What is 'Non-thinking'?

[Consider this a follow up to a post a few months back entitled "Zazen is not Meditation?"]

This is something that has puzzled me for some time. For the past few years, the meaning of that phrase, 'non-thinking,' has eluded me, but recently I think I am coming to know it's meaning. I didn't come to this understanding alone however, Rev. Issho Fujita, among others, has been of great help in revealing what this 'non-thinking' is to me.

What I've come to find is that this 'non-thinking' has a twofold meaning. The first meaning of 'non-thinking' needs a rewording of the phrase, it needs to be changed to 'not-a-matter-of-thinking.' This rewording of the term should make it clear what is the first meaning of 'non-thinking.' Zazen is 'not-a-matter-of-thinking,' it really has nothing to do with thought at all. Zazen doesn't require anything from the intellect. In Zazen is Not the Same as Meditation, Rev. Issho Fujita said,

"In most meditative traditions, practitioners start a certain method of meditation (such as counting breaths, visualizing sacred images, concentrating the mind on a certain thought or sensation, etc.) after getting comfortable sitting in full-lotus position. In other words, it is kekka-fuza plus meditation. Kekka-fuza in such usage becomes a means for optimally conditioning the body and mind for mental exercises called “meditation,” but is not an objective in itself. The practice is structured dualistically, with a sitting body as a container and a meditating mind as the contents. And the emphasis is always on meditation as mental exercise. In such a dualistic structure, the body sits while the mind does something else.

For Dogen, on the other hand, the objective of zazen is just to sit in kekka-fuza[lotus posture] correctly—there is absolutely nothing to add to it. It is kekka-fuza plus zero. Kodo Sawaki Roshi, the great Zen master of early 20th century Japan, said, “Just sit zazen, and that’s the end of it.” In this understanding, zazen goes beyond mind/body dualism; both the body and the mind are simultaneously and completely used up just by the act of sitting in kekka-fuza. In the Samadhi King chapter of Shobogenzo, Dogen says, “Sit in kekka-fuza with body, sit in kekka-fuza with mind, sit in kekka-fuza of body-mind falling off.”

[...] added

This I believe why Dogen wrote in Universal Recommendation of Zazen, "This zazen I speak of is not learning meditation but is the dharma gate of ease and bliss." Zazen in Dogen's tradition is radically different from meditation in that it is not oriented around mental activity. This 'kekka-fuza plus zero' that Fujita mentions is another way of saying shikantaza. Shikantaza means something like 'nothing but precisely sitting,' it describes an action to dorather than a mental state to be achieved. Fujita also wrote, "For Dogen, zazen is first and foremost an holistic body posture, not a state of mind," and, "In zazen we do not intentionally think about anything, " in this way, 'non-thinking' is 'not-a-matter-of-thinking.'

The second meaning of 'non-thinking' can also be reworded. I will call it 'beyond thinking' or be'going-beyond-thinking.' The second paragraph quoted above from Fujita's talk embodies this second meaning, 'going-beyond-thinking.' This second meaning is the dropping away of the mind-body dualism. Body and mind do kekka-fuza together and mind and body are dropped away in this kekka-fuza. Dogen calls this state Shinjin datsuraku, Shinjin datsuraku means 'body-mind dropping off.' This state could also be considered samadhi or undistributed concentration. This second meaning has really captured the interest of Soto Zen practitioners, to the almost total exclusion of the first. Yet I would say that the second meaning can not be understood without the being illumined by the first. Fujita said,

"I often find that people think of zazen as a solution to personal sufferings and problems or the cultivation of an individual. But a different perspective on zazen is provided by Kodo Sawaki Roshi’s words, “Zazen is to tune into the universe.” The posture of zazen is connecting us to the whole universe. As Shigeo Michi, a well-known anatomist of the last century, puts it, “Since zazen is the posture in which a human being does nothing for the sake of a human being, the human being is freed from being a human being and becomes a Buddha.” (Songs of Life—Paeans to Zazen by Daiji Kobayashi).

Michi also asks us to make a distinction between the “Head” and the “Heart,” saying how in zazen our internal “heart functions” reveal themselves quite vividly. The Head that I have been talking about may correspond to the technical Buddhist term “bonpu” which means ordinary human being. A bonpu is a non-Buddha, a person who is not yet enlightened and who is caught up in all sorts of ignorance, foolishness and suffering. When we engage in zazen wholeheartedly, instead of keeping it as an idea, we should never fail to understand that zazen practice is, in a sense, negation or giving up our bonpu-ness. In other words, in zazen we move from the Head to the Heart and into our Buddha-nature. If we fail to take this point seriously, we ruin ourselves by pandering to our own bonpu-ness; we get slack, adjust zazen to fit our bonpu-ness, and ruin zazen itself."

What is expressed in this passage I find is the trouble with an ardent focus on the second meaning. When Zazen is about exploring the mind or Head in shinjin datsuraku, it panders to our bonpu-ness. Zazen is an endeavor of the Heart, the whole body-mind, to express Buddha-nature. I think that if practitioners of Soto Zen or 'Dogen Zen' wish to be faithful to 'non-thinking,'there needs to be a balanced investigation into both of the meanings drawn out here. And if we don't, I think that practice in the Soto Zen school won't amount to anything more than mindfulness psychotherapy. Fujita does bring up a good point that people often think of zazen as a solution to their personal suffering. Which in ways, it is, but there is much more to our zazen than just solving personal suffering. Zazen can also be seen as a solution for interpersonal suffering, which is the way the engaged movement uses zazen. Fujita mentions a saying from Kodo Sawaki about zazen being our tuning into the universe. I think this is a really great way of putting it, I wouldn't expect anything less from such a great teacher like Sawaki. Zazen is not merely psychotherapy, but brings the human being back in tune with the whole universe. This is something that should be kept in mind in examination of zazen.

