Saturday, December 26, 2015

Thursday, September 10, 2015


I don't like the word "truth" because it means something different to everyone.  A thirsty man living in Plato's ideal forms sees a golden, jewel-encrusted cup as a cup.  Someone else covets such things, and hides them away in a vault.

That's "truth", to both people.

But there are some things you can say about the concept.  Just using reason, you can enumerate some things about how a greater truth would have to be.

If you really want to call it "truth", then it has to apply to everyone.  This means that there is no division to "truth".   It can't be something that creates separation between people.

A corollary to this, then, is:  There is no such thing as "Buddhist" truth, "Christian" truth, "Zen" truth, and so on.

There is nothing sacred, about "truth".  It is not something worthy of worship, or devotion.

To illustrate, take arithmetic as an  example -- 2+2=4.  OK.  I'm not talking "ultimate truth".  I'm talking arithmetic.  2+2=4.  That's just the way it is.  It is ordinary.  2+2 is simple, but no matter how complex the mathematical methods and formulas get, it is ordinary.  It is just "the way it is".

There  is no "following", to "truth", and there is therefore no "disciple" to "truth". 

Hmmm.  Well, if that is the case, it might be worth examining how seekers might interact.

The way it really works is like this:

You talk with someone, just talk, and you hear answers that, in the depths of your being, are "true".

Or, it's the other way around.

That's all.   That's all there is to real Zen, if you are lucky enough to meet someone who can speak.

But the only reason you hear "truth" is because it exists inside of you.

So it isn't "teaching".  There is no "teaching" in what is true.

It has to be what you want.  You can't be looking for anything else.  You can't be defending something, and you can't be promoting something.  These thoughts can't interest you, because they are are born of ideas of relative measures, between you and another, and all of these are obviously make-believe things.

You can't be looking for approval, or acceptance, or status, or comfort, or calmness, or anything like this.  That's something else, something specific to the person.  These things don't have anything to do with the universal view.  There is no common truth to these things.  That is obvious.

OK, back to examining "truth"...

There is no belief, in truth.  Obviously, that is the case. "Truth" is either "known" or not known.  Belief is not part of the process.

There is no tradition. Is there a tradition to 2+2=4?  No.

There is no student, as it cannot be something that is "learned".  Because it is here, already. 

Truly, there is no master.  If someone can speak from what he is, he doesn't see himself as "master", and he doesn't see you as "student".  He is not "teaching" anything.  He is just speaking from truth, and responding to what is presented.

And there is no compulsion, and there is no commitment, to anything, or anyone.

It just has to be what you want.

If this is the case, for you, then, no matter how crazy it sounds, a path will open, and whenever it seems hopeless, another path will open.  Because it is a difficult, winding walk, good things will show up for you, now and then.  This is a kind of miracle.   A path will always open, because you are what this world needs most.

In times you look back, you won't be able to call that path anything, except "my path".

Tuesday, September 8, 2015

Happy Dogs

Once while I was staying at Deer Park, I noticed the caretaker had brought along his dog.

I love dogs, so I would sometimes get the dog going a little bit.  I would sit outside with my tea, and I'd say "wooh!", and the dog would flop on over, and I'd pet him and push his head around a little. 

When I finished my tea, we'd really get into it.

Once, to the great delight of the dog, the monks scheduled a walk around the grounds.  So, solemnly, everybody lined up started off, with the dog darting up and down the line beside us.

Like I said, I love dogs, and when they show energy like this, I just feel bad not being able to reward their joy.  So I'd put my hand out for the dog to chew on and slobber on when he would pass.

I got scolded for this, so I tried to stop, but the dog would have none of it, so I got scolded a couple of more times.

Afterward there was a short meeting, where we'd all sit in a circle and talk about our insight.

The monk who had scolded me wasn't there.  There was another guy there, who I suppose had seen the whole thing.  He told me that the monastery was for deep meditation, and that it is an important thing, this practice, so that we may rid ourselves of our attachments to the past, and to the future, so we may learn to live in the present, so that we may learn to appreciate our lives.

