad, you’re invested in this post! I can see why: you’re putting it out there, about what you are doing, where you feel you are coming from.
When you wear the robe, people will see you as extending a hand with regard to the matter of life and death. I suppose you are, whether you see it that way and peg somebody’s roshi-o-meter, or not.
Regarding yourself as a temporary manifestation of causes and conditions, I’d say I’m right where I am when I’m possessed of my senses, but why is it I only come to my senses when I have to breath? I tell ya, I must like to suffer.
Mark Foote said:
“I would say that this what folks find disconcerting about a Zen master who is forced to take a leave of absence from his position as abbot, or who is unseated altogether: how can a person who acts in a way that is considered harmful to some members of the community be expected to offer something of the nature of the great matter to members of the very same community?”
Perfect actions 100% of the time from the subjective viewpoint of every observer is a tall order for anyone.
Perfection has never been a requirement to this Way, only a commitment to keep practicing, even when you fail.
As far as I know, this was Ryushin’s only lapse. This has not happened with him before in all his 25 years of living at the monastery.
He moved on.
“Because to remain fixed in that position is to sink into the poisonous sea. Because to speak from that position is to offer words that are commonplace, words that perpetuate the illusion, the ignorance, the unreality of trying to make things permanent.”
I’m liking these quotes from Ryushin Fred… But that is your reason to post them?
I am interested in what he has to say after taking the power weeds. As well he is not disinclined to speak about enlightenment.
You can do that all without having to post a single quote.
What’s the reason for posting the quotes?
Who loves a good story?
Who hates a boring situation?
What, rather.
It’s a blog with comments. I have interest in this the past 2 days. If he was in Canada I would go talk to him.
It’s the nature of this personality to go all the way. What if I respond to statements in the comment section, using his words?
“Who loves a good story?
Who hates a boring situation?”
The illusion of self
“I see it as connected to the delusion of self. Immoral acts come from wanting things to be different or not wanting what is, to suit this unexamined self.”
But you aren’t giving any context.
You are just pulling quotes off of a talk on a koan and making it match up to some notion inside your skull. Does the quote have to do with shamanistic practices? How do you know? You are coming to conclusions and making analysis on things all within your own mind… But all you are doing is posting quotes.
So?
“Does the quote have to do with shamanistic practices? How do you know?”
I have never done Ayahuasca, so I have no experience from which I can comment about it.
“But you aren’t giving any context.”
The context is the totality of all form and thought. It applies here ;it applies there
Ryushin Sensei:
“Soen Nakagawa had a haiku, Ascend the slope, descend that very slope–autumn of the dragon. Remaining among forms, you’re not moved by forms. Remaining in the realm of thoughts, you are not encroached on by thoughts.”
Walking a path into Zen Mountain Monastery. Not moved by form; not moved by thought. Walking a path out of Zen Mountain Monastery. Not moved by form; not moved by thought.
Fred said:
“What if I respond to statements in the comment section using his words?”
That is your prerogative… But you don’t know what he means, you take things out of context and you give no explanation for what YOU mean.
So whatever your intention, don’t think that anyone here is following your train of thought, it’s point and meaning is unknown to everyone but you.
Usually it’s around now that you respond with some cliche’ zenny poem or turn-of-phrase, so feel free. 😉
Shimano = that far from a Zen master this is a corrupt human being.
Ryushin Sensei = Zen master and not a corrupt human being
Sasaki = don’t know
If you think that this situation with Ryushin is anything like the Shimano/Sazaki situations then you really need to educate yourself on what that difference is – because it’s nothing like it.
No kidding
Even Shimano deserves compassion. Just wish he would stop making it so difficult.
Have a slice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayj0dZ5EK1M
Shodo, it was stated that members of your sangha were unhappy that Ryushin Sensei had begun to incorporate shamistic concepts into his talks. Did you hear those talks? Do you have any written words of those talks that you could share?
Thank you.
You have acess to all the same talks that I do Fred… Except maybe the talks in the Mountain Record subscription.
I didn’t catch any shamanistic elements in any of Ryushin’s talks that made me go “huh… That was shamanistic” or “huh… Was that a drug reference?” if that is what you asking for Fred.
Are you a lawyer in your regular life?
Hahah no….
It’s awesome that you think so. :3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z3j7laY2lI
The New Atheists look to a time when all religion withers away. But there will always be experiences in human consciousness that suggest their maps, any maps, are too small.
http://youtu.be/U8h3Hbf9wik
dragged kicking, clawing, and screaming into the way…
Love Dinosaur Jr, never heard them- thanks, John!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTZv-PZ53d8
“…there will always be experiences in human consciousness…”
That’s just it, isn’t it? No matter if you wrap your mind around experiences that are sacred or profane, they are simply appearances in consciousness that come and go. Until consciousness leaves the body. All those experiences, all those concepts, what do they add up to? The accumulation of knowledge, what was all that effort worth? In the end, it turns out that even the Absolute has no use for “the Absolute.” Just another way of saying nothing.
Well said.
So saying something that is just another way of saying nothing is well said.
I’m going to have to run that by Ryushin Sensei and see what he says.
Ryushin Sensei said that:
“Sansheng asked Xuefeng, “I wonder, what does the golden fish who has passed through the net use for food?”
Feng said, “When you come out of the net, I’ll tell you.”