All in all, I think Fujita sums the meaning of non-thinking quite nicely in the conclusion to his talk, he said,

All the foregoing explanations—of renunciation, of sealing up, of deluded human nature—are just words. These explanations are based on a particular, limited point of view, looking at zazen from outside. Certainly it is true that zazen offers us the opportunities I have been describing. However, when we practice zazen we should be sure not to concern ourselves with “deluded human nature,” “renunciation,” or any such idea. All that is important for us is to practice zazen, here and now, as pure, uncontaminated zazen.

Non-thinking means to put away your intellect and simply practice just sitting. Be careful not to get caught in the grasses and the weeds of your mind!

On Engaged Buddhism

Engaged Buddhism is a very popular and strong movement among western Buddhists. In Zen, figures like Joan Halifax, the late Robert Aitken(R.I.P.), Alan Senauke, and Bernie Glassman are/were not only leaders in their sanghas respectively, but huge proponents of the Engaged Buddhism movement. So it seems no matter where you go, what association you choose to join, the movement is ingrained into the fabric of their practice. Not only is this movement involved at the top of these Buddhist organizations, but these figures along with other popular proponents of Engaged Buddhism on the Buddhist blogosphere define what the 'Buddhist' stance is on social issues. They say what for us what is 'loving' and what displays 'wisdom' in dealing with social and political issues. I've found that the 'Buddhist,' 'loving,' and 'wise' stance is unfailingly the one taken by the far-left, and is opposed to the 'oppressive' and 'mean-spirited' views of those on the right. What I often wonder is if this movement of Engaged Buddhism, and mind you this no fringe group or minority, is beneficial or detrimental to Buddhism in the U.S. as a whole. In this entry, I would like to examine how this movement could either stunt or enhance the growth of Buddhism in the U.S. and explain my own opinions on their ideology and methods.

I don't think it would be a stretch to say the Engaged Buddhism has since the beginning of western practice in the U.S. (by that I mean when white-folk started converting) been a cornerstone to the very existence of Buddhism in the U.S. The seed of western Buddhism was deeply planted in the fertile soil of the counter-culture of the sixties. The younger generation of that time wasn't looking merely for a new place to go on sunday mornings or friday evenings, but something that resonated with their revolutionary ideals and attitudes - something that didn't confine them to another creed and a new God but liberated them to live life freely and in their own way. They found these qualities in the Buddhism being popularized among intellectuals and some priests in California. Not only did this Buddhism tout personal freedom and enlightenment, but also had within it a mechanism for universal liberation: the Bodhisattva Way. This Bodhisattva Way as it was presented justified an extension of Buddhist wisdom and practices into the realms of political, social and environmental issues that further resonated with the kind of movements towards greater awareness being born at that time. In sum the Buddhism that we have today is a direct product of the revolutionary counter-culture of the sixties and to this day embodies those values within its practice and thought. This era gave Buddhism a base with the young and open-minded generation, and that generation has since taken over in the place of their Asian masters. This base is the benefit of the Engaged movement.

Jump forward some fifty years to the present. By many of its followers, Buddhism is a spiritual extension of the their political values - using their black cushion and picket sign together to fend off the chains of systemic, structural, patriarchal oppression without and the conventions of western thought with the enlightenment of Buddha's wisdom within. 'Don't colonialize my innocent savage mind-vagina with your patriarchal phallus of metaphysical structures of right and wrong, legal and illegal!' they may say as they rally to the side of 'love' in California or Arizona - That is in satire, but perhaps it more resembles a postmodernist than an Engaged Buddhist OR is there no difference these days? I can't say that I totally disagree with some of the stances taken on the issues by the Engaged movement, but if this movement dominates from top down as it does today I fear that it will close to the door to Buddhism for others. If everyone sees the dread-locked lesbian, just back from the vegan luncheon at the local commune in her Tibetan flag shawl doing protest-lojong meditation/zazen/vipassana out front of the local target to stop gay oppression and corporate greed/interference as 'the Buddhist,' this will be incredibly problematic. The fact that I can put that together is only worse. It only helps to cement that stereotype when so much of Buddhism is tied in with left-wing political movements. And all of this leads to alienation, alienation of Buddhism from the general public as a political vessel suited solely for the liberally and intellectually oriented. This is the detriment that Engaged Buddhism can and to some extent does have on the Buddhist community in the U.S. We American Buddhists are quite divided already today, along the lines of immigrant and convert. Two very different forms of the same religion trying to reconcile their differences and become one community - can we really afford at this point to burn the bridge to the Americans who don't hold such polemical political opinions. Not to mention that the aforementioned youngsters of the sixties are now the present oldsters, ordaining the Buddhist leaders of tomorrow - can the values being instilled by these masters suite the needs of those who are looking for a religion, a Buddhist religion, and not a vehicle for social change? Honestly, I have my doubts about it. If we can open up, if we can let go of calling a certain set of political and social values 'Buddhist,' then we have a point of access for others to feel a sense of belonging in our community.

Please don't confuse me for Glenn Beck, I'm not an opponent of social justice, in most cases I find myself for it. I simply disagree with the direction that the social justice movement within, and comprising most of, the Buddhist community is taking. One aspect I strongly dislike about the Engaged movement is meditation, zazen/shikantaza specifically, as a means of protest. It bothers me to no end when someone uses shikantaza as a method of protest because I believe it seriously misses the point of shikantaza. Kodo Sawaki is quoted as saying

'What's zazen good for? Absolutely nothing! This 'good for nothing' has got to sink into your flesh and bones until you actually practice what is truly good for nothing. Until then, your zazen is just good for nothing.'

This to me embodies the heart of zazen. Dogen often admonished his students to practice Buddha-dharma for the sake of Buddha-dharma itself, saying:

“A practitioner should not practice buddha-dharma for his own sake, to gain fame and profit, to attain good results, or to pursue miraculous power. Practice only for the sake of the buddha-dharma.”