I never liked the phrase "living in the present".  It is one of those phrases that Buddhists sometimes use to avoid meaningful investigation.  I mean, nearly everything you know is from "the past".  It is here, part of your life.  It is where all your weight lies -- not the trees and cars and pieces of paper that you are looking at right now. 

The weight of a person is in the hurts and disappointments of the past.

So the thing people call "the past" is important.  If you can't come to see that clearly, if you are not working with what you carry, or what lies between "you" and another, then  what is your "practice"?

Avoidance of difficult feelings?

Besides, "the past" is something that some people see differently than most -- "physically" differently.

There are some traditional koans that, in fact, that point to this.

I didn't mention this, though.  Instead, I asked the monk about the dog.

I said if there's anyone appreciating his life, walking along that path, it was the dog.  And, if there was anyone who's mind never strayed far from the present, it was the dog.

My answer confused the monk.  He said that when we enter a monastery, we give up our attachments to some things that we find pleasing, and we do this to gain insight.

So I asked how does that appear in a man?

Is it closer to one of the solemn monks?  Or is it closer to the dog -- alert, and bright with energy on a walk along the trail?

Who is seeing clearly?

The monk responded "we are not dogs" and made it clear that the conversation was over.

But there was another guy there, who had been listening.  He was a writer from Santa Barbara.  He had stayed quiet, for a little bit, but then spoke up.

He said there was something that he always found curious, and that was the manner in which the things we call "practice" diminish the things that, perhaps, are the actual point of a true practice, and that perhaps, we can't look to find a "place" or "practice" or "form"  that will reflect a true evolution.

This man was particularly well-spoken, and I wish I could repeat what he had said, here, word for word.  But I can't, so I'll  just have to do with that little paraphrase, and leave it at that.

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Nirvana, and the Universal View

“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.”   -John Donne
If someone mentions ""Nirvana", it sounds like a funny word.  Like Jesus's Kingdom of Heaven, or Muhammad's Paradise, these things sound like fantasy.  Buddhists sometimes point to their master and say "he has entered nirvana", and religious people talk about "Heaven" and "Paradise" as some mystical realm, where you go if you make "God" happy enough.

But these ideas are misconceptions.  Rather, all of these notions describe what mankind could be, hete, in this life, and how all people could share the fruits of this world happily, and in peace.

This is the point of a true spiritual endeavor.  Nirvana, or the Kingdom, is a promise given to all of us.

Moreover, it is a responsibility shared by each of us.

This is actually the whole point -- how compassion can bring about such a transformation, in this world.

It was never just about "your" insight, or the end of "your" suffering. All modern teachers make it sound this way, and some of the old suttas do too.  But it's not the point. 

Rather, the true sages had the universal view.  They were addressing the problems of mankind.  They saw exactly where the problem lies, and they addressed it, directly, in a perfectly rational manner.

So, if you want to understand some of the strange sounding things that sages have said in the past, there is a simple way to do it.  Just substitute "everyone" for whoever they are talking to, and you will get a better idea of what they meant, or what it was that they considered important.

So if a famous guy way back near the year zero says, to a rich man "you have to give away all your money", he really isn't talking only to the guy.  The famous guy saw the universal problem:  The manner by which mankind divides, and how such division brings suffering in the world.

Love of money is just the most widespread expression of the problem.  It is a desire for relative measure, an invasive idea that leads mankind, as a whole, away from rational, sensible action.

A space alien who looks down on the earth, studying man, and witnesses children starving would be curious as to why humans address the problem by talking about someone's, or some government's scarcity or abundance of little pieces of paper.  The alien wouldn't understand this way of thinking.  He would see children starving, and he would see plenty of food, and he would see adult humans acting as though starvation is unavoidable, as they point to piles of  small pieces of paper, and count the numbers of pieces of paper therein, and behave as though this is an important consideration.

The space alien, just like the man from year zero, would consider this insane.

He has the universal view. Better if people stop looking at the pieces of paper, so they can approach problems rationally, together.

It doesn't matter that we think "Oh no way.  That's ridiculous.  That will never happen.  Rich people will never give away all their money.  Fat chance."

It is the problem that the guy from the year zero is addressinghow we limit our hearts by collective worship of (what amounts to) make-believe things, how we self-identify by them, and how this leads to suffering in the world.

