Egely Kloster, in Denmark

 [Most of this was written a long time ago, on my old blog.  Rewritten here]


The last time I was in Denmark, we started a one month Kessei with 5 people. Denko had kicked out 2 by the second week. They were two 19 year old kids who were on break from University. They had decided to spend their break meditating instead of partying – good kids, and good workers. One had kept asking if he could work with me. I was building the guest rooms and the meditation hall.

The kids were paying guests, helping to start the place, for Denko. They had arrived a few minutes late once, to dinner, and Denko had kicked them out, screaming, angrily.  He said “I don't want to waste my time with them”. 

 One of the kids was very, very upset when he left.

I found another woman, sometime in the middle of Kessei, crying out by a pile of wood. She would occasionally pick up an axe and chop angrily and wildly at the wood. I stood my distance and tried to calm her down. I asked her if she wanted to take a little walk. She eventually sat down and talked to me, for a little while.

There is a great deal of sneering, angry verbal abuse, in some Zen monasteries. I don’t know what this woman had been through. She didn’t say.

It isn't "strict zen", or anything like that.  It is real upset.  It is anger.  The master screams "What is the matter with you?  Are you STUPID?  Can't you put a bowl down right?" at a 19 year old kid whose bowl thumped a little too loudly during lunch.

I deal with it OK, because I consider people who scream about little, meaningless things..  unbalanced...

Some people have a hard time in monasteries.  It is my feeling that, because of this, they look for ways to vent, and it is my theory that they choose targets of their wrath by a simple formula:  scream toward those that will bring the least consequence.  That means choose those at the bottom of the totem pole, or choose the youngest ones, or the ones who do not appear as if they will scream back.

This is the sort of thing the woman at the wood pile was having to deal with.  It is like a constant hammer, on your head, sometimes.

For some reason -- in my opinion a very selfish reason -- such behavior is rewarded, actually, in Zen monasteries.  This is pretty well documented, actually. 

It is a hard thing to describe -- what is rewarded is a kind of militant belief, and a willingness to impose this belief on others, without consideration.  In this way, the hierarchy is forever fortified.

Denko sometimes calls this the "hai" spirit.  "Hai" is the Japanese word for "yes".  It differs from "yes" in that is a word that someone can say very quickly, and with fire.  Denko's opinion is that a "serious" Zen student, when given an instruction from his "master", is to say "hai!", then bow,  and immediately set himself to fulfilling the master's request.

Is that a good thing?

Because, it seems to me, that this air of incredible importance and unquestioned loyalty that many teachers foster does much more harm than good. 

Let me put it this way:  If you say "my tradition is extremely important!!!", then, in your  robes,  how are you not saying "I am extremely important!!!"?

After all, who holds this thing people call "tradition"?  And what is it, anyway?  It is different for every single person.  Every "master", and every one of the "master"'s students pick and choose the bits they consider imiportant.  It is different everywhere.

So what is it really?

So if make this great claim, regarding tradition -- if you believe it is "extremely important", this arbitrary little formula you have arrived at, then how are you not practicing to become a self-centered  egomaniac?

How are you not practicing narcissism?

Somebody tell me.

I mean this as a serious question, because it seems to me that the Zen definition of "insight" is a state of robotic non-feeling, where monks and senior students become more and more assimilated into the hierarchical structure, more and more dependent on monastic form, and less and less capable of  (or interested in) thinking for themselves.

Personally, I see that as a dangerous thing.  I find it a stretch to consider that a master might foster such absolute obedience with "compassion" in mind. 

This thought just never made sense to me.  It seems like a crazy thought.  If I like someone, the last thing that I want is their obedience.  Why would I want that?  How could that be compassion?

But I think I am alone in this view.  In my experience, 100 percent of "committed" Zen students witness what happens in these centers, and all of them -- every single one -- believe that the "master" holds "great insight", and that he enforces the traditional form with such fire selflessly -- purely for the benefit of the students.

I've asked people about Eido Shimano's riches, to hear them respond "Roshi  isn't concerned about money.  Deep down, I am certain he hates all his money!  But people keep giving it to him!"