For Dogen, Zazen as was not a means to any end, but the end all in itself. It is an activity aimed at nothing, and serves no purpose in attaining anything. I think that if we practice shikantaza in protest, it betrays the anti-instrumental spirit Dogen imbued to it. Along those same lines, if we use meditation or any sort of Buddhist activity as a means of protest, are we not clinging to this side or that side? Trying to express and identify the 'Buddhist' view on every little issue in opposition to the 'other,' or put frankly, the Republican view? Does this use of practice distort the intent of the founder? It seems that way to me.

In terms of continuing the Buddhist community in the future, I think that the current trend to politicize Buddhism and bring social justice to center focus is a greater threat to the survival of Buddhism in this country. More of a threat than the Asian terms and religious structures (ooooooooooh! scary!).

[Edit]
I also don't want to be seen as advocating some sort of quietism. What I prefer is a more local form of engaged Buddhism. I want Buddhists to engage not in trying to deal with large abstractions of our population such as 'the poor,' 'the oppressed,' or 'the minority,' but in helping people in their area. Doing food drives, charities, community events with other faiths, begging and preaching the dharma are good ways of engaging in one's community, I believe. Preaching is something Buddhists aren't very comfortable with in the west and something unnecessary in the east, yet I think its a good way for one to engage with their community.

I know that 'heartland' America won't ever catch on to Buddhism, and that's not what I am worried about. They have their down-home religion and that is all fine and dandy. I think the Shin Buddhist writer John Paraskevopoulos (link in the comments section, Thank you Jon!) puts what I see as the problem of engaged Buddhism in very succinct terms,

"We also have to be careful that we do not advocate the practice of compassion with a view to some kind of selective socio-political agenda or, more critically, with the aim of setting some kind of benchmark for determining authentic shinjin."

"An 'engaged' form of Buddhism, while well-intentioned, harbours the very real possibility of causing a certain measure of spiritual harm to those who find themselves unable to conform to the 'engaged' agenda; which is precisely what it is. An agenda that has nothing immutable about it and which only reflects the preoccupations, viewpoints and biases of its age. Indeed, one wonders how recognizable (or relevant) the current form of engaged Buddhism will be in one or two hundred year's time. If anything, such a contrast may very well serve to demonstrate the fleeting nature of our current concerns. One really has to ask whether Shinran had any sense of social engagement of the kind envisaged by its modern exponents. What Shinran is engaged with is Amida Buddha and his Dharma, not with transient values which have no bearing on his final goal of emancipation. To be sure, he was acutely aware of the many injustices of his time as well as the deep-seated moral and spiritual hypocrisy of his contemporaries but he never sought to have his faith act as a kind of catalyst for social transformation. Quite the contrary, he pointed to the many evils of his time in order to encourage people to turn their minds from worldly matters and focus on the nembutsu path."

Dogen and Shinran share this in common. They both focused on their respective practices, and encouraged people to turn away from the matters of the world. Yet while we feel in this day that we simply cannot turn away in the same way they did, we should endeavor to keep Buddhism aloof from socio-political agendas.

Mappo?

I don't know!

Something that has become a real monkey on my back is the doctrine of Mappo and what teachings are appropriate for Mappo. If you don't know what Mappo is, its a period of time predicted by Shakyamuni when his teachings would be hardest to hear, hardest to accept and hardest to practice. 'Matsu' is Japanese for end and 'Ho' or 'Po' is Japanese for law, or dharma; Mappo period marks the decline of the dharma as we move farther and farther away from the time of the Buddha. This bit of eschatology from the Lotus Sutra became a very popular towards the end of the Japanese Heian period (794-1185) and dominated the Kamakura period (1185-1333) thought as many priests of the day thought either Mappo was nigh or was already upon them. Honen, Shinran, and Nichiren all based their doctrinal innovations off the premise of Mappo and tried to find a suitable form of Buddhist practice that appealed to the sensibilities of the lower classes who had never been able to explore Buddhism because of the austerities and difficult ritual practices of the older schools.

Dogen was also a Kamakura innovator, yet he abhorred the idea of Mappo and taught people if they practiced diligently they would attain the way without fail. He certainly didn't prescribe a mantra or prayer for people as an easy practice to say throughout the day, he urged people to at most to throw everything away and practice zazen in a monastery and at least practice zazen at home four times a day. So, again, my question is who was right about the stance to take at this point in time. Seeing as I practice Soto Zen, I figure I should make the case for Dogen that Mappo doesn't affect us in Zen practice. Although Soto Zen doesn't put a lot of strength behind the idea of Mappo, I wonder what is efficacious because, let's admit, the times we live aren't exactly the most conducive to practice. Then again, what time has been? In the Shobogenzo Zuimonki Dogen instructs the assembly:

"All the buddhas and patriarchs were originally ordinary people. While they were ordinary people, they certainly did bad deeds and had evil minds. Some of them were undoubtedly dull or even stupid. However, since they reformed their minds, followed their teachers, and practiced (the Way), they all became buddhas and patriarchs. People today should also be like this. Do not underestimate yourselves because you think you are dull or stupid. If you do not arouse bodhi-mind in this present lifetime, when can you expect to be able to practice the Way? If you force yourselves to practice now, you will surely attain the Way."(Book 6 - 17)

He also said:

"Underestimating yourself, thinking that you are not capable of practicing the buddha-dharma is also due to ego-attachment. To be concerned with the views of others and to care about human sentiments is the root of self-attachment. Just study the buddha-dharma; don’t follow worldly sentiments." (Book 5 - 9)

and

"If one concentrates on practicing zazen continuously, even an ignorant person, who does not understand a single question, can be superior to an intelligent person who has been studying for a long time. Therefore, practitioners must practice shikantaza wholeheartedly without bothering to concern themselves with other things. The Way of the buddhas and patriarchs is nothing but zazen. Do not pursue anything else." (Book 5-23)

Just from these few quotes we can get a good outline of Dogen's feelings towards time and capacity. The only time have is now, this life, and the only things we have to do are arouse bodhi-mind and practice diligently - no matter who you are, foolish or wise, evil or good. Zen is often perceived by other sects as being inaccessibly sophisticated and austere in its thought and practice, but Dogen says a lot to the contrary. Dogen shows us that it doesn't take special spiritual, intellectual or physical capabilities to be a great practitioner of the Way - anyone can do it. To Dogen, true practice-enlightenment is timeless and doesn't deteriorate.

