Tengu House

Stupid Enlightenment

 
 
Since the death of Daido Roshi, I've been re-reading a couple of his books. This afternoon in Cave of Tigers, I came across a dharma encounter that struck me especially hard. Recently I feel especially aware of my own human imperfections. I neither regret nor lament them, but I've been noticing them more and more. Thich Nhat Hanh talks about embracing our imperfections, loving them as we would anything else about us and others. But I've wondered, what exactly is the relationship between our own imperfections and the enlightenment of all sentient beings? Are even enlightened Buddhas sometimes imperfect? Is it possible for someone to become enlightened, but then keep making the same dumb mistakes?

So this afternoon I found this passage in Cave of Tigers, by John Daido Loori, Roshi. I hope no one will mind me using it here. I think it goes a long way toward answering the question for me, so I thought I'd share it.

STUDENT: Is it true that zazen itself is enlightenment?

TEACHER: Yes.

STUDENT: So, when I sit and I'm falling asleep, or I'm daydreaming, or I'm not watching my thoughts, is my zazen enlightenment?

TEACHER: The very first thing the Buddha said upon his enlightenment is that all sentient beings are already enlightened. Obviously that includes our sleeping, our wakefulness, our intelligence, our stupidity. Most people have the idea that enlightenment is somewhere other than where they stand, so they run around looking for it. What Master Dogen is saying is that the process, zazen, and the goal, enlightenment, are not two things, any more than absolute and relative are two things. Form is emptiness, emptiness form. Delusion is enlightenment, enlightenment is delusion. Good and bad are the same thing. It doesn't compute logically, so what is it? 

STUDENT: Yes, I think I'm definitely getting stuck on that.

TEACHER: That's because you're trying to understand it by linear, sequential thought. The fact that you can't understand it doesn't mean that it's not so. Anything else?

STUDENT: No. Thank you for your answer.

TEACHER: May your life go well.

 

It's funny how so many of the questions I have about the nature of the Buddhadharma lead us back to the Heart Sutra. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.

There is no attainment, with nothing to attain.

John Daido Loori, Roshi 1931-2009

As I mentioned in my previous post, this was truly a great man. I wanted to use that post to convey our thoughts and feelings toward Daido Roshi, and I want to use this post to offer a kind of place for your mind to rest, to cease wandering through the cyber-samsara for a moment, and just sit. Perhaps meditate on some of the many priceless lessons taught over the years by Daido Roshi.
.

We have no doubt that the Mountains and Rivers Order is left in fine and capable hands, and please accept our deepest condolences. Even for those of us who never met him in person, the world will not be the same place without him.

And for those of you unfamiliar with Daido Roshi, please see here: http://www.mro.org/daido/

Descending the Mountain

My understanding is that right now as I write this, John Daido Loori, Roshi (abbott) of the Mountains and Rivers Order, is near the end of his life.

Although he has devoted many decades of his life to teaching Zen Buddhism, I cannot claim the honor of being one of his students. Yet, although I cannot claim to be one of his students, when asked who my teachers have been, I've always included him in the short list.

This great man has written many profound and illuminating works. Among them are The Eight Gates of Zen and The Art of Just Sitting - both of which have changed the way American practitioners cultivate their practice. After studying for many years under Maezumi Roshi, he founded the Mountains and Rivers Order and its home temple, Zen Mountain Monastery, in Mt. Tremper, New York, in 1980. Since then, his guidance and wisdom have taught this "zazen" thing that we do to literally thousands of people. He has truly made an immeasurable impact on the state of Buddhist practice in the West.

Although I never met the Roshi, I think we're about to lose one of our greatest treasures - a treasure who continues to teach. In Buddhism, we sometimes look for our departed teachers in the eyes of children. We sometimes find it difficult to let go, to say goodbye. I take solace in the books on my shelf, in the things that John Daido Loori, Roshi has told me through those pages - things that he will tell me again. And I will take solace in the lesson he's teaching us with his departure. But I will never look for him in future generations, for the enlightened are beyond rebirth.

