On not disparaging practices such as Buddha and sutra recitation

Or, alternatively, this could be titled "On not getting too hung up on elegant-sounding principles and neglecting reality".

I recently quoted the Buddhist monk Nichiren as writing that "Neither the Pure Land nor Hell exists outside oneself; both lie only within one’s own heart. Awakened to this, one is called a Buddha; deluded about it, one is called an ordinary person." This comes from "Hell is the Land of Tranquil Light", one of the letters Nichiren Buddhists tend to view as highly instructive in terms of the insights of their tradition's founder. It was a follow-up to my most recent efforts in wrestling with an important concept in Mahayana Buddhism - the idea that nirvana and samsara are "not two". I want to share and explore a comment that was left, and to do so in a manageable way and to make the conversation more accessible, I am replying here as a new post rather than in the comments section.

Here is the very thoughtful and helpful reply:

Yes, but practically speaking, "ordinary persons" might talk a lot about these matters, and have no real transformation. Into my opinion, only a Buddha can say things like this and truly understand them. For an ordinary person, to see Pure Land and Amida as being outside himself, aspire to be born there and entrust in Amida is beneficial and this simple faith can lead him to Buddhahood. No matter how many times ordinary people talk about non-duality, they will never escape it, so why not use it and make it a skillful mean? I think that Pure Land path is really doing this, which makes it different from the Zen path or other paths based on personal power. When reading your post, I suddenly remembered the words of Shinran Shonin in his Kyogyoshinsho:


"But the monks and laity of this latter age and the religious teachers of these times are floundering in concepts of "self-nature" and "mind-only," and they disparage the true realization of enlightenment in the Pure Land Way."

I share the concerns expressed above, and that is why I feel it is important for me to keep pointing such concerns out. I often write that these things sound great but they don't do much good if they aren't connected to genuine insight into such matters. It just becomes some kind of vain speculation, where people like the idea but cannot or do not wish to deal with the reality. It is also why I constantly talk about my inadequacy in discussing such topics.

I am also reminded of something I read several months ago on this very issue which is very pertinent and may be useful to people dealing with these issues...

Question:


The Diamond Sutra states, “All mundane (conditioned) dharmas are like dreams, illusions, shadows and bubbles.” Therefore the Saha World being illusory, so is the Land of Ultimate Bliss. Why not enter directly into the True Original Mind instead of seeking rebirth in an illusory world.


Answer:


In truth, all the pure and impure lands in the tend directions are like dreams and illusions; however, only when we have attained the “Illusion-like Samadhi” can we see them as illusory and false. If we have not yet reached that stage, we will still see them as real, we are still subject to their sway, we will still know sorrow and happiness, we still feel uncomfortable during the summer heat and are even bothered by such small things as mosquito and ant bites. This, how can we speak about things being illusory? We should realize that the Pure Land method is a wonderful expedient of the Buddha, borrowing an illusory realm of happiness to help being escape from an illusory realm of great suffering, full of obstructing conditions and dangers. Them, from that happy, peaceful, illusory realm, cultivation progresses easily and the ever-silent realm of the True Mind is swiftly attained.


To take an example, in this Saha World of ours, the scenes of stifling family life and noisy downtown business districts are illusory, and so are the scenes of temples and pagodas or mountain wildernesses. However, why is that cultivators leave the noisy environment of the cities to seek the quiet, sparsely populated landscapes and pagodas hidden in the mountains? Is it not because family life creates many binding ties and bustling urban intersections are not conducive to concentration, while temples and pagodas and mountain wildernesses facilitate cultivation. For this reason, the circumstances of ordinary people are different from those of the saints. For common mortals to put themselves in the place of the saints is far-fetched and unrealistic. We who are still common mortals should follow the path of ordinary people, and cultivate gradually. We should not look with the eyes of saints and comment too far above our level, to avoid the transgression of false speech, which can be harmful… (pp.140-141)