It is a universal message.  With a singular, universal solution.

Buddha's solution:  Clear your hearts out of the things you are attached to, and the ideas by which we identify ourselves.  Make this little sacrifice.  Yeah, it hurts.  It really is a sacrifice.

Yeah, it seems like a stupid thing to do, from an individual point of view.  "You" don't get anything out of it, after all, at least by any worldly measure.

But actually, it is better.  For everyone, it is better.  This is love.  For mankind as a whole, it is a very, very good thing. 

Imagine a bunch of hungry children, playing, for hours, in a room.  They are dressed in all sorts of costumes and they carry all sorts of toys.  The father walks in the door and says that the table is served, but you have to take off your costumes, and you can't bring your toys.

Why? Asks one child, and the father says "Because we are not cowboys and Indians.  We are a family."

So the children drop their toys and costumes, and, together, they run to the table.

That is the way it should work. 

Sadly, so far, grown-ups don't see things the same way.

John Donne is actually addressing the same problem, really, in his little writing a the top of this post.  He is addressing how we come to see in terms of separation, and how neatly and coldly it limits our hearts. 

If we get some news about a guy with a beard half a world a way, we think "Hmmm.  Well.  They attacked us first.  It's a mad world!" and we put it out of mind.

Mr. Donne is saying:  That is the failure.   Not the war.  Not the guns.  Not even anyone's act of shooting.  And nobody has the right to say it is a failure of the guy in the beard, or a soldier, or his platoon, or  the arms merchant. 

Instead, it is everyone's failure, in every moment, because this is how we have all come to see.  "Us and them", or "I'm lucky because I'm rich and too bad he's poor" or "American" and "Japanese",  "my family", "my tribe", "my religion", "my tradition",  "my sect",  and so on.

"Us and Them"

And this was the problem that all true sages were addressing, way back when.  It exists in everyone, and the only real hope for mankind is for each of us to make the great effort to eliminate it.

And you can't say "No way!  Look at what they are doing!  They hate us!" or "No way!  I need money for when I'm old!"

Because these are expressions, themselves, of the universal mistake, and their power is the lock that keeps mankind out of the Kingdom.

Given all the crazy things that spring up in western people's minds when they hear the name "Jesus", or the things that pop up in eastern people's mind when they hear the name "Buddha, it is easy to forget the simplest, most basic message, delivered by both men:  to practice compassion, to love one another, to give to others, and to share all that this world offers.

If you think about it for awhile, you realize there really is no other solution.  I know that sounds crazy.  But think about it.  There area  million other ideas floating around, but really, nothing is going to work. 

Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" sounds wonderful, but unless all of our hearts are indeed pure, the system will become corrupted, advantageous for a few, oppressive for the rest.

Locke's "right to life, liberty, and property" also sounds nice, but unless the hearts are pure, the system will become corrupted,  advantageous for some, oppressive for the rest.

Buddhism, Judaeism, or Catholicism, or Islam won't help.  There is no belief that will help. Following anyone or any doctrine won't help.  All these divisions have blood on their hands.  They are all institutions given power by those who  have not seen, and they are all mechanisms of separation, both within them, and between them.

And if they weren't here, something else would show up.

Doing what  the sages did is the only thing that will help mankind as a whole.  Looking into our hearts and destroying the ideas that divide is truly the only sensible path for mankind.  With less selfishness in the world, all the problems are solved.

That is "non discriminating mind', "no subject/object", "no secular no sacred", "no intention", and "do nothing".  All of these mean placing no weight on another, accepting others, and viewing them as you view yourself.  They all mean seeing from your deepest heart, which itself harbors none -- absolutely none -- of the dividing ideas.

As an individual, it sounds hopeless.  It seems as though it's a stupid thing to do, given (what seems like) the "reality" of the way the world is.

But those thoughts are not true.  They are thoughts born of fear.

I know I sound critical of the Zen masters, and leaders  of religions, but it is only because of this.

There is no universal view, right now, in Zen.  There are only appeals to, what amounts to, selfishness.

If you Google "meditation" or if you Google your "master", you will find speech after speech of all the benefits of meditation.