Of course, that is taken out of context, what with the net and all. Even though, it’s point and meaning is not totally unknown
If there are no records of Ryushin Sensei saying anything about shamin practices, and Shodo says he never heard anything, then how are we to believe that he did say anything.
And if there are no photos or witnesses to say that he was fornicating with someone other than his wife, how are we to believe any of these trumped up charges.
It would seem that someone was setting him up, perhaps another fish who wasn’t golden and hadn’t passed through the net. Perhaps someone was jealous
Fred, you are hilarious.
http://memeorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Oh-You-Make-Me-Cry-Laughing-Meme-Rage-Face-.png
So saying something that is just another way of saying nothing is well said.
I am glad to see the tradition of our school is not yet lost.
Q”What is Zen Anyway?”
A” it turns out that even the Absolute has no use for “the Absolute.”
100
Now is the time for your loving, dear
And the time for your company
Now when the light of reason fails
And fires burn on the sea
Now in this age of confusion
I have need for your company.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i84J_VaJmo
call it a kind of sangha. I don’t say you’re either on the bus; I won’t inquire as to whether you’re not.
“Kind of sangha”? We contain multitudes!
http://youtu.be/b8g_j5y2OK4
I’ve been reading about Buddhism and how it relates to Nominalism lately:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dharmakiirti/#Nom
Does anyone have anything to tell me about how abstract terms, predicates, universals, and abstract objects relate to Zen/Ch’an metaphysics?
Wiki nominalism for a general summary of what it’s about.
OK. I figured out my answer ! :D)))
EACH NEW MOMENT IS A TOKEN OF INFINITY!
There are no universals or abstract objects! Each moment everything simultaneously arises and perishes! Therefore, we can only talk about particulars!
HELL YEAH!
I’m a Buddha.
“Such bogusness of pseudo-entities becomes a recurrent theme in Buddhist Epistemology”
Not this; not that; there is nothing; no one is here; think non-thinking. Carry on with (your) ordinary life
Hi SamsaricHelicoid,
“Does anyone have anything to tell me about how abstract terms, predicates, universals, and abstract objects relate to Zen/Ch’an metaphysics?”
That’s a potentially interesting question, that I could really melt my brain with: I choose not to at this moment. But I’d suggest there are a few points of “Zen/Ch’an metaphysics” that would have to be taken into account if anyone was going to address the question in a detailed way.
1) The butcher placed his hands in Sassho, and said, “Sir, where is there any unfresh pork here?” [a koan from Shinji Shobogenzo, I’ll look up the book and case number and add it below] … nothing that enters the sphere of experience and action is ‘unclean’. We can talk/think about universals just as much as we can talk about particulars. (Although that just establishes that we can talk about the universals and abstract objects when it’s useful to do so, not yet saying anything about ontology)
2) Whatever mind and body are, they cannot be two. Zen/Ch’an philosophy is heavily influenced by the Ekayana project to transcend or reconcile the Idealism of Yogacara and the Emptiness/non-self-existence theory of Madhyamaka. From the Wikipedia article on Ekayana…
“Thus, according to Zongmi who was a lineage master of both Huayan and Chan, he clearly distinguished the Ekayana from the Mahayana, and the Mahayana teachings of Yogacara (his Mahayana class 3) and Madhyamaka (his Mahayana class 4) were eclipsed by the more profound Ekayana teaching of “manifesting nature.”
… So, for Zen, somehow, doing abstract mathematics mentally and looking at the back of my hand physically are both equally valid, and equally ‘real’, activity. And the objects of experience during either activity are no more and no less ‘real dharmas’.
3) The Huayan/Kegon metaphor of the Net of Indra was influential to Zen – each single subject-object-in-action of momentary experience reflects and contains the whole of interdependent coorigination (each dharma is all dharmas). I can’t see any problem from that Kegon viewpoint in saying that each time ‘the abstract quality of redness’ occurs in a momentary dharma configuration, it is just the same ‘abstract quality of redness’ as all the other times it occurs. Any occurrence of ‘abstract quality of redness’ is a conditioned phenomenon, subject to cause and effect (there is no universal existent), but in this moment I can think of ‘the set of all occurrences of the abstract quality of redness’, and call it ‘redness’ – and so abstract redness is real dharma within this moment of being-time.
4) The way I stated the last point (3) could seem to be subject to various well known set-theoretical paradoxes. But I don’t think they apply. If anybody gives half a shit about this stuff, and wants to query anything I’ve written here, I’m willing to discuss.
5) In general, this kind of pointless philosophizing is not the Zen way. Whatever appears here and now is here and now. Within here and now there is real activity. That is all.
The interpenetration of absolute and relative in the womb of the thus-gone.
Discuss
“Discuss”
It sounds painful. Or pleasurable. Or both. Or neither.
Chopping carrots is chopping carrots. Idle philosophizing is idle philosophizing. All good. Just don’t put the womb of the thus-gone on your chopping board.
SamsaricHelicoid said:
“OK. I figured out my answer ! :D)))
EACH NEW MOMENT IS A TOKEN OF INFINITY!”