Now, turning back to the subject of Mappo itself, I think that although there are a lot of obstacles facing practitioners in the west there is a lot enabling practice. Most obvious, the internet allows millions across the world engage in dialogue and have access to information like never before. People are living longer, with more medical advancements and are enjoying more leisure time than any generation before them (which allows for engagement in the arts, sports, and religious activities). With all of this and the Buddha's practice on the side of all people today, perhaps these times aren't so dark. I feel it's better, in light of Dogen's teachings, to have faith in this world, Shakyamuni's world, than to loose hope in it and seek for another.

So what do you think? Is Mappo affecting you?

Zazen is not Meditation?

Nope. It is not.

"The zazen I speak of is not learning meditation. It is simply the dharma-gate of enjoyment and ease. It is the practice-realization of complete enlightenment. Realize the fundamental point free from the binding of nets and baskets." - Dogen, Recommending Zazen to All People(Trans. by Kazuaki Tanahashi)

Why? A 'learning meditation' has its focus on what's going on in the mind - with the goal of taming thoughts and eliminating delusion, whereas the Zazen that Dogen promotes is focused on shikantaza or 'just sitting.' I wouldn't call this 'no goal,' rather, as Gudo Nishijima puts it "the goal of zazen is to sit zazen." There isn't no goal at all, rather there's no ulterior goal, not being mindful or becoming Buddha:

"Stop conscious endeavor and analytic introspection. Do not try to become a Buddha. How could being a Buddha be limited to sitting or not sitting." - Dogen, Recommending Zazen to All People

In my own experiences, zazen in practice is a far cry from what I read in instruction manuals and magazines - they all are heavily mind oriented, touting meditation as a physiological/psychological panacea. While I don't mean to deny the benefits of meditation that have been discovered through medical science, it seems to me like these benefits are foremost, rather than zazen itself. But I digress, to me it's much more body oriented than is often presented, when I don't have a relaxed and upright body, I don't have a sound and clear mind. Zazen is a body-mind activity.

So what's your Zazen like?

Falling Down: Form and Precepts

This past Sunday, the 11th of July, I had my Jukai ceremony. It was a really wonderful experience and I've been wanting for sometime to take on the vows, receive Buddha's robe and a name. I'd like to thank everyone who was in attendance that day for Austin Keith(another practitioner who received Jukai on sunday) and myself and a big thanks to Kosho Zenrai McCall who was the preceptor for the ceremony.

I want to take this blog to discuss the precepts and what they mean to me in taking them on. And before I do that let me list them for you:

1. Not to kill any living creature
2. Not to steal anything
3. Not to engage in any form of sexual misconduct
4. Not to lie or use false speech
5. Not to consume or distribute intoxicants
6. Not to discuss the faults and misdeeds that occur by any Buddhist
7. Not to praise oneself or disparage others
8. Not to be stingy or abusive towards those in need
9. Not to harbor anger or resentment or encourage others to be angry
10. Not to criticize or slander the three jewels

You may be thinking: "Tom! These precepts seem awfully difficult! How will you ever do them perfectly?!" You should know that for me, the point is not to do them perfectly - I know I'll fail to do them perfectly and owning that failure and being aware of my own limitations is what matters. If I only took the vows in the belief that the goal is to do them perfectly, I feel I'd be sorely mistaken in my view and that it would only lead me to more suffering when I failed at my task of perfection. Failure and awareness of my shortcomings in light of these vows is my practice. This importance on failures is also how I understand the oneness of practice-enlightenment. Practice enlightens me to the delusions I have and from there I can clearly see who I am , make peace with it and let it go.

What is your practice with the precepts?

Between Pity and Compassion

There is a very thin line between pity and compassion. I often think that Buddhist walking this line tend to fall into pity more often than compassion. Pity looks down on others and shows those who are perceived as the inferior a patronizing and condescending kindness. Compassion, on the other hand, could be reworded to be co-suffering love. Co-suffering love is actually a term I picked up from an Eastern Orthodox Christian monk at the All Saints Monastery in Canada, he makes videos on youtube here. Co-suffering love is the bond shared between the people who endure suffering together. I'd like to present an example of walking the of pity and compassion line here. This is Marguerite Manteau-Rao on her blog devoted to 'mindfulness practice' called Mind Deep and this little entry is entitled 'Not Bad, Just Unskillful':

"I have become rather fond of the term 'unskillful'. It assumes being kind and loving, is a skill that can be learned. Lots of hope there . . . It also helps in relating with those not blessed with the skills of right speech and right acting. When confronted with such a person, I now think, oh! he (or she) suffers from wrong speech, and does not know any better. And I end up feeling for him, and wishing him well.

Another gift from the Dharma!"

Do you see where this attitude turns from compassion to pity? Perhaps the most glaringly obvious is the statement 'those not blessed with the skills of right speech and right acting.' I don't mean to point this person out as bad or someone to be judged or to make myself appear better in anyway to this person, but just to show that everyone falls victim to this sort of hidden pride that one can encounter in all of their endeavors. Chogyam Trungpa, a very influential Lama in the popularization of Tibetan Buddhism in the U.S. would have called this Spiritual Materialism. That term means when one takes up a spiritual practice that is intended to play down the self and turns it into an exercise in self-aggrandizement by gaining a sense of greatness or worth from the depth or commitment to said practice. In the case of Marguerite, if the man she spoke with is not blessed, it may be safe to assume that she considers herself blessed. She is blessed with the 'skills'(her use of this word is something I would also like to discuss) of 'right speech' and 'right acting,' whereas the man she is conversing with is 'unskillful,' as she might put it. From her account of her experience with the man who was 'not blessed' she is trying to bridge the gap('in relating with those not blessed') of her dichotomy(those blessed and those not blessed) by making another dichotomy, that is, he suffers(since he is not blessed or skillful) and she doesn't(since she is blessed).