I've asked people about Joshu Sasaki's habit of grabbing women and pawing them during dokusan, to hear them respond "Yes!  How his mind works is a mystery!  With enough practice, hopefully, we will understand!"

And, always, regarding the abusive screaming, there is one response:  "Zen is tough!  It is the most direct path!  The master is keeping us in line!  This is Rinzai's 'expedient means'!"

Personally, I never saw it that way.   There are an infinite number of ways a group of people may sit together -- truly an infinite number of choices people could show up and spend time on cushions. 

So why do things this way?

Why promote dismissive cruelty?

One morning, during a previous retreat, Denko instructed each of his students to "tell on" the person sitting next to him/her  He would go around the room asking each person "What mistakes did so-and-so make this morning?"

There are certain characters who revel in this game.  To Denko, this is "good Zen".  It is "serious" Zen.

Personally, it is a game that I am loathe to take part in.

As such, I found a way out. 

I once asked Denko's wife what she had thought of all of it, and she gave me an answer that I had heard in many Zen centers.

She said that Denko "keeps her in line".

OK, but towards what exactly? 

Could it ever be good "practice" to behave the way some of these Rinzai "masters" do?

I remember reading about the Inka ceremony of one of Denko's Dharma brothers, back at DBZ.  Apparently the newly crowned "master" was head-butting another monk during the ceemony, causing blood to stream from the monk's nose.  Daido Loori, from ZMM, had been there, at the time.

Witnessing this, Mr. Loori had put an end to DBZ's advertisements in the ZMM newsletter.

Is it too much of a stretch to notice  that Japanese Zen appears like a practice designed to brainwash someone into extreme arrogance, where "masters" are led into thinking "Zen" somehow involves their exercising a (perceived) dominance over others.

I've read some interpretations of Lin Chi's sayings, where the writer (usually a Zen monk or master) reads Lin Chi's "bravado" as great confidence, or "nerve".

I have no doubt that such tremendous arrogance would be beneficial in many walks of life.  I also have no doubt that it must "feel good" to many men who practice Zen.

But that isn't "insight".

That is just arrogance.

And besides, I have a very different interpretation of Lin Chi's seemingly gruff behavior.  If you actually bother to read the Lin Chi record, he isn't screaming at his students.  He is getting in the faces of the "masters", challenging them to prove their insight.  The only time he is seen speaking harshly to his students is when he is admonishing them for their blind faith in the "masters".

So, Lin Chi is actually doing the exact opposite thing today's "masters" are doing.  He is doing the opposite of the the monk's interpretation that I wrote about earlier.

He is telling his students NOT to accept a subservient role, to challenge such convention, and to use their time with their cushion to arrive at "insight", so they may, in time, stand on their own.

So, Lin Chi wasn't after arrogance, or confidence.  He was imploring his students to come to their own understanding.  Only then could they see the falsehood of these "teachers".

The Japanese Zen tradition -- even outside of the DBZ sphere -- really seems like a practice designed only to create such a perception of arrogant dominance.  The costumes and the strict formality really puts this on display.  Students prostrate themselves three times before speaking to the "master".  There is an emphasis on seniority, and "lower" students are treated like dirt.  There are a million little things like this.

(By the way, I wrote a post comparing Zen to the empty hype behind some martial arts here).

Of course, I've had many conversations about this.  People don't see it my way.  Always, people seem to believe the "master" is only acting.  He is making a big show, but he "sees through it"

That's not the case, though.

If you have lived in a monastery and you disagree with me, at least consider if you yourself could behave in such a manner.  You would probably answer "no".  Given this, consider the truth of your theory -- that "insight" is something that would compel you to act the way your "Zen master" does.

Does it still make sense?

Head butting a monk?

Come on...

Anyway, yet another woman left in the middle of sesshin. She was just there to sit for a week. I had never spoken to her, but she had come up to me in day four or so, with a couple of cookies and two cups of tea.

I invited her into the little trailer that I was staying in, which had a tiny table and bench, so she could say what she wanted to say. She asked me why I was there, and I told her I just wanted to sit, and I wanted to help others sit.