Don’t sell the bike shop Orville… 😉
I wonder how the precepts would fall into this discussion? I think the thing that turns me off the most about Buddhism, including Zen, is this expectation that seems to always be there, in some places more obviously that others, to adapt a formal moral code, aka the precepts. Morals are of course based on beliefs and the precepts are meant to extend to all aspects of life beyond the practice space, as I understand them. It hasn’t been enough to keep me away from the zendo or the practice, but I haven’t taken the precepts and I don’t really intend to. The truth is that I pretty much already follow the 5 basic ones in my behavior and already did before I even knew anything about Buddhism (except for the not intoxicating one but that came about eventually). Still, I feel that if I were to take the precepts, it would give me this feeling of obligation to follow this code, defined by someone else, not because I feel like it was the best course of action in the moment, but because I made a formal commitment to, motivated by a need to adopt an identity as a “Buddhist” or to fit in with the sanga (the local Soto Zen Zendo in the Brazilian city where I live has certain activities only for those who have taken the precepts). I know some will say that they’re more guidlines than rules, but then why is it so important to take the precepts in a formal ceremony for so many communities? It feels like that if I took the precepts, it would put me in a mindset where I would feel a kind of pressue to act in a way that I may generally find right but in some situations may not and so would be in the position to either feel pressured to act in a way that is not consistent with my own reason and feelings on the matter at hand or feel guilt about betraying a commitment. It just doesn’t sit well with me, it reminds me too much of being Christian and feeling boxed in and limited in my thinking by the church’s morality. I’m all on board about doing the least harm, but I really believe that there are situations where this may call for taking what is not given, being untruthful and even killing. Futhermore, in the end, what do the precepts really have to do with sitting in front of a wall to rid yourself of your conditioned illusions? To me, it seems more like subjecting yourself to more conditioning.
Your concerns are not as big an issue that you may think.
The precepts are not absolute commandments.
“the local Soto Zen Zendo in the Brazilian city where I live has certain activities only for those who have taken the precepts”
What can you say about Ayahuasca, shamanism and zen.
I agree about the turnoff thing with the precepts.
ZMM’s description here http://zmm.mro.org/training/receiving-the-zen-precepts/, for instance– the amount of effort and formality make it seem like you’re doing something very religious and binding and formal, with some sort of awful negative if you do it wrong, hence all the study and preparation and discussion and seriousness to it.
The process feels like when you want to convert to Judaism. It’s a big pain in the ass, and the rabbi will try to dissuade you several times, and you have to do a lot of studying, blah blah, but in that case, you’re becoming part of a People, as are your descendants (depending), etc etc.
But the precepts to me seem like something you’d want as many people to accept as possible. After all, the precepts a practical way to live a happier life. They help us to create less suffering for ourselves and others, and give us a convenient way to think about our actions.
As such, it would make much more sense to me that they be treated the way Born-Again Christians look at asking Jesus to be your “personal Lord and Savior.” They don’t go on and on about, “Oh, so you want to follow Christ, huh? Well. Come to the church and meet with the minister and read the red words in this New Testament, especially the Beatitudes, and then we’ll do some classes and questions and answers and then, if it seems you’re really ready, you can undertake this heavy, heavy, responsibility.” Part of it is admittedly theology — they’re being Saved, and that’s an immediate thing– but still, whether they cop to it or not, being ‘born again’ is primarily an attempt to change your behavior and worldview. After all, few people will fall to their needs and ask Jesus to save them when they are content with their lot in life and themselves. And while it may not work for many or even most, it works for a lot of people, and serves as a way of making real changes in their lives, through imitating Christ and Bible study and all that stuff. But it’s common sense that you don’t get to that stuff until you’ve gotten them in the door with the born-again experience.
Similarly, say you get rid of the formal, drawn out and pretentious crap and let people take the precepts willy nilly, in the context of something like a half-day retreat, or after attending a series of Saturday sits where the talks cover the precepts. And then you let whoever wants to take them, take them.
And you end up with some people who take them seriously and apply them every day for the rest of their lives, but you also end up with a lot of people who give them a shot but end up going back to whatever they were doing before. And you may have people who don’t get a good sense of how to apply them into their every day life, and they struggle and fail to really put them into practice. Maybe those people will still find themselves in a situation where they are of some use, some day. Perhaps they make a good decision they may not have otherwise.
To me it would make a lot more sense to make it a lot easier and a lot less formal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl0hMfqNQ-g
Haha, Fred, I’m not even sure why I put that I live in Brazil in there. Maybe because the discussions on here usually refer to American Zen and I’m not in American anymore. Maybe that’s somehow relevant, but probably not. It’s interesting though that when I lived in Seattle, the Zen groups I sat with were a lot less formal. The zendo in São Paulo has a lot more of a formal and traditional atomosphere to it. It also has resident nuns, where none of the communities I’ve been involved in before were actual monastaries, a few were just groups who met at someone’s house to do Zazen followed by a short ceremony. Being more formal and traditional, there seems to be more of an emphasis on the precepts at the zendo here.
As far as ayahuasca and shaminism goes, I just recently found out from a co-worker that there are “churches” that do ayahuasca ceremonies here in the city. He did it once and said it turned him from an atheist to someone who believes in God. He didn’t go into anymore detail. Shamanistic practices based on traditional African religions are very popular all over Brazil but I haven’t seen any influence whatsoever of either at the Zendo.
There once was a man who was sad because he lost one of his testicles in an accident. But then he realized something that made him happy…
http://www.hulu.com/watch/733439
minkfoot wrote:
“Religious folk can’t afford not to be honest.”