Experiential Living

I had this conversation with a dear friend not long ago. See, my friend is going through a difficult time, the kind of difficult time that you'll understand, if you've ever been in a relationship that ended abruptly and painfully.

Through my rambling, drunk-like blah-blah, the closest thing I can give to advice in such matters is this: The Buddha taught that life is experiential. It is not caught up in the past. We find nothing in the sutras telling us to brood over whatever crappy thing happened yesterday. In fact, it can be argued that being too caught up in the past is a form of attachment, in which we become attached to something that isn't even there.

Easier said than done, I'm sure. "Just move on" isn't easy advice to give someone who's hurting. And am I able to follow this advice myself? Maybe, maybe not. Thich Nhat Hahn talks about the magic of the present moment, about mindfulness in the here and now. Is heartache a form of attachment to the past? And if so, how ready should we be to let it go?

I guess this is why monastics don't have these kinds of relationships. We can further explore this dynamic, though, in future posts. I see connections here with the difference in how Buddhists view guilt, for example. But the stories tell us about an old Zen Master who asked his young disciple, "Who are you?"

When the young monk started to answer, the Master said, "Wrong!" and then he slapped the young monk right across the face. "That is who you are!"

See, the slap is experiential, it's in the present moment, the here and now. When the monk opened his mouth to speak, he was getting ready to spew some philosophical blah-blah. What's the difference? Well, for one thing, you experience a slap across the face. You don't experience a philosophy. You can't feel a point of view or a mind-set. And the Buddha-Dharma is all about experiencing, because only our present experiences are in the here and now. Only what we're experiencing right now can be considered mindfulness.

So are you living an experiential life, or are you all wrapped up in theories, in attachments to the past?

New Books

Well, they're new to me, anyway. Here are the latest additions to the vast Tengu House library.

Patrick Swayze

 

Now folks, I really never gush over celebrities, and I guess one could make the argument that doing so would be distinctly un-Buddhist, so I'll make this short.

I'm gonna miss the heck out of Patrick Swayze. Of all the famous people in the world, of all those who rose to the heights of stardom for whatever reason, Swayze was one of the good ones. He was one of my heroes, not because of his celebrity but because of his great courage in the face of insurmountable struggles.

Someone once said that it's not how people die that makes them what they are, but rather how they live. Or something like that. Well it fits this guy, I think. I would rather live 57 years with his courage and strength than live a hundred years without it. 

A Conservative Buddhist?

I've recieved quite a bunch of queries since I posted the below Obama-related post back in June. Seems quite a number of my fellow Buddhists, aikidoists and others have found it difficult to reconcile the notion of my search for peace and enlightenment with my non-liberal political beliefs. While this isn't a political blog, I've decided to add a new post for the purpose of explanation.

Now, the first misconception here is that this was a conservative post. There's been this trend lately to confuse "conservative" with "anti-Obama". And before you quarter me and send my parts to the four corners of the realm as a warning to others, this wasn't really and anti-Obama post, either. Make no mistake, I am very much NOT a fan of Barack Obama. Live with it. But, none of this was the point of the post.

See, in my opinion (and Obama agrees with this, according to his comments on 60 Minutes tonight), there is in this country an ongoing disagreement involving the proper role of government in our daily lives. On the left extreme is the Obama administration, evidently believing that the government should be involved in every aspect of my life, no matter how minute or mundane. It is my opinion that this belief system is statist and approaches totalitarianism, and I must confess that I'm uncomfortable with a government that sends its Homeland Security chief onto the Sunday morning talk shows to tell me how to cough. In recent months, I can't turn on a television or walk into a public place where a television or radio is on, without being bombarded by Obama, giving yet another speech or interview or whatever.

All of this is too much, in my opinion. So when I had to sit there in the temple and listen to how Obama is "like a messiah" (the guy was serious, not joking), and how he has "never made a mistake", it was just a little bit over my limit. Thus was born the below post about the "Buddha-like politician".