Now in my own experiences, I've been able to feel bad for people who are poor or down on their luck, but I can't speak to their experiences at all because I'm not poor nor have I ever been. All I can do is offer spare change or a few dollars so they can eat something, sure it may be a humbling and uplifting experience in ways but I can never truly know the depth of the poor person's strife - there's just no way I can truly relate. Now how exactly does she hope to feel anything more than a detached pity for this suffering man if she contends that she herself isn't suffering? This suffering in Buddhist terms that we all experience is something I can very well relate to with everyone I meet by virtue everyone experiences it, and I know I am very deeply immersed in it, which brings into what compassion or co-suffering love means.

Co-suffering love put into to Buddhist terms would be Dai Hi Shin which translates into 'the Great Heart of Sorrow.' Often Dai Hi Shin is translated as 'the Great Heart of Compassion,' but I don't think that translation is accurate nor does it capture the nuance of the word. The Hi (悲)of Dai Hi Shin means sadness, sorrow, lamentation, mourning. Dai Hi Shin is often associated with the imperative of the Bodhisattva to bring all beings to enlightenment. This sorrow that the Bodhisattva has is not like a pity of the not blessed by the blessed, but is the Bodhisattva's total immersion in samsara and 'not blessedness' that is a part of the Bodhisattva vows to reject final enlightenment until all beings enter before them. When one experiences Dai Hi Shin(it's an accessory to aspiration for realization of nirvana), they no longer judge others actions, this is not because they see others as stupid or not being capable of knowing any better. Rather, they know that they are just as foolish as everyone else and totally capable of causing the same kind of harm to others. Holding no pretense to their own place as a spiritual person, or even a good person at that, they find no justification in judging others for things they are equally likely of doing. They can forgive others and easily admit to their own errs. That's where real compassion, mercy and selflessness come from - the heart of co-suffering love that endures along with all beings, the Dai Hi Shin.

Finally, I'd like discuss Marguerite's use of the word 'skill' when dealing with kindness and love. While the word 'skill' is appropriate in some sense(it fits the definition but doesn't catch the nuance), in dealing with kindness and love, I think this 'skill' is a round peg in a square hole. Skill, to me at least, seems rather cold and calculating, implying that there is a point of perfection to be had. When you're applying for a desk job at a cooperate office of a company, they require that you have typing skills, phone skills, computer skills, and communication skills. Skills in carpentry, metal work, or constructions are things one might put on a résumé, but not skills in kindness or love. Skill to me implies technical virtuosity, but technical virtuosity can't be applied to kindness or love. Kindness and love are not skills we should ascertain but are attitudes we have towards others. Again skill implies a perfection and I think within that is implied the need for one to impress others with the skill. Pianists perform to not only delight their audience with music but to impress them with their technical ability, although kindness and love can be admirable qualities of one's personality they don't impress others in the way that the pianist does with his musical prowess. Do you see my point here? I'm more apt to think of kindness and love as virtues of one's character, something that arises naturally from one's character - original and unprovoked. When kindness and love come about in this manner it is called Jinen.

So are you blessed or not blessed?

Of Foolish Beings and Buddhas

I was speaking with my teacher, Kosho, one day. We had made our way to the topic of Pure Land Buddhism and I expressed that Shinran Shonin's teachings helped me better understand the teachings of Dogen Zenji. In response to my bit about Shinran and Dogen, he mentioned to me that a long time student of Houn Jiyu-Kennett Roshi, founder of Shasta Abbey on Mt. Shasta, whose name I cannot recall at this time dropped Zen and began to practice Pure Land Buddhism. After relaying the reason for the practitioner's conversion (which was the welcoming and kind nature of the Pure Land community) he said something that has struck me and has refused to leave my mind, that being:

"... suddenly everyone had become evil beings to him."

That statement struck because it seemed out of place, because I think. In this statement he gave a sort of tacit admission that in Zen there are no evil or foolish beings. Presumably the idea is that everyone is a Buddha from the outset - which is a pretty commonplace concept within Zen that is often expressed in with the phrase 'Soku Shin Ze Butsu' or 'Your very mind is Buddha.' Although it may be the case the this terse phrase carries the truth, if it is interpreted incorrectly -that it is if one takes to mean that their intellectual, calculating, mind or small mind is the mind mentioned in the aphorism - this creates a lot of problems for practitioners. Dogen wrote a whole chapter in his Shobogenzo devoted to the proper understanding of this Zen adage entitled Soku Shin Ze Butsu, on the issue of misunderstandings, Dogen says the following (in Rev.Hubert Nearman's Translation):

"What the Buddhas and Ancestors, without exception, have traditionally maintained and entrusted to us is, simply, that this very mind of ours is Buddha. Even so, the statement “Your very mind is Buddha” did not come from India, but was first heard in China. Many trainees have misunderstood what it means, but have failed to explore their misunderstanding to their advantage. Because many have not seen their misunderstanding through to its obviously erroneous conclusion, they have wandered off onto non-Buddhist paths.
Hearing talk of ‘your very mind’, those befuddled by doubts speculate that the intellective, cognitive, and perceptual functions of sentient beings are synonymous with ‘the Mind of enlightenment before someone has awakened to It’, and accordingly fancy themselves to be a Buddha. This is due to their never having encountered a genuine Teacher of Buddhism."