Au contraire mon chéri, look at the example Brad provides in his Scarlet Letter article. There he writes: “A Zen teacher is supposed to be someone who has taken a vow to uphold a certain ethical code.” A Zen teacher is ‘supposed to be’… In religion everything is ‘supposed to be’. It’s all make-believe.
In this article Brad writes: “… we have no doctrines and no belief system.” That is of course a lie. To be more honest he should have wrote something like, “in Zen, we are not ‘supposed to’ have doctrines or beliefs,” but he can’t afford to be that honest. Religious folk can’t be that honest, because it might compromise their system of beliefs.
Like doe eyed herd animals religious folk must follow whatever they are lead to believe, including the belief that they don’t have beliefs, and they are forced to lie to themselves and others to protect such beliefs.
This is just the way it is, minkfoot. Best to just accept the fact that we feel a need for meaning, and feed that need, or not, or allow yourself to be spoon fed like a child. If you follow the herd, you won’t be able to afford honesty.
If Brad’s “lie” is obvious, is it a lie?
We already touched on this way up there. If you don’t like what I said, fine. However, I’m not saying the same things over. We don’t frame things the same way, so argument is pointless.
Have you done Zen or other practice?
The point isn’t that it’s a lie. The point is that it’s a belief.
I’d say it’s a principle.
Religious aging hipsters can’t admit to having beliefs or principles, minkfoot. They can’t afford it. It costs more than they have to spend.
But Brad Warner aside, it would be amusing to see you try explaining how it is a principle. I could use a good laugh today, to be honest.
Strange person you are, Zafu, coming to this blog’s comment sections to look for a good laugh.
Perhaps you could take a second and think about this, as there are many, many places easily accessible to you that are much better suited to provide those laughs that you can use.
Not at all, Yoshiyaha. If I recall correctly, not long ago in this blog Brad described himself as some sort of entertainer. So it would seem appropriate that I visit here to find amusement, would it not??
Zafu, as someone who has completely mastered the art of being a dick, let me bestow some truth upon you, my friend.
The dick line, you have crossed it.
Sorry I don’t get the dick reference, justlui. Is that like some kinda gay thing? Brad says it’s okay to be gay, as long as you keep it secret and don’t disturb anyones DEEP DEEP individual inquiry, or whatever. Live the lie. Don’t ask, don’t tell. You know I won’t ask, buddy boy!
Brad was quoting Alan Watts (re: “entertainer”):
http://hardcorezen.info/i-am-not-a-zen-buddhist-ok-i-am/1652
It was more just meant to be funny, man. 😛
Asking for someone to share their opinion so you can have a laugh is totally dickish, so I was poking fun at you. Not in a cruel way, just in an internet smart ass way.
I don’t know how you brought being gay into the mix. People can love who they want, I’m all good in the hood 🙂
Watt’s is funny too.
Baaaa Baaaa little black robed zen sheeple.
Worshiping mu, such pitiful people.
Cheers.
Shinchan Ohara, I’m reading Dharmakirti right now. I think Dogen’s views are very similar.
I think Dogen’s Time-Being (Uji) only makes sense within the context of nominalism, which Dharmakirti argued for.
SamsaricH, do you have a link to an actual Dharmakirti text, either in Sanskrit or in translation? The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article is a great free resource (Stanford are good at providing free resources for self-study in general, I’ve found), but it is just the summarised opinion a single modern scholar. Before I discuss Dharmakirti’s thought in detail, I want to poke my finger into the holes in his hands and the lance-wound in his side (so to speak).
As for, “I think Dogen’s Time-Being (Uji) only makes sense within the context of nominalism…”. It’s totally clear that DÅgen wasn’t a Platonic Realist (ie, he didn’t think that the number 17 and the abstract quiddity of horseness and the womb of the thus-come existed in some real way outside of the the ordinary moment by moment reality of dependent origination). However, I’d be wary of ascribing ‘Nominalism’ to DÅgen, or to Dharmakirti for that matter. Nominalism is a term from European Scholastic Philosophy, that carries a lot of semantic baggage. Particularly, the Nominalism/Realism debate in Europe was always in a milieu of various dualisms – mind/body dualism, idea/matter dualism, existence/essence dualism. It’s not clear to me what Nominalism could mean in a non-dualistic philosophy.
What do you mean by Nominalism, and how does it apply to Dharmakirti or DÅgen?
I think this particular scholar’s opinion wasn’t that biased, but you’re ultimately correct… Reading the source material is more important. The SEP article was just summarizing the PramÄṇavÄrttika of Dharmakirti. I want to read it soon too…
I need to get my brain into critical thinking mode again because I’m reevaluating a lot of fundamental Zen teachings.
Dharmakirti was a bit better than Nagarjuna from what I’m reading. Nagarjuna’s MMK really did lead to a schism in Buddhism between Yogacara idealism and Madhyamika emptiness (i.e., reality is ‘groundless’). I believe reconnected to the nominalist school of Buddhism formed by Dharmakirti could help end these debates, and it shifts it more to the Yogacara side. The present moment is still acknowledge as fully real, but it is judged based off its causal power and not based off projected attributes, such as universals or pseudo-entities like abstracta.