These are valid benefits.  It is more or less true, what the teachers say.

But they are personal benefits.  If someone shows up to a Zendo wishing for more calm in his life, that is what he will get.  If someone shows up wishing for more "sex power", then this is what he will be practicing, and it will pretty much work out for him or her.

This holds true for everyone, in every monastery, in every practice.

Go ahead and google it.  Google your master and read carefully.  When addressing  students, it is very rare that the teachers speak of anything but personal benefit.  The whole "spiritual" industry now revolves around how calm you can be, how much "insight" you get, how much less stress you can have,  how confident you can be, or how fewer hangups you can have, in your life.

Go ahead and look.

Don't just say "Oh they don't mean it.  They say it but they don't mean it". 

Ask yourself:  Would it not be the case that a clinical psychopath, if one happened to be sprung from the ward for the criminally insane, might do very well in such a practice? 

You have to say it's true.  A complete lack of empathy would free one of many hang ups, and liberate one to behave in any manner one wished, with no troubling conscience to hold him back.

Many "masters" take this view into the stratosphere.  Very many do this.  Pema Chodon gives long talks about embracing your anger, and how such violent thoughts help create your personality, which is beautiful and powerful and gives us strength!

For Buddha, this sort of thinking was never even part of the equation. 

Can nobody see this? 

If this were the point, if Buddha were wishing for less stress in his life, or to love the fact that he sometimes wished to smack the local spice dealer, and so on, he would have remained on his silk cushions, inviting great Hindu masters into his palace for visits.  He would have had his servants continue to bring in grapes and figs during the discussions.

This was not what he did, because his personal benefit, in any manner whatsoever, was never the point.  He was interested in suffering, but it wasn't his suffering he was interested in.

He was interested in the suffering of mankind.

And how could that possibly end?  

Is there a way to end it?


But only if we all do something. 

That is the ONLY way, from the universal perspective.

Think about it, at least.

The point, the only point, was to examine your life, find the things that limit the heart -- they are the things that divide the world.  Look at them and see the suffering they bring to the world.  The benefits they bring you are relative, illusory.   Destroy them, and stand in reality.

That's all.  Just bring your heart to destroy them.

Why?  Because whenever a man dies, or a child starves, the bell tolls for all of us.  It is a mistake to think any other way.  That is the heart of Buddha, and his only wish was for others to see the same way, so the world could become the wonderful promise that has been given, and still is given, to all of us.

Buddha's "I am not Prince", "I am not a 'noble'".  Was a man, in rare empathy, throwing down the things that cause pain for those who are not "prince" and are not "noble caste".

It is saying "I am not a creature of division among man".

Muhammad said "mankind was once one community".

His wish was the same.  Talk about "paradise" with  virgins feeding you figs sounds ridiculous.  But it's not "somewhere else".  When you make your heart pure, you make your eyes pure, and all you see is pure.

There are no divisions that help.  Everyone thinks their particular coat is the way to go.  Everyone has the answer.  "The American way" is the answer, to an "American".  People who are not "American" sometimes die as a result of this idea.  Buddhists say they have the answer.  Christians say they have the answer.  People die over these ideas, and people die over the defense of these ideas.

But the only answer is for everyone to remove the coats, through love for one another, and a resulting sacrifice, or giving up, of ideas of personal benefit.

If is really the only path, for the world.

People have to see that.

I'll illustrate:

People point to Hitler as a bad guy.

But the only reason Hitler was Hitler was because of a couple of million people, each counting their pennies, concerned only with their individual lives.  "Power" is only an illusion, riding atop hearts sealed by collective disinterest.

People are disgusted with the power of the Mafia, or with the corruption that has gone on in the banking industry, but how do these groups have power?  What gives them power? 

The love of money, within the hearts of each of us.  Without that, they would just be men holding stacks of paper, behaving absurdly, while the rest of the world cooperated, and shared the world in rational compassion for one all.

That is actually what they are, right now.  They are men holding many billions of little stacks of paper, behaving absurdly.

So, without the heart's destruction of the coats we wear, and without the resulting destruction of the ideas that divide, mankind, as a whole, ensures itself further suffering.   Each and every one of us plays a role.