 Then she said that I wasn’t like them, and she added “They are crazy!”. She went on. She said “They think they are right, but they are wrong!”, and I just nodded.

The woman thanked me for speaking with her. She told me that she easily could have finished sesshin, but she didn’t want to appear as though she supported the place.  She couldn't stomach that thought.  Her leaving was a kind of personal protest.  For her, it was the right thing to do.

These are sentiments that I, too, have struggled with, over the years, in the places I have sat.

Three people had left, including this woman. It was getting to the point where the screamers would have to pay people off the street, else they would have nobody to belittle.

Finally, there came a kind of crisis. Denko was furious, about something. He and the Jiki had been considering calling off the kessei altogether. Denko didn’t show up for the evening sit. People were wondering where he was.

A meeting was called, and we all met Denko in the dining room. He had been alone for a few hours.

It turned out that  was angry because nobody had bothered to move the altar into the meditation hall. In the afternoon, we had all moved it into the hallway. Denko had to go and move it back himself.

At the time, I had actually stopped by the Zendo to sit by myself for a few minutes, because it was a long break. I didn’t sit though, because I had seen Denko setting up the altar, and had asked him if he needed help. He had told me he didn’t need any help.

He had seemed angry then, so I didn’t stick around.  I had taken a walk instead.

Denko didn't respond to me, when I had mentioned this.  He expressed his view that nobody seemed to be taking the practice seriously.  Nobody remembered to move the altar back.  Denko asked everyone to think about what to do.  We were to come up with ideas regarding how to proceed.  We still had half a month left.  Did we even wish to sit?

The next day, during morning meeting, the group was still in crisis mode. Denko wasn’t angry anymore, but had sort of thrown in the towel on the kessei. He asked for the remaining students to offer ideas on how to proceed.

Personally, I don't know what meditation has to do with little Buddha figurines.  I don't consider them important.  I had already watched, in sadness, as students were yelled at and kicked out.  So I mentioned that there was no reason to be angry over (what amounts) to a doll set.

That’s how I saw it --  grown man, having a temper tantrum – a real temper tantrum -- over a little doll set. I added that I don’t like it when people leave, and I saw no reason why people should be screamed at the way they were.

If the doll set is truly so important, to Denko, then he should be happy at the chance to set it up himself, right?


So why the anger?

I mentioned this too, to Denko, offering that everyone there was basically helpful.  If they saw him actually working on something with friendly enthusiasm, they would want to help him.  In the Japanese tradition,  you never see the "master" doing anything.  Things are very formal.  The "master" rarely descends to the level of the "lay students".  For some reason, the "masters" like it this way.

I mentioned that the kids who were kicked out were helpful, and that they were offering to help me build the guest rooms.  Everyone was trying to help, and everyone wanted to sit.  It is just hard to do that if all you hear are insults.  It is hard to do that when the "master" doesn't appear willing to help with the necessary work, himself -- especially if all you see is bad mood.  We were paying students, after all, paying to work 9 hours a day, just so there would be a place to sit in Denmark. 

If you think about it, who, then, can you say, was truly "serious" about Zen?  The "master" or the 19 year old kids he kicked out?

I see it one way, Denko sees it the opposite way.

By this time, there was really only two other people who you could safely call “students”. There was the head nun there too, and the Jiki. That was it.

The head nun and I got along pretty well. She asked that I go for a drive with Denko. On the drive, I asked Denko what he was doing. I asked him if he realized that he was the only one who was upset, and what that meant.

He responded that a Zen kessei is a crucible, and that people need the discipline.

I asked “for what?” and I pointed out that there would have been three more people sitting there, helping build his monastery, without this particular style of “discipline”.

Denko asked me “well, what do you want me to do? APOLOGIZE?”

Denko had asked this question as though it was an outlandish thought, as though it was impossible for anyone to consider that a Zen master might say he’s sorry.

I had recently read "Zen at War".  I actually had it in my backpack, back in the trailer.  I suggested that an attachment to traditional form is still attachment, with the same dangers as attachment to anything else.  I offered Denko the book.

He said, gruffly, "Not interested".

That was pretty much the end of the talk. I didn’t say anything.