“The most radical way out of this problem of the relationship between the intrinsic and the causal is to say, as do NÄgÄrjuna and his MÄdhyamika followers, that there cannot really be any intrinsic natures at all: if anything had a quiddity intrinsically, as Ä€bhidhÄrmikas and others hold, it would absurdly need to have it completely acausally–nothing could ever cause a thing to be what it is intrinsically. A less radical strategy is a causal theory that makes no separation at all between what something is and what it does.”
Read these 2 links:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dharmakiirti/#ReaMom
Also, Wiki Dharmakirti and read his views on “Mindstream”
I would argue Zen/Ch’an is best to viewed as a panpscyhist variety of “process philosophy” in the vein of figures like Henri Bergson.
typo: “reconnecting to”*
Nominalism is the same emptiness is what I’m arguing. Dharmakirti’s arguments are better than Nagarjuna’s. We don’t need to adopt Nagarjuna’s paraconsistent form of logic, the Tetralemma, in order to discuss the Dharma. In this sense, Dharmakirti’s nominalist approach is superior because it does acknowledge the inseparability of doer and doing.
What is there when the intellect is dropped?
A dirty mind?
Q: “What is there when the intellect is dropped?”
A: A vegetable, Fred. A vegetable.
SamsaricHelicoid, that’s an interesting thesis. I followed the links you posted, and, yes, from those articles, it seems that it would be easier to link a lot of what Dogen says with Dharmakirti than with Nagarjuna’s MMK.
But I still don’t see that ‘nominalism’ is an adequate term to cover Dogen’s thought, or that ‘Panpsychism’ is a useful explanation of Zen’s philosophy.
To say ‘Panpsychism’ is to describe a universe, ‘pan-‘ that is filled with or co-identical with mind, ‘psyche’ … I can point to numerous examples from the koan tradition that slap down such views. If someone had told Nansen or Joshu or Tokusan that “Pan- and psyche are one”, they might have answered “Not even one”.
And I hope that doesn’t sound too critical. I really think you’re onto something with Dharmakirti, and probably you’re right that the philosophy of Zen is something like nominalism, something like panpsychism, and something like process philosophy. … I’m just trained to be a pedant when it comes to philosophical language.
Thanks for sharing your efforts. I’m off now to search for the text of PramÄṇavÄrttika
I don’t want zen to be about the community of other zen people. I am saturated with zen language, so I use it. It’s part of me and my practice, but I simply want zen to be about knowing myself. Being honest with this right here. This. Zen.
Perhaps I misuse this word zen. . .
Of course, I call mediation a zen (or chan :P) practice, but I don’t see why zen is also defined by joining a group. Take for example Brad’s example of Buddha’s enlightenment and then his five homies being the start of Buddhism. Isn’t zen about the first part, the Buddha’s solo “thingy” under the tree, and the 5 friends and the rules and blah blah about all the other stuff?
Zen: This.
Buddhism: Other stuff.
Am I way off here?
Zen has always been a teacher/student/lineage path.
Shodo, does that still seem like a good thing? I often feel like liberating it is the best thing for zen in the future. I have enjoyed having Chan teachers in the past, but I haven’t found much beyond a waste of time in actually joining a group and sitting with them.
I am always so turned off by how stuffy and lifeless the scene is, but when I practice myself or when I enjoy learning about aspects of it I feel there is such awesome room for spontaneous fuck yessedness in zen. I can’t believe that what zen is trying to point to is actually also associated with something so dry and lame. I’ve spent a lot of time with Taiwanese Chan people, and it’s surprising how conservative the scene is, and then here in the States, god damn zen groups are whack!
Maybe if I lived in LA and checked out Brad’s scene it would be different. . .
I guess whether or not it’s a good thing depends on what you want out of the practice.
What do you mean by “stuffy and lifeless”?
What do you want to see when you go to a Zen Center or monastery?
Honestly, I am a big fan of temples and monasteries, but really that’s because I am a sucker for Buddhist art and architecture. I am totally one of those starry eyed tourists! Ha.
As to stuffy and lifeless, ok, to be fair that one is purely subjective. Oh, and maybe that’s my point! I must be consumed by a personality that finds certain strains of zen stuffy and lifeless! And what does one do if one loves zen, yet feels this way? I guess I do what I am doing now. Stating that I don’t want zen to be about the community of other zen people, but I still want to use zen language and practice to do this This.
Again, I haven’t checkout out Brad’s scene in LA, perhaps it’s a great scene.
Sangha is a big part of Zen, a big part of Buddhism… You are going to find it wherever a group of people sit together.
What is it about Zen that you love?
More than “this” I mean. 😉
What is it about Zen that I love?
Oh man, now you put me on the spot 🙂
More than “this” you ask? That’s cheating!
Well, there’s this right here. You’ve always been this. To me, enlightenment isn’t a new discovery, it’s a remembering. You do get to stay you. You’ve always been you, and it feels just like this. Some zen people get so caught up in no self that I feel like they are forgetting that “no self” means you are this, and that, THAT, is the absolute best thing ever. This setup, it’s actually exactly how we are, and that is so awesome. How sad to miss that the truth of things is actually the best hook up ever. We are so stoked. We are sooooo stoked!
Why are we stoked? You can’t say! We can’t say it! Well, we can, but then it’s a koan, and nobody will get what you mean! Ha!