And this holds true no matter how pretty the divisions appear, or how "good" they seem.  They are still egoic division, no matter how comfortable they may be, or how much status they may afford one.

And they will cause harm.

The universal view is a rare one, requiring rare empathy, or a wish to develop it, through compassionate, and selfless acts, in one's life. 

But you can find the message everywhere.

You see it in the greatest love story of all time, how the heart can heal the world by destroying the things we assume ourselves to be.  And it is a story about how this is the process that will bring the world together, and save it from the path it has taken.

Two families at war for as long as history can remember, and then the lovers:

  Jul.  ’Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself though, not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part        45
Belonging to a man. O! be some other name:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes        50
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name;
And for that name, which is no part of thee,
Take all myself.
  Rom.        I take thee at thy word.
Call me but love, and I’ll be new baptiz’d;

A destruction of the things we think we are.  And end to "I am Montegue".  An end to "I am Prince".

Romantic love, but it is still love.

A destruction of the things that divide.  We are not Americans, or Japanese, or Jews, or Buddhists, or rich, or poor.   It is a mistake to allow these ideas to pollute our hearts.  It is a mistake to identify by them.

If you remember, the two families got together after this, in the play.  Saddened by the loss of their glowing children, who both sides called crazy all their lives, they finally made peace. 

A sorrowful redemption, then, led by those crazy children and their pure, clear eyes.

Better for everyone.  Better for all.

Two sides become one.  A terrible sacrifice, an image of eternal love, and a scream against what is wrong in the world.

That is what I have to say about the universal view.

But I learned something thinking about it.

This play was originally from an Italian poet, Matteo Bandello, actually.

This is a fact that delights my girlfriend, here in Italy, where I am typing this. 

"Si certo! Vero!" she says.

Shakespeare got it from another guy, who got it from Matteo Bandello.

I read this again  some years back, and thought I would look into Shakespeare.  But I couldn't find anything I was looking for, and the other stories, even the supposedly "metaphysical" ones, like The Tempest, never seemed very interesting, to me, in the same way, aside from a line or two.  They were good reads, but not in the same way, for me.

So I looked into the guy he got the play from.

Still, I couldn't find anything.

I gave up.

Then a year or so later I thought "no way,  it must be.." and looked again, and found Matteo Bandello as the original source.

And I found what I was looking for.  It turns out he was in and out of monasteries, parts of his life, "Christian" ones, by name, as if it mattered.  That was just what was around out here, I guess, at the time.

That explains the little jabs he was taking at the Church, and Romeo's seemingly flippant, but actually not flippant, redefinition of baptism, and other things that you find here and there in this play.

Wikipedia says Matteo Bandello, though spending much time in the monasteries,  "does not seem to have been very interested in theology."

Yes, that makes sense.  Of course not. 

This funny thing, this coming and going, and the discomfort with religious and traditional form, describes a lot of particularly interesting people, to me, from the past.  

They were all just up to something else.

The love of mankind, and the universal view.

Saturday, August 22, 2015

"Us and Them"

There is an "Us and Them", in Zen.

And, this is actually a kind of proof that there are very few "true" masters, because this way of thinking is not something that is to be created.

It is something to be destroyed, in a true practice.

It is saying, in one's life:  "I am one of these people.  I am one of all people.  They are no different from me", a way of thinking that is expressed by Buddha's dropping of of "caste", "noble", etc. when he left his father's compound.

This is a very rare view.  It requires a great heart, and/or a wish to develop one.

Most people spend their lives trying to separate themselves from the next.  It is maybe 10,000 to one, in any setting, including a monastery.  Most people want this, to gain riches, status, position over others, and so on.  It is very rare that one actually wishes to see himself on the same level as others.

But this is the only real way to see, and if your group is heading this way, there would be no "Us and them", and there would be no weight placed on the labels like monk/layman/master/layman/formal/informal, and so on.  If you think in these terms, you think in terms of separation, and your practice is one of division.

How can you see which way you are going?

The hidden lines present themselves plainly in difficult times.  This is when they become apparent.

