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?