Zen is sick. It is difficult to describe the things you see, because people have an idea of “Zen”. They have assembled this idea from phrases they have heard, from kung fu movies they have seen, and from fantastic, serene images they have been exposed to.

If you tell the true stories, you sound like you are attacking. A grown man can spend a month in a temper tantrum, over some tiny wooden carvings, kicking out half the paying group, calling them stupid, and yelling that they are "not worth his time", all in the name of Buddha.

And you are not even allowed to mention it.

 If you do, you lack “perfect serenity”

Go live in a monastery. It isn’t what you think.

I sometimes ask myself if these teachers have the basic ability to see what they are doing.  When they talk about "acceptance", where are they looking?

Whose acceptance are they talking about?

Everyone else's?

I have a little story, regarding this thought.  I'll tell it at the end of this post.

Since the time that I was there, Denko and his wife has changed the "style" of practice.  When websites started popping up about Eido Shimano, Denko's teacher of 15 years, Denko visited a Tibetan teacher, had a new "life-changing experience" and adopted Dzogchen into his practice.

His claim , now, is that his "direct" Rinzai Zen style doesn't suit Westerners.  Westerners, apparently, prefer the "indirect" route of Dzogchen?

The "Dzogchen" style is more popular in Denmark, I guess.  Denko claims that nobody has left his Sangha since his  Dzogchen illumination.

I find this strange.  It feels like Buddhist marketing, to me.  I was never one for the nomenclature.  I try not to talk about meditation.  I find it a little bit of a trial to listen, at length, to someone's comparison of Kundalini vs. Dzogchen vs. Zen vs. Goenka vs. Chakra etc. etc.  The way I see it, if you talk about these words, then you aren't really there to meditate. You are there to put some words on display, for some reason.

Regarding my view on the change of styles, I don't think I am being cynical about Denko's place, especially if you look at the timing of things.  At the moment the online community starts discussing the truth of characters like Eido Shimano and Joshu Sasaki, all of their devoted followers suddenly find compassion.

After 30 years, Ms. Chayat, at DBZ suddenly starts delivering long speeches about the need to protect women.  After 30 years, the monks at Baldy suddenly start talking about how students must think for themselves and confront dishonesty head on.

Denko, after 20 years, suddenly sees the light.

Think so?

Well, I will end with the story I had mentioned.

Are these men even interested in what they are talking about?

It is certainly an important question, especially in the context of Japanese Zen's military style (and direct historical ties to Japan's armed forces).  Such a form demands total, soldier-like commitment, and this is explicitly expressed, in nearly every Zen monastery I have visited.  Most Zen teachers relate stories of the the stark, austere lives they led during the many years they spent practicing under their "master".  The idea is, this type of commitment -- to a particular "master",  is necessary.  The strict form is good.

On to the story, because I can't help seeing things the other way.  I can't help but see Zen as upside-down.  In my view, the "masters" have little interest in actually doing what they talk about.

Once, during sesshin, Denko was giving a teisho about “non-discriminating mind”. A teisho lasts about an hour and a half. An hour of that is talking. The rest is bells and gongs. Denko was talking the way all Zen masters do. “Once you can see, then you will be no different from the ancients.. " etc. etc.

 But, what was funny, was how he ended this “non-discriminating mind” teisho. He was talking about the commitment required to “realize” this mind. He said that, to take up this great effort, one must formally ordain as a monk, and that this wasn’t a pursuit for “just a layman”.

You hear these things all the time, in Zen. You are not allowed to say anything about it. But it is just too much, sometimes…

Like this time.

"Non-discriminating mind" can describe something few people have seen, but there is also a real point to it -- a heartfelt point.  Because in the stream of one's life, it only really matters in the space between you and others.

So I asked Denko “What is ‘monk’?”

The Jiki, the head nun, and another woman started screaming, telling me to shut up.

That’s Zen.

Finally, when they quieted down, Denko took a deep breath and said, solemnly, “A monk is someone who has committed his life to the pursuit of the Dharma”

That wasn’t the question, actually. The question was “what is ‘monk’?” I could have just as easily asked “what is ‘layman’”.