For me, the Buddha's temple isn't the proper place for fomenting quasi-political extremism. It's a place for peace, a place for quiet cultivation of the Buddha mind, and a place for our personal practice. And that practice is an aspect of my life that I would very much like to keep apolitical. It is for this reason that I disagreed with Venerable Master Hsing Yun's financial support of Al Gore's presidential campaign. The fact that I opposed Al Gore's potential presidency, while not exactly a secret, wasn't the point. I would have been equally chagrinned had the Venerable Master donated to the Bush campaign.

So what's with the conservative thing, anyway? I've actually been asked that very thing during the past week, so I'll explain just a little about the "conservative thing". To me, "conservative" doesn't mean "neo-con", whatever the heck that's supposed to be. And it doesn't mean that I can't be compassionate toward whoever needs my compassion, charitable toward whoever needs my charity, and generous toward whoever needs my generosity. But it does mean that, because I'm the one who worked for what little money is in my checking account, I get to decide who benefits from my compassion, charity and generosity. I get to decide what happens with the fruits of my labor. What I've seen in recent decades from more liberal-minded people is a trend toward empowering the government to make that decision for me. When a government enacts new programs to grant new entitlements to those who didn't work for my money, and then creates new agencies to oversee those programs, the money for all that expensive beaurocracy comes out of your paycheck and mine. And that's not compassion, folks, that's statism. That's socialism, and it's not what I think of as the American way of life. I feel like the people who think that more government involvement in our lives will solve whatever problems they have, have missed the whole point about why this country was founded in the first place.

For the record, I am NOT a Republican (they're just as bad). I'm a conservative-leaning Libertarian. I believe that private indivduals should be left alone to charge unimpeded toward their own glory, and that a government that tells you how to cough has entirely too much influence on your daily life, and that influence needs to be scaled back. By a lot.

A Buddha-like Politician?

I consider myself retired from political writing. It's just too divisive. But I do have a question, and I hope you can help me with it: What is this Buddhist infatuation with Barack Obama?

 

 

Seriously, folks – I can’t remember a time when I was less impressed with a politician, and this guy seems to enjoy the support of every Buddhist I know. I was even told yesterday by an absolutely gushing lay teacher in my temple that Obama is “like a messiah”, and that he has “never said a wrong word”. This opinion seems to be supported by the temple and the order itself (they’re the folks who got in trouble in 2000 for illagally donating all that money to Al Gore’s campaign, after all).

.

It bothered me all night, which is right in keeping with the theme of my last post. I was unable to lay it down by the river. How do obviously intelligent, well-educated and highly thoughtful people fall so heavily for a well-spoken politician? Is verbal articulacy the only requisite for someone to be thought of as a god?

.

Please don't misunderstand. I have no issue with someone not wanting to support the Republicans. That’s fine. Although I’m NOT an Obama fan, I’m also NOT a Republican (there are, believe it or not, other choices). And I don’t really care who you believe in, when it comes to all this. No problem here, if you don't agree with my politics. Again, this isn’t a political blog. It's just that the support I’ve seen for Obama in the Buddhist community is overwhelming, and I’m wondering why.

.

Just a note: I’m NOT looking for your opinion about how great or how terrible Barack Obama is. We’ve all heard enough of that, and this blog isn't out to change anyone's mind about politics. But I would appreciate some objective opinions. Why do you think he enjoys such lopsided support among my fellow Buddhists? Is there a connection to the Dalai Lama’s stated affinity for Marxism? Or is it something closer to simple hero worship?

.

Because love him or hate him, Barack Obama is simply human, and he does things wrong, just like you and I do. I've heard many misstatements from him, just as I've made many myself. And he is, after all, a politician. He is wrapped up in American politics. He didn't just appear by magic, and his policies are carefully calculated to garner the most popular support, not handed down by devine revelation - just as is true of any other politician (well, most of them, anyway).