Zen tries to point to this. Sometimes zen tries to point to this by not pointing all, which is the same as pointing to it.
I rather like zen for this reason.
That and Chan Temples are fucking dope!
It seems to me, that you had “this” before Zen ever entered the picture…. What is it about Zen that you like?
Ha! God damn, I like you, Shodo.
True. Maybe to hell with zen.
Seriously though, I just grew up around it so it’s the language I use to deal with life. It’s like my favorite band. Perhaps I should really ditch it, but Zen flat out amazes me in that it approaches reality the way it does. It does a fine job of dancing around something that can’t be explained, and pretty much waits like a practical joke we play on ourselves to kick us in the ass with big fat “oh yeah”.
As I said, I haven’t been to Brad’s group, so maybe that’s the cool one.
I’m a likable guy – just ask Fred. 😉
Stay open to the possibility that the things you find contrived or stuffy in Zen Centers/Monasteries serve a useful purpose.
Think of it like a rock tumbler – you fill it up with a bunch of rough rocks and turn it on, and all those rocks start bumping into each other and smoothing down those rough edges.
i personally think there might be more to Zen training than “just this”.
“i personally think there might be more to Zen training than “just this”.”
Oh I agree, man. For sure. And we all get different things out of all things in life. I guess what gets tricky here is that zen is about reality, and we all share in that, but the tradition, like Christianity, is really only for certain types of folks. I think I would like to see that expanded as we evolve.
But I agree, there’s always a lot I am missing. I should be more humble. (Cyber bow)
I was hoping for some SuicideGirls too, when I visited Brads scene. But no, just a half dozen religious folk sitting in a small room. Then Brad droning on about Buddhist doctrine afterwards. Booring!
Oh Brad! Ok, listen Brad, I mentioned this before and I am going to do it again.
Biker Club Zen Center, dude. Come on! Lets do it. I can fix bikes and push out other zen centers for you, but we need someone with the proper qualifications (that would be you) to be the zen guy up front. Suicide Girls in a Zen Motorcycle club? Dude, that shit would be famous!
Fortune and glory, kid, fortune and glory!
You keep looking for entertainment in strange places.
I typed a long reply to you about sitting zazen with brad’s group recently and how boring it was, but it got lost in the ether.
As Brad said in Hardcore Zen, “No doubt about it, though, zazen is a stupid thing to do. Zazen is also boring. You couldn’t find a duller practice.”
this has helped me practice more consistently than ever before. For me, that’s a few times a week, but that’s huge for me. And it’s because I go into it feeling that it’s time to go sit and be bored. I have even done zazen in my hotel while traveling, which is huge.
For me the boring thing reminds me of marathon training. There are people who gush about exercise, but I don’t like it at all. I don’t like doing marathons. But without some big goal, and a commitment of some cash, I just won’t exercise. And unless I sit, I find it harder to manage my ADD and depression and anger. So I try to do it.
I can’t get to the Dogen Sangha group every week, but I’ll do it every few weeks, so if there are any Suicide Girls that show up, I can advise. (most people in the group were young and attractive, though.)
I’ve never found sitting to be boring, Yoshiyahu, probably because I’m unusually daydreaming during the time. I meant Brad droning on about Buddhist crap is boring.
justlui is in for a rude awakening if he ever visits. But, he must wake sooner or later, so I guess sooner is better than later? Whadya think?
I’d agree about the boring part of zen.
Although if zen is about finding your true self, boring would be the most likely destination in my case.
Brad’s comment about zazen being boring kept me going with the practice at the beginning. I’m pretty sure that had I gone into sitting expecting fantastic visions and spectacular insights I would have quit a long time ago.
Gotta stop writing now I’m putting myself to sleep…
Cheers.
I can’t seem to edit on Brad’s blog. Meditation always becomes mediation 🙂
If you write mediation everyone knows what you mean.
“You’ve always been you, and it feels just like this. Some zen people get so caught up in no self that I feel like they are forgetting that “no self” means you are this, and that, THAT, is the absolute best thing ever”
But there is no self for a self to get caught up in a no self.
To me, Fred, that kind of language, “But there is no self for a self to get caught up in a no self.”, is really more of a game that zen people play.
No self is a way to describe what we really are, which is something so awesome. Really man, it’s god.
I do believe it’s picking and choosing, it’s the best thing ever. We are not being left out of anything. Have you ever watched someone become enlightened right before they die, Fred? All the worries of their “self” in the world vanish, and they fill up with something so great. Life man, it’s not selfless, it’s the only self, and we are soooooo stoked. So stoked in fact, that I wish I could remember to give more of my self and my resources to others, because they are me. Not me, justlui (and that’s the no self zen people are pointing at), but me, This.
Oh shit I need to get to work!
Don’t forget your no-self.
You said that you would be interested in Biker Club Zen. This might be exactly what you are looking for.
https://tuttejiorg.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/adam-tebbe-interviews-chuck-genkaku-johnzen-roshi/
(Yes, I realize that it is a satirical website.)