But at least it was an answer, so I asked “what were you before you ever heard the word ‘monk’?”

There were more screams, before Denko said, slowly, and proudly “I am, and always have been, a monk.”

Non discriminating mind.

Monk/Layman.

This is an age old theme.

Actually, in Zen, there really is no older theme.

You could call this idea the birth of Zen.

It is the general form of Bodhidharma’s “no secular/sacred”. It is pretty simple. It is something nearly everybody can understand. But Bodhidharma had noticed something dark way back when. He was surprised by the ones who don’t understand – the ones who never got it, and never will.  He was surprised at the direction the traditional teachers had taken.

He tangled with these people, the Buddhist masters of southern China.

Some things never change.

If you can’t understand “non-discriminating mind”, you don’t need “insight”, you just need a Webster’s dictionary, and an ability to notice, in yourself, when you are making a mistake – when you are straying from the dictionary definition -- when you see one side as "better" than the other -- when you see the divisions as something important.

If you can see the mistakes, then you know that, somewhere in your heart, is “non-discriminating mind”. And, with your sitting, and your life, you just head that direction. That is really all you need. The simple, intellectual understanding is enough. Really, all you need is a dictionary -- that and your own heart, I suppose.  Every decent person has a degree of understanding, with this one.

Everyone but the “Masters”.

Zen Cults

There is a topic on ZFI, where somebody asked whether or not Zen practice (and, in particular, Eido Shimano's lineage) constitutes a cult, or a "cultish" practice.

These postings took place in January 2013 - -a couple of years after the Aitken papers on Eido Shimano were released to the public.  So, to put things in context, everyone in the discussion is very well aware of the extent of Mr. Shimano's sexual predations and backhanded financial dealings. 

You can read the discussion, if you want.  There is the link.

In the thread, two of Mr. Shimano's dharma heirs, Genjo Marinello and Denko Mortensen, discuss the idea of "harm" caused to students.

Denko offers something that you often hear when the subject of a "master"'s improprieties is breached.  Denko infers that nobody is ever really "hurt":

"Indeed: felt hurt or rejected. But that is not at all the same as actual harm - whatever is said by the 'hurt' person."

OK, so here you see it again.

It is the company line.

The idea expressed is that the "regular people", forever enslaved by our monkey minds, are at fault, for falling under the spell of our wild egoic perceptions.  Nobody was actually harmed!  Can't anyone see?  We masters are the only ones who can see!

To me, that just screams "Cult"

I'm not saying that there isn't a perspective from which Denko's statement is "true".

I'm saying WHO CARES?

Most people don't have the insight that Denko is talking about.  Fine.

But does that give a "master" the right to thieve from students, lie to them, molest their wives and daughters, lie about it, and spread false rumor about those who notice?

Hmmmm.... And then portray them as "spiritually immature" if they so much as object to this treatment?

Does this make sense?

No.

That is why you can call these places "cults".  They foster an idealized notion of "Zen", built on the foundations of quizzical saying of long-dead Chinese monks.  They use this notion to suggest that they, as "masters" exist somehow beyond the realm simple, basic social grace.

Ridiculous, if you think about it, to present such an argument in the face of so many scandals, so many deceptions.

And dangerous, if the idea is held, at all, within a group.

The End of Suffering or the End of SUFFERING?

A few times, here in Thailand, I have had to walk away from a conversation with another meditator who has been volunteering at some of the southern monasteries.  The guy, a Canadian, is friendly enough, but we just see things different ways, and this makes for awkward conversation.

An example:  Once, while eating with my girlfriend, the three of us were chatting about reasons for meditating.  The guy kept talking about his teacher on Pha Ngan, and about how nothing bothers the man.  I suppose this model of perfect calm served as central to the man's motivations.

I had mentioned that some things really ought to bother people, and that this is what had drawn me toward meditation in the first place.  Specifically, I remember mentioning some of the economic problems in Europe (my girlfriend is Italian).  I had expressed sadness at the injustices of the world.  I had specifically mentioned the possibilities of older people losing their pensions, after working hard all their lives.

Sad, no?

The man replied "Well, self-pity can be a difficult thing to work with"

Self-pity?