America went to war, when "we" felt we were attacked.  A lot of people reacted in ways they didn't expect.  A lot of people came to see the world differently, on that day.  For many people, a line came into focus, one that had been hidden before. 

"American" suddenly meant something.  It was always there, actually, but it had been hidden.

It is the same in Zen.   There's a line.

In truth, there were many, many people who spoke up about characters like Shimano and Sasaki in the past.  There were probably over a hundred of them.  They weren't listened to.  They were not "monks" or "masters", so they didn't "understand Zen".  For decades, they were ignored, or labeled ignorant, or dismissed.  They were seen as "negative" somehow.

People only started to pay attention when a "monk" spoke up, one day, after decades of silence.

Suddenly, it was "one of us".

So there is a division, held by many,  that was actually created, in the practice, and people have trouble looking beyond this division.   It is part of "them", so they protect it.  It is actually exceedingly rare that somebody goes beyond this.

It is much, much more rare than what one may think, at first glance.

Just as with the Catholic church, in the Zen community, there was an institutional silence, held under the force of those who felt protective of what had become "part of them".  Even now, you still hear people recommending solutions to past problems, but only in "Zen" terms.  The AZTA, who had also remained silent for many years,  is creating a "Zen" ethics committee to oversee breeches of conduct within their ranks.

"Zen" writers interview therapists who "have many years of Zen experience"

This sounds rational, to people.  But it is actually irrational.

In fact, the problems in the Catholic church were only addressed, in a meaningful manner, once outside groups became involved.

That's "Us and them".

If you look at the traditional Zen practice, it appears set up to allow for the creation of such identity, rather than its destruction.  As one "progresses" in monastery life, one is offered social rewards, public ceremonies, celebrating one's "commitment" to the group.  One is even given new names -- a new "Buddhist" name, and a new "monk" name. 

In the group, this is done to great fanfare.  It is displayed as a big, important step in one's life.

No doubt those "within the group" feel great about all of this.  No doubt there are positive effects for the individual.

But if you are talking about what Buddha did, if you take the wider view, if you say "hey, forget about me, is it good for everybody?", does it help? 

Or does it help, instead, to create a "Me and You", and an "Us and Them"?

You know this:  Such things weren't around in Buddha's practice.  These are things he actually left behind, when he walked away from the Hindu places he had visited before he went under the tree.

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Re: Shimano and Sasaki

There was/is something about Sasaki and Shimano that most people don't realize.

Usually, when you read about these men, the articles, or the posts, are written by people who never dealt with them, or by people who sat sesshin a few times, something like this.

So most of the discussion is simplistic binary thought.  He had sex with a student, "that's bad!" or something like this.  People go on from there, expanding on how a Buddhist master, or sangha should behave.

Often, these articles end with a call for more critical thinking, on the part of the Sangha.  They warn against how unhealthy a group can become with blind devotion, and they make a call for a more active, aware, and responsible sangha.

That's fine. 

But it is a mistake to think that such a thing happens on its own.  It is also a mistake to think it is simply a "Buddhist teacher who had sex", and that this was the problem.  Los of people have sex.  Sex is not an ugly thing.

What is ugly is how all these things happened, if you were there to see some of it.

It is not as though students would just show up, get into the rapture groove, and give their lives away. 

That is not what happens...

The truth is, Mr. Sasaki and Mr. Shimano kept very careful watch over their sanghas.   This was actually the focus of their days; to maintain the very atmosphere of devotional excess that all now recognize as unhealthy. For these men, this was a conscious, deliberate effort.  They would surround themselves with a few enablers, and offer kind words of approval to those who displayed reverential awe.

That is how most people behave, actually.  The formality of the practice encourages this.

But this doesn't describe everyone in Zen.  There were indeed critical thinkers happening by, and/or those who, for whatever reason, remained as they were when crossing the gate.  And these people would be treated very differently. They were targets.  Mr. Sasaki and Mr. Shimano wanted them out.  They would manipulate those closest to them into sniping at anyone who they even suspected might cast an eye their direction. Whistleblowers, even potential whistleblowers, were very quickly made unwelcome.

They were not stupid men.  They could very easily see who these people were.  They would very quickly make them targets.