Going one step further, as stated in the Great Prajna Paramita Sutra: “The Buddha explained to those of dull capacities that all dharmas are dreamlike, silent, and still, lest they develop view-attachment. To those of sharp capacities he spoke of the embellishments of the Buddhas, because they are like lotus blossoms, untouched by worldly dusts.” For this reason, Subhuti, who of all the Arhat disciples, was the one most completely awakened to the Truth of Emptiness (devoid of all names and marks) characteristically received a prediction that he would attain full enlightenment in the future under the title of “Name and Mark Buddha.” Thus the sublime truth of no name or mark is inseparable from name and mark; all illusory dharmas are the Buddha’s dharmas, true and unchanging. (pp.143)


Going deeper still, to the ultimate and perferct stage, as the Sixth Patriarch [Hui Neng, the Six Patriarch of the Chan tradition] has said sentient beings are originally Buddhas, afflictions are Bodhi (enlightenment), and all delusions are the perfect and illuminating essence, truly enlightened, of the womb of the Tathagata (Buddha).


[later in response to a similar question…]


“Persons of moderate and low capacity should strive to repeat the Buddha’s name as many times as possible. While they may still have attachments and see themselves as reciting the Buddha’s name and earnestly seeking rebirth, it is a good thing, because by so doing, they will assuredly achieve rebirth at the time of death and ultimately enter the realm of No=Thought, No-Birth. Where is the worry? Otherwise, not conscious of their own limitations, seeking a direct and lofty way, grasping a the teachings of emptiness while incapable of following the truth of No-Thought – yet unwilling to practice at the lower level of seeking rebirth through Buddha Recitation – in the end they achieve neither. They just remain common mortals in the painful cycle of birth and death!
(pp.145)


[and later still in the next section…]


The sutras say, “To tire of and abandon ‘conditioned’ virtues is the action of demons. Yet, to be greedy and attached to transcendental, unconditioned virtues is also demonic action.” Ancient sages have also said that “Conditioned dharmas, while illusory, cannot be abandoned if we are to attain the Way. Although unconditioned dharmas are true, if we become attached to them, our wisdom-nature will not be comprehensive.” These words clearly demonstrate that, on the path to enlightenment, unconditioned and conditioned dharmas, noumenon and phenomenon are inseparable.


It is also stated in the Treatise on the Middle Way that, “Because common sentient beings grasp at external forms, the sutras destroy them with the truth of emptiness. If as they are free of this disease of attachment they fall into the error of grasping at emptiness, there is no medicine that can help them. As the Prajna Paramita Truth of Emptiness sounds lofty and miraculous, when educated people read of this literature, they usually get caught up in the error of “speaking on the level of principle” about everything and look down on those who follow form and marks in their practice. Thus, they create the karma of arrogance and self-importance. While they mouth the Truth of Emptiness, their actions are entirely in the realm of existence… (149-150)


One more point to bear in mind: if we speak about the Truth of Emptiness without having attained that stage (or at least reached a certain level of achievement in our practice) we certainly cannot convert others but will only end up in useless arguments and disputes. (pp. 152)


Of the two types of attachments, to existence and to emptiness, the latter is very dangerous. Both the Lankavatara and the Esoteric Adornment Sutra state:

"It is better to be attached to existence, though attachment may be as great as Mount Sumeru, than to be attached to emptiness, though attachment may be as small as a mustard seed.”

Attachment to “existence” leads to mindfulness of cause and effect, wariness of transgressions and fear of breaking the precepts, as well as to Buddha and sutra recitation and performance of good deeds. Although these actions are bound to forms and not free and liberated, they are all conducive to merits, virtues, and good roots. On the other hand, if we are attached to emptiness without having attained True Emptiness, but refuse to follow forms and cultivate merits and virtues, we will certainly sink into the cycle of birth and death. (pp.153-154)


-excerpted from the comments of Master Thich Thien Tam in Pure Land Buddhism: Dailogs with Ancient Masters (from the section "Doubts & Questions about Pure Land")

What do you see?

The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. He was in the world, and ...the world was made through him...
-John 1:9--10

'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'
-Acts 17:28

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."
-Luke 17:20-21

What do you see?