.

Maybe it's just me. But I don't get the impression from reading the Buddha's teaching that Shakyamuni Buddha would have been in the tank for Obama, the Republicans, or any other political entity. I can't imagine that he would have approved of his temple being used as a mouthpiece for one party or another, regardless of the intentions involved. And I can't, so far, understand what would make well-read Buddhist scholars think of such a career politician as "Buddha-like". 

Setting It Down By the River

NA MO O MI TO FO

 

You know the story of the young monk who was walking with his master. They came to a river, and there was no boat. They had to wade across, and a young woman asked for their assistance in getting across the river.

.

The young monk refused, because there is a rule forbidding monks to touch a woman. But the old master picked the woman up and carried her across.

.

A month went by, and the young monk couldn’t take it any more. “Master,” he asked, “Why did you carry that woman across the river, when you know that it is forbidden?”

.

“Young monk” the master answered, “I only carried her for as long as it took to cross the river. You have been carrying her ever since.”

.

Now we’ve all heard different versions of this story. Sometimes, the old master helps the woman into a boat, and sometimes years go by before the young monk confronts his master. There are lots of variations. But the moral is always clear.

.

There are times when something wrong happens. There are times when things don’t go our way, or we are slighted in some manner. And in such instances, it can be counterproductive to carry those events with us. We must set them down by the river.

.

This is part of letting go, part of being able to live in the here & now, not dwelling in the past or in the future. One teacher I’ve trained with calls it “returning to the room.” Others call it mindfulness.

.

Recently I’ve had a brush with this myself. I won’t go into detail, because frankly it’s not worth it. But let’s say you’re snubbed in public by a habitually offensive co-worker, or unkind words are said about you by people you’d assumed were your friends. Hey, it happens. So there you are, young monk, standing by the river with a woman on your back.

.

I know that you know what to do. If I said right now, “What do you do, young monk?” you would say to put the woman down by the river. But let’s back up. Who is the woman?

.

Is she anger? Is she greed? Ignorance? Is she hurt feelings, bruised pride, a loss of esteem? She may be all of these things, and more. She may even be hate, or even worse. This woman – this thing on our back that should not be there – might be the kind of anger or hate that is motivated by a seething rage, something churning just below the surface. Something no one else knows about, something you don’t discuss with anyone. The person you know who said something stupid, just one too many times. That neighbor who needs a good ass kicking, and isn’t far away from getting one. The asshole who just rubs you the wrong way every time you run into him. And whenever he says something nasty, glances at you like you don’t belong, or does something in an attempt to make you feel petty and unwanted, like you're just someone to be trifled with, it’s there, stinging like hot water, waiting for an opportunity.

.

Now, is it still that easy to set it down by the river, and walk away? Now that the woman has turned into something darker, more sinister, more emotional, can you still set it down? Zen Master Thich Nhat Hahn tells us to smile at our anger, the way a mother smiles at her baby. Is this something we can do?

.

I can say this. Lately I’m much more like the young monk, carrying the woman in my mind, than like the wise old master. It’s becoming less and less easy to set these things down by the river. I’m not violent like I was some years ago; I like to think that I'm not still the dangerous man I was then, when I could crush facial bones with my right hook. But today, even after my time in the monasteries, my various trainings and a few years of meditation, have I reached that point at which I can simply take such a burden of grief and anger, and simply set it down by the river?

.

It's a hopeful question, isn't it?

Activism and Engaged Buddhism, Part 2

Although there haven't been any comments, I've recieved a number of emails on my Activism and Engaged Buddhism post. In order to address those emails, I've posted a Part 2:

I hope my treatment of this whole topic isn’t misread as a criticism of those who espouse “Engaged Buddhism”, and I hope anyone reading this would understand that I would never poo-poo the efforts of people like John Daido Loori Roshi or Zen Master Thich Nhat Hahn.