This was an easy task.  Within the air of devotional excess, such a "master" need only whisper to those close to him.  Even "I fear this new student takes energy from the Zendo"  will send a remarkable percentage of people into an angry rage, against the target.

It is not a normal environment.  This behavior was rewarded, by these "masters", and the inherent secrecy of the Zen form ("master" is rarely seen by anyone, aside from a few people, "dokusan" always in secret, no public questioning, no public forums) makes this an easy job.

Also, nobody ever admits their role.  That never, ever happens.

This is how such an unhealthy environment is created. It doesn't just show up.  It is a product of willful deception, and manipulation.  It is a calculated creation.

I was in a position to witness this.  I didn't know about the stories, at either place.  But it was frightening enough to witness this.  It is a mark of very dangerous character.  Not many people would wish for such control over others, much less deceive and connive to create and maintain it.

It will never, ever, be put to "good" use.  Such intentions will always reveal themselves in the selfish harm of others.

Friday, August 14, 2015

The Question: What Allows It, and What Denies It

The only really important koans boil down to "What is this?".  This is actually the same question as "What were you before your grandparents were born?"  You should be able to figure out where these two questions meet. 

A koan that does not aid in resolving these questions, or aspects of what becomes known, is not a real koan.

Joshu was speaking from the answer, or shouting from it, when the monk's question cornered him into the false view.

Zen masters like the fact that Joshu screamed.  It makes it look like the old man was great and grand, and the monk was a fool.

Personally, I see this as a terrible distortion --  an abuse --  like many aspects of the traditional Zen form.  Many aspects of the form extend the idea of "master" over "student".  This includes ceremony, elaborate costumes, a rich Zen mythology, an impressive spectacle of formal order in the zendo, the "master's" aloofness from "normal" work, etc. etc. 

The list just goes on and on, and, oddly,  people criticize sanghas, for excess devotion, when the "masters" screw up.  But it is the traditional masters that insist on such ridiculous form, just for sitting still together, and it is the corrupt masters who require such unhealthy devotion from their students.

Anyway, Joshu is in no way dismissing the monk's question, nor is he demonstrating any sort of superiority, nor is he expressing frustration with the monk, nor is he "blasting away" the question into "nothingness".

He is doing none of these things.

In fact, this question, for all we know, may have been a test.   And, if so, it is a good test, because it scrambles things in a way that makes it impossible to answer. 

So, Joshu was forced to shout. 

What are you?  How are you here?  How are you seeing out your eyes?

Seeing this actually isn't so important, but in Zen, it is talked about as though it is everything. 

How best to address the question?

The truth is, the question is best presented unadorned.  Like any other investigative endeavor, like scientific inquiry, any belief system or devotional notions only diminish it, or steer one away.

In the traditional practices, if you look at the different ways that "insight" is characterized, things just don't match up.  Commitment to a traditional form is not part of the equation.  It won't help anything.  Obedience and devotion to a particular man or woman is not part of the equation.  "Advancing" in a number of  "stages" of "enlightenment", or considering things this way, is not part of the equation.   The unquestioning manner in which one goes through one's monastic rituals is not part of the equation.

Belief in any of these things -- even seemingly innocent trust in them -- are things that actually diminish the question, taking power away from it.  All of these things make it seem like there is something "else", besides "you" that will assist in the answer. 

They are all things that remove the ideas of independence  and self-sufficiency from the investigation.  They make "Zen" or "Buddhism" or "Advancing" into important words. 

A real group meditation "practice", then, where everyone is truly addressing the question while sitting beside one who no longer has no use for it anymore, would appear as "less" impressive, important, or ceremonial.  There would be nothing added to this, save some worldly regulations to make sure everyone is on the same page, operationally.

It can't even be "Buddhist".  Even this is a smokescreen.  Why make smokescreens?  There is no "belief" in a question, and there is no "faith", aside from that in yourself.    What you will see isn't "Buddhist".  It isn't "Zen" insight.  It isn't "Christian". 

It isn't "nothing" either.

You can't describe things these ways.

So why describe the approach this way?