I have had a few conversations like this, with this man.  They end this way.  I have to say I get a little annoyed.  It makes me not wish to say anything to the guy.

His view is actually something that I find prevalent in the monasteries -- this interpretation of "The End of Suffering".  The idea goes:  Buddha achieved enlightenment, and walked out from under the tree with a system of meditation and associated lifestyle that, once effected with determination, will rid the individual of delusory thoughts, needful cravings, and so on.

In fact, you can't really blame the students, because this is actually the claim that all the teachers make.  They say, in effect, "I will teach you how to end your suffering".

And people think "that sounds great!".

All religions promise this, in one form or another -- salvation,  paradise, nirvana

But think about it...  Is there any more selfish motivation for meditation? 

Because I can't think of one.

This is another one of those things that is backward, in the spiritual practices.

Are we to turn our back on the world?  Are we to ignore the suffering of others?

Actually, no.

When Buddha looked over the walls of his father's compound, it wasn't his personal suffering that he was interested in.  It was the suffering of others that drove him away from the comfortable life that he was leading.

So it was this empathy that drove him.

Before anything else, there was the heart.

It is our love for others that shows us how to live, and what to do.  It is this that leads us away from the worldly life. 

So, when Buddha was talking about the "end of suffering", he wasn't talking about your personal little nirvana.

Actually, that doesn't even exist.

As per the old Zen story, you don't just sit there, inert, like a happy little plant, when you see a woman who needs help crossing a river.  Another person's true need is your need.  Another person's true pain is your pain.  That is what compassion is.  Your heart tells you what to do.  You react immediately, and spontaneously.

So, Buddha's "the end of suffering" is something much, much greater that any individual's personal liberation.  It is a vision for all the people of the world.  He was talking about what we could be like -- how we could be living together. 

When people learn to live from the heart of hearts,  we share this world.  We act as agents of mercy for those around us.  We do this naturally.

So the world would look very different, if everyone lived this way.

That is what Buddha was saying.

He was saying, to all of us, "the kingdom of heaven is before  you". 

Suan Mokkh International, and Impermanence

Suan Mokkh is going through some changes.   There has been a mini Thai takeover.  The English monk who had been teaching there for 20 years or so has been forced out.  He has been replaced by a Thai Tai Chi instructor, who also leads the Yoga exercise in the morning.  I had heard that the reason for this may have been the English monk's irreverence, with regard to some older (and well respected) Thai teachers.

Instead of a talking human, the Tai Chi instructor plays CDs of the Venerable Ajahn Budadhasa, the original founder of Suan Mokkh.

This is dreadfully boring.

The Tai Chi instructor also inflicts "guided meditation" on the group, where he repeats "just breathe" or "breathe in, and breathe out" again and again, throughout the  meditation period.

Last year, the Tai Chi guy had just shown up when I came in for a 10 day retreat with a friend of mine.  At the time, he was just a volunteer, who had offered his "guided meditation" period.

Leaving the retreat back then, I had a bad feeling.  I told my friend that the Tai Chi guy was exactly the type of character you see taking control of monasteries.  For me it was a bad feeling because I was surprised that someone would think repeating "juuuust breathe" again and again, every couple of minutes, through a silent meditation period would be beneficial to anyone.

Anyway, a year later and there he is, running the place.

He sells his Tai Chi CDs on the side.

But I like Suan Mokkh.  I have always liked the place.

I have been to Suan Mokkh and Dippapavan (a sister monastery on Koh Samuii) maybe 15 times, for 10 day or 7 day retreats.  I like it here, because it is set up for foreigners, and in Thailand, that means travelers.  To me, there is something very pure about sitting with travelers.  It is something I prefer over entering a monastery full of longtime monks.

I prefer it because travelers are, by nature, free.  They enjoy none of the societal status or privileges that monks enjoy.  They are exploring, testing.  They are open-minded.  They have no ulterior motives.  They are there only because they wish to sit.

The truth is, for a lot of monks, in a lot of centers, that is not the case.  For many, if they had some more money, they would be off gambling in Macau (I'm not talking particularly about Thai monks).