My point is that there’s Buddhism, and then there’s activism. “Engaged Buddhism” is a nice idea, but I don’t believe it’s in keeping with the Buddha’s teaching, because I believe he taught that all of his Dharma was “engaged”. I can’t imagine the Buddha telling Shariputra that although all people are interdependent, and although all of our lives are intertwined, in order to “engage” your practice you’ll have to become a spokesperson for Greenpeace. Or that, although all things, beings and conditions rise and fall away, and nothing is permanent and possessed of an permanent, independent self, you still have to petition the government to force Wal-Mart to employ people who can’t do the job they’re hired for. Is this “engaged” behavior?

No, your practice is engaged when you enter into meditation and begin to cultivate your bodhi mind, and I think I will have support in this opinion.

 

In a previous post, I made the remark that one wouldn’t have seen the Buddha picketing private companies or marching on government offices. In response, someone pointed out that the Buddha didn't have to deal with the same social issues that we have to deal with.

I guess it's worth pointing out here that I recognize all this. When today’s Buddhist discusses current affairs and the state of our world, issues like corporate greed, ongoing and unpopular wars, global climate change and a flagging economy take center stage.

But how are these issues new? Was there no such thing as greed during the Buddha’s day? How about war? Do you think the climate wasn’t changing back then?

It would be delusional thinking to assume that in the time of Ashoka the Conqueror, no one was being tortured, no one was at war, and no one was starving while the rich feasted; or that social injustices were somehow less common during the heyday of the rigidly-enforced caste system than they are today. You know of course that the further back you venture in human history, the more human suffering you encounter in everyday life. This is what makes possible the modern improvements in our standard of living, even while we ignore the more important standards. We allow our own family structure to devolve into nothing, for example, while we complain that the government is making decisions that aren't in keeping with our Buddhist morals. See my dilemma? I will focus first on my own home and the standards of my own practice - and maybe then, when my own practice has attained perfection and has become crystalline, flawless and pure, I will turn my attention toward walking around downtown with a sign, in an attempt to coerce the government into changing its decisions based on a belief system that I know its people don't share with me.

If you believe that the natural environment is in jeopardy, there are things you can do that will help far more than “activism”. See David Suzuki’s website for tips on everyday energy and pollution reduction. Likewise, if you believe that American military activity in Iraq or Afghanistan is wrong, there are things you can do that will make a difference – things that will help. You can volunteer in an Iraqi hospital, for example. Sounds extreme, I know, but it does help. Trust me on this. Or, perhaps you can reach out in your own area, maybe become involved in helping Afghan refugees through the immigration process.

Of course, these are just suggestions. My point is that they’re not necessarily found in the Buddha’s teaching, and following these suggestions won’t make you a better Buddhist, any more than it would make you a better Christian or a better Jew, or whatever. What makes a Buddhist is Buddhist practice: meditation, study and belief. Do what the Buddha taught, and you will be a Buddhist. Engage yourself in activism, and you will be an activist. But don’t assume they’re the same thing.

 

The Buddha would have faced all of these problems in his lifetime. Wars raged constantly during those years, as they do now. Social injustice was endemic. And here’s what he did about it.

He meditated and taught. He changed the minds of the people around him, through the strength of his enlightenment. He achieved what so few people do, and he taught the rest of us how to also achieve it during our lifetimes, so that we may also change the minds of those around us, through the strength of our enlightenment. When people heard him speak, they followed him. They understood him, even if they didn’t understand his language. And through his own enlightened teaching, he helped violent, greedy and deluded people become gentle, meditative and introspective monastics.

When this happens, the amount of greed, anger and ignorance in the world is reduced, and the amount of love is increased. The number of deluded, self-obsessed people is decreased, and the number of devoted monastics, striving to cultivate within themselves a living embodiment of the Buddha's teaching, is increased. From this change comes a growth of interest in that teaching, as more and more people see the change that can take place within the individual - and the sangha grows further still. In my opinion, this is the proper activism, the properly "engaged" Buddhism.