Dogen points out the problem I saw in the statement by my teacher, that 'those befuddled by doubts speculate that the intellective, cognitive, and perceptual functions of sentient beings are synonymous with ‘the Mind of enlightenment before someone has awakened to It’, and accordingly fancy themselves to be a Buddha.' This 'fancying themselves a Buddha' is a pretty serious problem. This kind of thinking leads to spiritual pride and self-aggrandizing that brings only more suffering and confusion. When we practice the Buddha's way, we don't practice because we are Buddhas already, we practice because we are foolish beings - we are suffering and having become aware of it, seek a way out. We shouldn't bask in the glory and luminosity of our great bright Buddha minds, but diligently seek out our delusion through practice. Dogen in his Shobogenzo chapter Genjokoan wrote:

"Those who have great realization of delusion are Buddhas; those who are greatly deluded about realization are sentient beings."

This is a pretty straightforward statement, there's no getting around what he's saying here. If one continues to fancy themselves a Buddha, they are greatly deluded about realization - neglecting delusion and clinging to this view of enlightenment is further delusion. A part of this fancying oneself a Buddha is the assumption that man's nature is good. I don't believe that this assumption is quite correct, yet those on the Zen side believe that the Shin Buddhists hold that man's nature is bad due to the terms foolish and evil beings. And many turning to their understanding of Shin as 'Buddhist Christianity' or 'Buddhist Protestantism' think that Shin holds a metaphysical dichotomy between foolishness and enlightenment because of the insistence of the Shin that we are all foolish beings incapable of achieving enlightenment by our own means. This understanding of Shin is utterly unfounded, as the Shin idea of butsubon-ittai or kiho-ittai meaning "the Buddha and the fool are of one body" state that, as is explained in the name, the Buddha and the fool share the same nature. It is only the foolishness and pride of the ordinary beings that stands in the way of their union with Amida, not a metaphysical barrier that permanently separates the two like in Christianity. I think that in Zen we have the same idea of Foolish beings that Shin has, but hearing that you're a Buddha is more dignifying and enlightening so people will flock to that.

Getting back to Soku Shin Ze Butsu, we've clarified what is the wrong way of looking at this phrase, so what does Dogen have to say about the proper understanding? Dogen wrote this:

"Now you know clearly: what is called ‘mind’ is the great earth with its mountains and rivers; it is the sun, the moon, and the stars. [...] Since this is the way things are, “Your very mind is Buddha” means, pure and simply, that your very mind is Buddha; all Buddhas are, pure and simply, all Buddhas.
Thus, “Your very mind is Buddha” refers to all Buddhas, that is, to Those who have given rise to the intention to realize Buddhahood by practicing and training until They awaken to Their enlightenment and realize nirvana. Those who have not given rise to the intention to realize Buddhahood by practicing and training until they awaken to their enlightenment and realize nirvana are not those whose very mind is Buddha. Even if, for a fraction of an instant, you give rise to the intention to train and realize the Truth for yourself, your very mind will be Buddha."

This mind that gives rise to the intention to realize Buddhahood is what Dogen called 'the Mind of enlightenment before someone has awakened to It' in the previous quote from the chapter. Dogen gives two conceptions of how your very mind is Buddha - first is the the mind is the great earth and the sun, sky, moon and stars, and second is the mind that gives rise to the intention to attain Buddhahood. How exactly does Dogen reconcile or combine these two conceptions? I think a good idea of how to understand it comes from a line in Genjokoan:

"To carry yourself forward and experience myriad things is delusion. That myriad things come forth and experience themselves is awakening."

Myriad things is another way of saying the great earth, the sun, sky and stars. The great earth, the sun, sky and stars is another way of saying 'mind.' 'Mind' is another way of saying all Buddhas. All Buddhas is another way of saying those who have the mind that gives rise to the intention to realize nirvana. Those who have the mind that gives rise to the intention to realize nirvana is another way of saying those who have 'the mind of enlightenment before one has awakened to it.' Therefore, myriad things could be understood as the mind of enlightenment. So, when the mind of enlightenment(myriad things) comes forth and experiences itself, that is awakening. When all things along together with the practitioner aspire to realize nirvana it will happen without fail, but if one wishes to realize nirvana and trains, continuing to be in opposition to all things(carrying oneself forward) one will fail. When one practices and trains and sees that all things train with them it is undefiled practice and therefore enlightenment there in that very moment. But one should keep in mind, from the first Genjokoan quote that when we are enlightened it is a great realization of our delusion. Even when our mind itself is Buddha we continue to be foolish beings in the fullest... if you catch my drift.

Is your very mind Buddha?

Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy in Zen

'Orthodoxy' and 'orthopraxy' are funny words. The former of the two is more familiar to everyone even though its presence is sparse in our vernacular. Conventionally speaking, orthodoxy means a conformity to an establish doctrine. This word with this meaning is typically not equated with Zen, seeing as it gains authority not from doctrinal sources, but from a patriarchal lineage leading back to Sakyamuni Buddha. I would like to submit that orthodoxy has everything to do with Zen, but how could it be if Zen is patriarchal rather than doctrinally founded? To understand how Zen is connected to orthodoxy we have to understand these words 'orthodoxy' and 'orthopraxy' etymologically.

Orthodoxy is derived from two Greek words orthos and doxa. Orthos translates into English as 'true', 'right', 'correct' or 'straight' (like an Orthodontist straightens and corrects teeth) and Doxa translates as 'belief', 'opinion', or 'praise'. So here we have something a bit different from our conventional understanding of this particular term. It turns to out to actually call for a correct belief rather than conformity to a catechism or a set of doctrinal truths. I think that this correct belief could be better articulated as 'right faith'. If this faith doesn't come from conformity to a set of doctrinal truths, it has to come from something more experiential - what better, in my opinion, than the Buddhas words themselves? I would like to posit that this orthodoxa or right faith as we've just described is founded on four of the fold in Buddha's Noble Eightfold Path, namely: Right View, Right Effort, Right Thought and Right Awareness. These four within the fold of path are interconnected, sharing a causal relationship - one causing another causing another. Right View which umbrellas the Four Noble Truths and the Three Seals of Existence causes Right Awareness. Right Awareness causes Right Thought. Right Thought causes Right Effort. And from Right Effort spring the next four which brings us to the next term.

