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.