Something about the teaching at Suan Mokkh...

The monastery's founder, the Venerable Ajahn Buddhadasa (this is the way he is referred to, in all printed material) states, in his teachings, that it is beyond the capability of humans to understand the root of consciousness. 

His monks, of course, repeat this claim.

If they didn't, they wouldn't be his monks.

As is the case in all monasteries throughout time, this is a problem, because, once you have a "teacher" who has not come to real insight, he or she will offer an interpretation of Buddhist thought, and he will do so from a viewpoint that is very different from someone with insight.

So, to these teachers, "dependent origination" means a scientific law of nature (unspecified) to be discovered through deep meditation, though having no relation to "mind".

The ideas "Impermanence" and "not-self" means (as you often hear) nothing stays the same forever.

A person who has dropped to the root --even once --  would have a very different definition of these things.

There is no way to "prove" things, in these cases.  It would be nice if things were otherwise, but a differing view is sneered at, or ridiculed.  That means a person with real insight (at least a glimpse) is going to be sneered at, or ridiculed, unless he or she stays quiet.

Generations pass, this way.  People "learn" a concept in one day, from a teacher they respect, and they will defend it to the day they die.  It is a common thing, and you would be surprised at how readily new students accept the teachers at their word.  After one dharma talk, they believe, completely, that it is impossible to dig to the root of consciousness.  So it just goes on and on.

That is too bad, because teachers like those at Suan Mokkh have taken the question away, and the question is the only thing that will lead anyone to the answer. 

If a teacher says "nobody knows...."  you know two things:

1. The teacher doesn't know, and
2. The teacher is the type of person who, because he or she doesn't know, claims that nobody knows.

That is not a good thing.

Idol Creators, Idol Destroyers

 What was Buddha really up to?  What did the man wish for us to do, actually?

Something that I like, from a group of theologians of the Catholic religion, is their definition of “idolatry”.  They have the best definition.  To these theologians, an “idol” is something that takes center stage, in the mind, exerting a dominant influence on one's motivations. 

I wish I could remember where it was I read about this, but I can't.   

So I'll just present the definition here, because I like it.

So, today, you can say “wealth” is an idol.  In the West, it is considered "normal" to spend much of one's life in pursuit of wealth.  Such a life is rarely questioned, in America.

And there are others.  “Status” is an idol.  “Power” is an idol.

So these researchers aren’t just talking about golden figurines, light brown cows, or great statues.  When they say “idol”, they are really talking about ideas – always connected  to the notion of “self”. 

And the reason an “idol” is a destructive thing is because, within a society, once such ideas take precedence, the predominant, accepted way of life is a selfish one.  In modern times, it is “normal” to seek the best employment, where “best” means the most money.  That is seen as standard , even if the work is tedious, or worse, even if the work is harmful to others, or harmful to nature.  

To someone who has adopted the idol of “wealth”, or any other “idol’ the motivation is to separate, to be above, to rule, or to be “better” than another. 

They are barrier ideas.  Regarding one's views toward others, they block the shine of the heart – they take its place.

In fact, any barrier idea is an idol.

“American” is an idol, to an avowed patriot, and it can be used to justify war.  America's many recent wars were sold this way.  They were sold to Americans as a means of protecting the "American way of life".

But if you were speaking in any real sense, what does the word mean?  Who is actually "American?"  What would you be if you never heard the word?  You would be the same "being".

So, what are you?

In any case, the blatantly negative ones are easy to come up with, because they are easy to see.  “White” is an idol, for example, to a white racist.

That is why, from the most universal point of view – a view that takes into account all beings – the “idols” are not good things.  They take away thoughts of universal cooperation, and sharing, in the world.   

Always, they separate.   Always, within a group, they are considered "better", "normal",  "practical", and so on.  As such, they are rarely questioned, by anybody.

To those of high caste, in Buddha's time, for example, it was a ridiculous notion to question the caste system.  It just isn't something anybody does.

Of course, like nearly all  people, someone who identifies himself or herself as "Christian" tends not to cast their gaze toward himself, because “Christian”, too, is an idol.    However important the word “Christian” is, to someone, “non-Christian” is equally important – always in a somewhat negative way.