Orthopraxy also comes from two Greek words, again, orthos meaning 'true', 'right', 'correct', and 'straight' and praxy is derived from praxis meaning 'practice' which comes from prassein meaning 'action' or 'doing'. This can be said to mean 'right practice' that comes not from a strict legalism but again from the experiential wisdom of the Buddha. This orthopraxis or right practice is founded on the final four of the fold in the Noble Eightfold Path and these like the four before them share a causal relation to each other and they also carry a causal relation to the first four of the eightfold. Right Effort causes Right Speech, Right Speech causes Right Action, Right Action causes Right Livelihood and Right Livelihood causes Right Samadhi. Now If right faith is in fact the founded on the first four of the eightfold and right practice is the founded on the final four of the eightfold and all of the eightfold in concert share a causal relationship starting with right view and ending with right samadhi, then it may well be fair to say that our orthodoxa is the cause of our orthopraxis - faith inspires practice.

So with this outline of how right faith inspires right practice in the Buddhist tradition on the whole, are there some finer points that need to be made within the Zen tradition to properly understand right faith and right practice? Yes, there are some finer points. Finer points which Eihei Dogen, the founder of Soto Zen in Japan, very clearly and concisely articulated in his work entitled Guidelines for Studying the Way or Gakudo Yojinshu:

"Those who practice the Buddha way first of all trust in the Buddha way. Those who trust in the Buddha way should trust that they are in in essence within the Buddha way, where there is no delusion, no false thinking, no confusion, no increase or decrease or no mistake. To arouse such trust and illuminate the way in this manner, and to practice accordingly, are fundamental in studying the way."

Dogen also brings up this same message in a passage from On the Endeavor of the Way or Bendowa:

"If you practice with right trust, you will attain the way regardless of being sharp or dull."

And a more recent display of this message comes from the Traditional Zen Spirit chapter of Shunryu Suzuki's Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind:

"Instead of having a deep understanding of the teaching, we need a strong confidence in our teaching, which says that we originally have Buddha-nature. Our practice is based on this faith."

Now the above quote show that Soto Zen clearly has an orthodoxa that initiates and allows for orthopraxis. Our faith in already possessing Buddha-nature allows us to practice without thoughts of gain, which is at the heart of Soto Zen. This foundation of faith that I'm pointing out here may be unsettling for some, even the word faith makes some angry and uneasy. But there is no reason to fret, I think, this isn't promoting blind faith or obedience. Right faith is founded on experiential wisdom of the first four of the fold rather than the product of adherence to specific doctrines and right practice (the final four of the eightfold) is based on this right faith. These aspects of Buddhism - Right Faith and Right Practice - compose the mind of the Buddha that is handed down to us from the Ancient Buddhas and Patriarchs of the Zen lineage. For Zen, faith alone doesn't justify someone, faith must be enacted through practice of zazen, bowing, chanting, repentance and offering. Faith is not merely something subjective or mind oriented, but is necessarily the dropping off of a person in both mind and body and this dropping off of body and mind is right faith and right practice.

God, the Poor, and Being Confronted by the Teaching

"Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God. " Luke 6:20

I've been aware of the fact that God's most cherished people were the poor and the downtrodden ever since I was a kind, but I've never quite understood just why this is so. Why would God cherish these people the most? Why were these - the poor, the orphan, the widow, outcast, hunger and sick so Blessed? I think even people who are poor may not grasp the meaning of their being blessed - thinking of their unfortunate situation as a cruel joke from an invisible bully in the light of this passage. I once thought it was because they saw so much strife in their time on earth that they would be rewarded in the hereafter. Yet that comes back to the cruel joke thing again.
Recently I think I've seen a way better to understand the blessed life of the poor, it's not something particularly new at all - but it is an interesting revelation to nonetheless. This revelation stems from a famous saying from the Kamakura (1185-1333) period founder of the Jodo Shinshu, Shinran Shonin (1172 - 1262) that goes:

"Even a good person can enter the pure land, how much more so a evil person!"

It wants to be read with the bad person first and the good person last, but the insight of Shinran's thought shows the truth of entrance into the pure land to be opposite of what we want to think. How is it so that it is easy for a evil person('evil' is a pretty strong adjective, but it refers to you and I - we are beings deeply caught in the evil of our delusions and bound to our timeless history of karma, according to pure land doctrine of course) to attain birth in the pure land. To Shinran birth was attained by faith alone, faith that the working of the vows of Amida (the Buddha who created and presides over the pure land) that say all beings will be brought to the pure land in the next life to achieve enlightenment there. To have total faith in the working of the vows, one must cease any striving for enlightenment or birth in the pure land on their behalf and let the vows do their thing of saving beings - because to anything by oneself is to not have faith in the working of the vows. In the eyes of Jodo Shinshu doctrine, the only person truly capable of such faith is the evil person, or someone who has come to acknowledge their own foolishness. Knowing their own depravity, holding no pretense to goodness and are aware that striving for enlightenment or birth through ones own means are rooted in an ego-centered, utterly futile sense of gain: "I WANT to be born there so I can attain enlightenment and be GREAT! Whereas those who consider themselves can to be good are not seeing the whole truth of their deluded and foolish state - any attempt to be a good person or create good by one's own means is still grasping blindly at ideals and is thus still creating more suffering for oneself and everyone else.

I think you can see where I can going with this explanation of pure land doctrine. The blessed nature of poverty is the freedom from the pretenses held by those who are swayed by material things and the self-aggrandizement that comes with addiction to wealth and material. Poverty shows man the futility of his pretenses to goodness and allows a person to put total faith in God, knowing deeply in their heart that they can't bring salvation on themselves.
Eihei Dogen (1200-53) was a contemporary of Shinran, he is renown as the founder of the Soto Zenshu and oft touted as Japan's most profound thinker and writer. He's a personal favorite of mine. He once wrote:

"Teaching that does not sound as if it is forcing something on you is not true teaching."