His third book looks even more interesting…
“Sittin’ Steady, Livin’ Free. Hell-Raising Zen Stories
by Chuck Genkaku Johnzen Roshi
An unconventional Zen Master tells it all…
Chuck Genkaku Johnzen Roshi has become the number-one spokesman for the Zen experience. His acclaimed memoirs, told in Biker Zen and Outlaw Zen, is an exhilarating history of his adventures with the world’s most notorious Buddhist sangha. Now he brings us rousing, moving, and wildly entertaining true stories of his renegade brothers in the relentless pursuit of satori, individuality, and spiritual chicks.
And what stories he has to tell – freewheeling, bare-knuckle tales of brawls and battles, brotherhood, breathtaking adventures, crazy quests, and the inevitable classic scrapes with puritan American values. The most colorful legends and unforgettable characters of zendo lore come alive in this book. In addition, celebrities like Genpo Roshi, Eido Roshi, and Brad Warner thunder through these pages in a sensational collection of rebel tales that runs the gamut from poignant and inspiring to thrilling and utterly outrageous.”
https://tuttejiorg.wordpress.com/new-book/chuck-genkaku-johnzen-roshi/
That was good for a laugh Grand Canyon. Thanks for the post!
I am thinking of a much cooler scene however. . .
Brad, I’m telling you, Suicide Girls, sweet bikes, and zafus. You’d be famous! I will design our patches. . . I’m thinking Bodhidharma skulls. We can have a mean sounding biker slogan like, lets see here. . .
Born Empty, Die Empty.
Oh that’s money!
Or wait! How about. . . .
Hardcore Zen MC. “Killing Buddha on the Road”
Ha!
God damn, money! Come on, Brad, you know I’m on to something big here!
Justlui:
“Biker Club Zen Center, dude. Come on! Lets do it. ”
Only if Harley-Davidsons are prohibited. The only acceptable V-Twin is a Guzzi (or, for old-timers, a Vincent)…
Ha! Ok, you got good taste, I will give you that, but you’re whack if you can’t respect a panhead! How about no new Harleys? Vintage Harleys are a must or you’re forever stuck in samsara.
I’m thinking Brad is a cafe racer man. Really, he’s probably a scooter man, but we’d have to get him on something proper if he’s gunna rock the Zen MC patch.
It’s just that I really get the feeling that Harleys, both new or vintage, are for show-offs…
And then, on a small Cévennes mountain road, they’re so useless.
I hear you, and I’d rather rock a triumph scrambler on mountain roads, but vintage HDs are delicious bikes. You don’t go fast on an old HD, you just cruise all old school. I’m feeling the beginnings of zen’s first biker wars brewing….
“Stay open to the possibility that the things you find contrived or stuffy in Zen Centers/Monasteries serve a useful purpose.
Think of it like a rock tumbler — you fill it up with a bunch of rough rocks and turn it on, and all those rocks start bumping into each other and smoothing down those rough edges.” — Shodo
I thought it was like potatos in a bag being bumped around in a stream. Oh well, whatever… anyway, like I was try’n ta tell y’all, religion only has one essential purpose, which is to feed meaning to those of us who can’t seem to find it for ourselves.
Whenever people bring up Meaning, I’m reminded of this Joseph Campbell quote:
“People say that what we’re all seeking is a meaning for life. I don’t think that’s what we’re really seeking. I think that what we’re seeking is an experience of being alive, so that our life experiences on the purely physical plane will have resonances with our own innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive.”
A small minority can get lost in navel-gazing and discussions about Meaning, but I think most people are better described by Campbell here.
I could go into rapture right now, but I don’t. It isn’t it. You can have it. Enjoy.
Can you do the formless realms?
Wiki
“Formless spheres
“It appears that in early Brahminic yoga, the formless spheres were attained following element meditation.This is also taught as an option in the early Buddhist texts. The primary method taught to achieve the formless attainment in early Buddhist scriptures, on the other hand, is to proceed to the sphere of infinite space following the fourth jhÄna.”
The thing is, dear Yoshiyahu, you don’t need religion for what Campbell describes.
No, that’s where religion comes from.
Religion can be spun from just about anything, or nothing at all in some cases.
Thus it’s utility, like iron.
Can make DEEP meaning from anything, yeah, with a lil imagination.
Zafu said:
“I thought it was like potatos in a bag being bumped around in a stream. Oh well, whatever… anyway, like I was try’n ta tell y’all, religion only has one essential purpose, which is to feed meaning to those of us who can’t seem to find it for ourselves.”
Yeeeeeeah… I disagree. 😉
Nominalism sounds a lot like the intuitionists in mathematics.
“A principle of classical logic, valid in reasoning about finite sets, which Brouwer does not accept for infinite sets, is the law of the excluded middle. The law, in its general form, says for every proposition A, either A or not A.
…The non-intuitionistic mathematics which culminated in the theories of Weierstrass, Dedekind and Cantor, and the intuitionistic mathematics of Brouwer, differ essentially in the view of the infinite. In the former, the infinite is treated as actual or completed or extended or existential. An infinite set is regarded as existing as a completed totality, prior to or independently of any human process of generation or construction, and as though it could be spread out completely for our inspection. In the latter, the infinite is treated only as potential or becoming or constructive. The recognition of this distinction, in the case of infinite magnitudes, goes back to Gauss, who in 1831 wrote, “I protest … against the use of an infinite magnitude as something completed, which is never permissible in mathematics” (Werke VIII p. 216).
(Introduction to Metamathematics, S. C. Kleene, pg 47-48)
As to what is right in front of my nose and behind my eyeballs, under my shoes and over my head, I have no idea.