Else, why hold the division at all?

Same goes for “Buddhist”, "Jewish", or even “monk”, actually. 

I like this "mind-meme" definition of "idolatry" because it provides a way of explaining Buddha's true message.  And there really is no difference between Buddha's wish and that of Jesus, or Lin Chi, or Bodhidharma (e.g. "neither secular nor sacred").

The point of life is to rid oneself of one's idols, through the process of compassion and forgiveness.  In this way, the "barrier ideas" are destroyed, and, if done on a mass scale,  man can come to share this world in peace and good will toward all others.

So Buddha (et al) were never talking about what most people think of when they read about "Buddhism".  He was talking about an exercise of the heart, and the internal destruction of one's personal "idolatry".  This is the way of love.

From everyday life, it is a simple thing to see how compassion is, itself, an "idol destroyer".  We are generous with those we love, for example.  "Wealth", as an idol, is destroyed.  We share our meals with friends, and it feels good to do so.  When a guy has a chance to visit with his old friends, he makes sure he buys a round.  He cherishes the time, and he wants to show that.

There are deep feelings to these times.  They are the best of times.  Money means nothing.  "Wealth" means nothing.

The difficult part is to extend this feeling beyond our immediate boundaries.

But is what meditation, and practice is for.

The point of this post is:  There is a very important difference between the way of the religions and traditions, and the true path that Buddha took.  They are opposite directions -- creating idols vs. destroying them.

It is easy to see this, just from Buddha's life.  “Prince”, and “Noble Caste” came to mean nothing, to Buddha.  As a young man, he looked out over the walls of his father’s compound, he witnessed the pain that these ideas inflicted, in the world. 

In great empathy -- in great love for others, he shed himself of these ideas.  He saw the harm they caused.  Of course, he was familiar with the personal benefits -- benefits that included great wealth and luxury.  But Buddha's empathy gave him a universal point of view.  "Caste" and "Prince" play a very real role in the suffering of others.  

And so:  He dropped them from his life.

The compassion was always the point, as there is no other motivation that would lead oneself away from the very things that the vast majority of people strive for every day of their lives.  Buddha was just different from most.  He saw something that most don't see.  He saw his own responsibility in the suffering of others, even while just sitting around, as a prince, sipping sweetened tea.

So all those curious sayings now make sense.  Emptiness isn't the soldier-like stoicism of modern Zen monks, or the slow-motion tranquility of some Yoga teachers you might meet.

It is a friendly, helpful openness, where others are seen as equals.

And this explains the seemingly combative relationships that men like Linchi, Jesus, and Bodhidharma had with the traditional leaders of the time.  Anyone can speak the words.  It is a very rare thing to take up the direction.  It is immediate hypocrisy to gain power, position, and status through the use of the words and stories of the idol destroyers. 

 Idol creators, and idol destroyers.

The two directions are opposite.  One leads to openness, laughing, sharing, cooperation, caring, and good cheer.  For an individual, it leads to all the things that most would consider "virtues":  generosity, honesty, etc.

The other direction leads to division, hierarchy, rule, privilege for some (and servitude for others), deceit, arrogance, greed, control, and aggression.

This is what these men saw, and that is why they opposed the religious leaders.

As if to underscore the point, religious institution has offered us a view of the damage that the opposite direction offers.  There has been great problems in the Catholic church, over the decades.  There have been over ten thousand pedophilia cases working their way through the court systems.

Never has a resolution come from "within" the Church. Instead, over the decades, there have been constant cover-ups, silencing of critics, and attempts to discredit witnesses.

In most every case, the church has defended its actions on the basis of its mission -- the commitment to the service of "god" through their leadership role in the Catholic religion.

The idols are blinding things -- even if they are considered to be "good".  To these men, "Christianity" is more important than the suffering of many thousands of children.

You see this in Zen, too.

Even after all the stories, involving every first generation Zen center in the west,  Zen leaders continue to portray the tradition as pure, even holding it "above" the suffering of  sexual and financial victims. 

It is a remarkably arrogant, self-serving, and uncaring attitude, from these idol creators.