I'm not particularly sure where this quote came from, but I thought it was really profound in it's universality. If a teaching isn't poking a hole in your reality - if it's not confronting you in some way, it's not doing much more than reifying your ideals, it doesn't let you learn anything new. That can be taken for any aspect of life I think. I know that the pure land teaching has really confronted me in interesting ways. I was once offended and confused by the use of such belittling terms as evil or foolish deluded being because I was so stuck in this psuedo-Zen ideal that everyone was good because of their Buddha-nature. Really, Zen says we are just as deluded and foolish, but whenever we here about foolish beings and Buddhas, Zen students often fancy themselves of the Buddha's side and not the fool's side, which is just a matter of pride to be worked out. It also managed to help me understand the sentiment of Kodo Sawaki Roshi, a famous Soto Zen master in Japan, in his saying:

"gaining is delusion, losing is enlightenment."

As well as the similar insights of Dogen's works the Shobogenzo and the Eihei Koroku. I think to Christians, seeing that God deeply cherishes and blesses those who are poor with ability of great faith and his kingdom may make them wonder about all of wealth and material as well as fame and celebrity they profess to be blessings from God. Does God shower these gifts as incentives to show up for church on sunday and pay attention to bible study? Or is there something more to this 'being blessed'?

So what teaching forces something on you?

The Story of My Life

Not the whole thing. It's not that important. Just the part where I find out about the Buddha Dharma.

It all started... give or take 4 years ago. I was sixteen and a sophomore in high school. I was born and raised catholic and with the encouragement of some really devout fundamentalists at a church in Georgetown, TX decided to let go of Christianity and religion all together. I embraced the world of science and strong atheism with open arms. For a while I was satisfied with my situation as an atheist, but I was very curious about philosophy, particularly philosophy from the east. At the time I was beginning to study Buddhism and learn about Buddhism it was framed in a very uh... new age-y perspective (I was into the band tool at the time and payed a lot of attention to the lyrics in their songs) and it was all kind of confusing from that point of view so I decided to let it go. After letting go of the new age-y perspective, I thought Taoism might be interesting so I took that up. I was swept away by the simplicity of it's teaching and finding out it and 'Zen' Buddhism had much in common I also found Zen to be quite captivating. At this time (let's say the summer of 2007), as I was getting to Zen - reading some introductions by Alan Watts and the like - I had the growing pains of any 17 year old to be senior in high school had, such as relationship trouble. One break up really got me down and studying Zen, just pouring myself into the study and then the practice of Zen manage to help me cope with my bout of depression and it seemed like such a nice fit for me personally from what I had been learning from Alan Watts. By December of that year I was heavily into reading the Diamond Sutra and the Platform Sutra of Eno. I really wanted to jump right into the heart of Buddhist scripture, then again I also wanted something more substantial so I started getting more heavily into the meditation aspect, but still avid read any bits and translations of scripture I could find. In the beginning it is a really daunting practice, especially without knowing how exactly to hold your posture or hands or what to do with your mind, so after a few months of flying solo with what seemed to me like little success I ventured out to seek help. I found the Austin Zen Center - a Soto Zen 'center'/temple in the Shunryu Suzuki Lineage - and began sitting here on the weekends in late April of 2008. At that point in time Barbara Seirin Kohn was head preist and Kojin Dinsmore (Now a Bhikku in the Theravada tradition) and John Grimes (Now resident priest at San Antonio Zen Center) were the resident priests, but those people have gone on to different things (as you can see from the parentheses) and there is a whole new cast of characters there.

In August of 2008 I ventured off to the University of North Texas in Denton, TX to study Philosophy and Religion. During my first semester my interests took a wild turn towards Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism, but that didn't last too long, only a few months. When I returned for my second semester I joined the sitting group at the Maria Kannon Zen Center under the guidance of Ruben Habito in the Sanbo Kyodan lineage and found it pleasant, however I wasn't wild about the synergistic attitude held by those who practiced there. Most of the people sitting with me were not Buddhists, but Catholics, nor they did care to become Buddhist or obey precepts - it was very antinomian. This experience with the MKZC alongside some personal disappointments with my life at UNT urged me to seek a transfer to another. I ended up spending the fall semester of 2009 at Texas State University. In the summer of 2009, I returned to practice at the Austin Zen Center and was introduced to the new head priest, Kosho McCall. When I was there I met a handful of interesting people and had mixed feelings about my time there. I became close friends with Lutheran chaplain by the name of Jaime Bouzard who runs the Christ Chapel at Texas State. His compassion, his connection with parishioners and students and his honest and open extended hand to people of other faiths (considering our close friendship and his inviting nature) were an incredible inspiration to me and continues to be as I wish to become a college chaplain because of him, except in the Buddhist tradition. During my time spent at Texas State I aslo met Kosho McCall - the new head preist of Austin Zen Center. Only a few weeks after meeting him I asked him allow me to take on the Bodhisattva precepts and sew a lay robe. After a few rounds of interviews with him he allowed me to start sewing and my ceremony is the 23rd of this month. The following semester (spring of 2010) I returned to UNT, bought a small butsudan (a home altar) and started praticing alone under the guidance of Kosho. I plan to continue practicing under Kosho in the coming years.

Like I said before I would really like to become a college chaplain in the Soto Zen tradition, hopefully attending the Institute of Buddhist Studies or the Upaya Institute for my training and ordination. I'd be happy spending time training in a monastery as well, yet I would love to make Buddhism more available to kids my age, in the late teens and early twenties. I also hope to embody the same character as Jamie Bouzard for those who are looking for a refuge from suffering.

But enough about me... what is your story, reader?