The only people who would do this are the ones who have never seen.  Because there is no reason to burden people with weight that only has to be dropped, if they are to see.

The best group setting would simply be a schedule, and a cooperative, non-hierarchical format that the group has agreed to.  If it is seen by the participants as anything else, anything "more", then things have gone off course.

In fact, much of what is considered "traditional" does not even allow for the question.  A long time ago,  perhaps the practice did, when people were just meeting up to sit together, and chatting about it.  But as soon as "Zen" becomes a "thing", or "Buddhism" becomes a "thing", people behave in a manner, and reward a manner, that actually diminishes the question.

This is just a function of the rarity of the answer, especially among the leaders of form.

All personal labels deny the question.  "I am a Buddhist, I am a monk"  means you have not accepted the question of what you are.  You have, instead, accepted an appearance, and you have called the appearance the answer.  Moreover, you have added  additional layers on top.  You have added things to "Man" or "Woman", making an idea heavier, and thus making the answer more remote.

As Lin Chi said, you have added a head to the one you already have.

If you are interested in the question, you can't even think this way.  How do you see out of your particular eyes?  What puts you there?  What is the root of consciousness?

All experience, thought, and memory depend on this.

So it is worth an investigation.

Your whole life is certainly worth a look.

"I am a student" denies the question.

If you see things this way, you are not looking toward where the answer comes from.

"I am a master" denies the question.  It is even worse than saying "I am a student".

It sounds like I am being nit-picky, but I'm not.  People think "everyone knows the labels don't mean anything.  The masters know that, they aren't idiots".

But nobody is calling them idiots, or bad people.  They are just interested in doing things that are unrelated to the question -- or the answer, in fact.  Much of their life, and much of their activity, and much of their speech, relates, in fact, to the nonsense labels -- monk/layman, etc... 

This is just what happens, after awhile.  Things drift away.

Once in awhile someone comes along and changes things, for a bit, but things drift back, because it is not so common that someone shows up with the answer to what we are.  A man removes all the labels from his life, finds the answer, and wishes to help others do the same.  He doesn't bother with wasteful things.

After he dies, people start picking up labels, applying them here and there, and talking about them as if they are meaningful.   Then, in more time,  they start making great ceremonies for the labels.  They make great spectacles about the very things that have no importance, because they themselves have not found the answer.  They need the spectacle.  They have to make things look important.  They actually have to, because they don't have what is important.

Maybe there is a traditional master somewhere that has truly seen, but I listen to them talk all the time, and they give themselves away.  They always do.   Maybe they believe they have seen -- maybe they have thought out an idea about things being connected, and so on.  But then they will always give themselves away.

If you ask them "what is free will?"  they will talk about Buddhist beliefs, for example.

If you ask them "how about a question  not from the books?" they will give you a speech about the tried and true koan curriculum.

They won't come up with something that you have not heard before, or will not hear again.

They don't know.

If anyone is reading this, there is a point to this blog -- don't assume anything.  Don't assume what I am saying is true. 

The only way you will know, is if you see for yourself.  If you don't know, nobody can teach you.

You have to find out. 

There is no purpose to "following" anything, or anyone.  It is not sensible.  In fact, it is better to go to different places, all the time, like Lin Chi did.  They all say they know, but they give themselves away.

Because someone says "I know" doesn't make it so.

They know how people may answer the koans, but this isn't truly seeing.

Those living the answer have trouble speaking, or behaving, the way the masters speak.    They can, but it annoys them.  It is boring to speak about belief, and tradition, and divisions, and adornments to the self, and other things that are not real. It is a waste of time.

Long ago, it was believed that the sun rotated around the earth.

That is an appearance. 

Everybody thought this.

Galileo figured out that it was the other way around, and he spent his life in jail for what he said.

What was the first step in his figuring it out? 

He accepted the question.  He allowed himself to doubt the appearance, and approached things rationally, from there.

People think "This traditional master has great insight" but it is a nearly impossible thing.  It is like saying "This Geocentrist is a great Heliocentrist"

It just doesn't work.  It is impossible.  It is one way, or the other. 

Today, nobody would talk about Geocentrism.  Why would they?  It is boring.  It is a waste of time.