Thanks, Mark. I enjoy philosophical speculation in the same way that I enjoy music. It’s stimulating, recreative activity, but I don’t expect it to teach me much about what’s “in front of my nose and behind my eyeballs”.
I’m inclining towards the view that a Buddhist perspective means keeping noble silence about concepts like infinities and universals, as well as such personages as Īśvara and Jah.
It bothers me a bit when Zen teachers seem to reify the universe. It may be a skillful teaching tool or metaphor – but I can’t help feeling it is saying too much, and going beyond what can be said. For example, Nishijima Roshi’s, ‘the universe is god’, or someone’s (can’t recall who, but definitely a well-known teacher) phrase, ‘you must come to identify with the whole of dependent-arising’.
Maybe it just sounds too much to me like a completed infinity, or a thing-ified super-self that we can get hung up on: and an opportunity to take ego inflation to it’s extremest possible form. Maybe there’s no way to avoid using the world ‘universe’ as shorthand for ‘every single thing’, but The Universe can easily become a euphemism for God Almighty.
I can’t see how the language of Zen can reflect direct experience, on the cushion or off, unless it uses ‘universe’ or ‘dependent-arising’ more like a verb than a noun, and uses ‘realization’ or ‘enlightenment’ more like a momentary direction or vector than a state or a scalar. Maybe intuitionist logic was motivated by a similar aversion to entities beyond the range of experience?
God the existent infinite, versus potential and function of the place where we are.
This morning I imagined myself standing where the waves would come in around my legs, holding a fisherman’s float by a cord so that it went between my legs as the water came in, and out toward the sea as the wave flowed out. That morphed into:
“…as a skilled bath-attendant or (bath-attendant) apprentice, having sprinkled bath-powder into a bronze vessel, might knead it while repeatedly sprinkling it with water until the ball of lather had taken up moisture, was drenched with moisture, suffused with moisture inside and out but without any oozing. Even so… does (a person) saturate, permeate, suffuse this very body with the rapture and joy that are born of aloofness; there is no part of (the) whole body that is not suffused with the rapture and joy born of aloofness. While (such a person) is thus diligent, ardent, self-resolute, those memories and aspirations that are worldly are got rid of; by getting rid of them, the mind is inwardly settled, calmed, focused, concentrated.” (MN III 92-93, PTS pg 132-134)
All wet.
Translation might better be “zest and ease”, who feels joy with the body, really!
Marian!
http://redroguestudio.com/wp-content/uploads/galleries/post-733/JMH_4135.jpg
aw, jeez’, minkfoot, you know how to hurt a guy…
That was a milestone, when I began to notice the ripples of Dharma joy which came up whenever I let go enough. Then, it began to happen in various activities – I would drive down the Derby Road and see Jay Peak still covered with snow and think of the Dharma, and the rills of flowing joy would begin, usually in the lower back and pour upwards over my shoulders like tickling rain, like zephyrs of benignity . . .
The joy was surprisingly physical. Made me wonder about what I had read of further joys and raptures, ecstacies and nameless refinements of pleasure when the clinging to the coarser forms of pleasure and ignorance are let go of. And finer yet when you let go of those!
But, of course, we don’t talk much about such things, lest we detour the callow into dead-end desires. Better to believe the boredom and pain goes on forever, and work on accepting it without sorrow or revulsion.
There’s a point where boredom gets rather interesting. . . .
Ya gotsta accept sorrow and revulsion too, minky, else ya gonna get stuck, or rather, stay stuck.
Tiny Yellow Particles?
A completed infinity that is expanding in every direction that is you, and a puzzling contradiction to the limited, illusionary contraction of ego.
Oh, ego is not a completed infinity that is expanding in every direction? 🙁 <– sad face
“A completed infinity that is expanding in every direction that is you, and a puzzling contradiction to the limited, illusionary contraction of ego.”
“A completed infinity that is expanding in every direction that is you, and a puzzling contradiction to the limited, illusionary contraction of ego.”
“A completed infinity that is expanding in every direction that is you, and a puzzling contradiction to the limited, illusionary contraction of ego.”
Deep
I always had the impression that Nishijima roshi and Brad tend to include the G-3 letter word essentially because they are addressing Americans for whom this concept is an important thing. From continental Europe, and especially France, this preocupation always seems a bit far fetched, because we don’t really need it in everyday life (not even the catholic or the protestant!).
It is indeed much easier to be either an atheist, or a panentheist, or an agnostic here than it seems to be the case on the other side of the Pond…
Michel– kind of like how in politics, someone who has ‘center-left’ political views will be mainstream in Europe and on the fringes in the US.
Interesting. I always felt like god can just be the word to describe reality itself, and in the case of Buddhism, god is that which is realized as enlightenment. I think maybe I use the words god and zen completely wrong.
I do avoid using the word god around christians so they don’t think I mean some big bearded asshole who wasn’t smart enough to invent a sun that didn’t give you cancer.
Panentheist Zen?
Humbug! It’s Meiji-Reign revisionist, westernizing, equivocating, ecumenist bullshit! Kanshiketsu! Daruma’s left sandal is turning in it’s stupa at the thought, and Daikan Eno’s mummified cadaver has switched from full lotus to seiza!
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zfa/zfa04.htm