He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings, and all beings in his own Self, and looks on everything with an impartial eye.
-Siddhartha Gautama

All Buddhas and all ordinary beings are nothing but the one mind.
-Huang Po

An ordinary person sees deluded and enlightened beings; an enlightened person sees only Buddhas.
-poor paraphrasing of quote of unknown source [if you know it please share]

Another great quote on form and emptiness

I have posted numerous times about the form and emptiness and issues like why focusing too much on either can lead to erroneous views such as eternalism or nihilism (see here, and here, and here, and here, and here, for example). Here is another quote, from Beliefnet, that helps to sum up an important aspect of this insight:

Seeing matter itself as emptiness produces great wisdom so one does not dwell in birth and death; seeing emptiness as equivalent to matter produces great compassion so one does not dwell in nirvana.

-Yun-feng


Nothing new here, but I like the brevity and clarity. This same teaching is found throughout Mahayana Buddhism, yet so often it is easy to forget or overlook how profound the teaching is. And, though it may be repetitive, it illustrates why compassion and wisdom are seen in Buddhism as being two facets of the same jewel or two aspects of the same insight.

An encounter with spiritual death

It's been said before. It has been repeated in many traditions and by many voices. Part of the process of spiritual transformation is a kind of surrender or submission. I've discussed it, in a shabby second hand way, in terms of my appreciation of the Gospels and the Christ narrative and how I relate it to Buddhist teachings and principles. I've discussed it in terms of how one can finally be freed from (and coexist in peace with) the ego, as if I really know from first-hand experience. Hah! But like many great ideas, not only was it not original, but it is easier said then done. Simple, maybe. Easy, heck no! No doubt fans of Integral Philosophy will recognize this as related to actualizing the "second person" tense or aspect of the Divine. Yeah, it's been done to...well, done to death.

But how, precisely, does this occur? Can it be by an act of ego? Doubtful. Hence the concept of grace. But then isn't that a bit like playing a cosmic lotto? You've prepared yourself to "hear" or "recieve" this transforming revelation, either from without or within, but you're still waiting. Even when saying there is "nothing to gain, achieve, or receive, and all is as it should be, where is the problem with this moment, etc", we still practice and wait. For it. The it. Some decide there is no it, that "it" is just a motivational tool, or that "it" is everything and nothing so just go with "it", even though what one means by such sentiment is not always clear.

So what is "it" and how does one encounter "it"? Amida-shu founder David Brazier recently gave his account of this occurence in his new book, and this was in turn quoted and posted at Dharmakara's Prayer:

Somebody close to death does not necessarily mean somebody who is actually dying, though it might and in this case did. However, a spiritually advanced person is somebody who is closer to death even in their physical prime. Enlightenment is an encounter with spiritual death. It is not something we achieve, however. It is a gift. It is transmitted to us.

The idea of transmission does not just apply to a mystical validation procedure whereby a Buddhist master passes his authority to an anointed successor. We receive the Dharma by transmission. The knowledge of spiritual death and its consequences is not something that an individual can attain unaided. There has to be contact...

This is one of the difficulties of what is called Buddhist training. On the one hand, it is possible for people to follow a course of education and to participate in ceremonies and a way of life and as this rubs off on them they learn something. They may become more considerate of others, more tender and kind, less compulsive or bad tempered and so on. This is to the good. It inevitably remains fragile, however, until it is grounded in a real awakening experience of some degree. This latter cannot be planned or achieved. It is incidental or even accidental.

The most important spiritual lessons that I have learnt from others have not come so much from what people have taught me, but from how they are. People sometimes say that all true knowledge comes from within ourselves. It is true that when one receives some true transmission it feels as though something inside oneself has been awoken and one might like to say that it was there all along, just waiting, like Sleeping Beauty waiting for the Prince. Sleeping Beauty, however, does not wake without the Prince.

- from Who Loves Dies Well Rev. Dharmavidya David Brazier

This reminded me of an essay/dharma talk by the Venerable Shih Shen Lung (who passed away last October) titled "Are You Crazy?"...

Once we have discovered that we are Buddhists, and that this has nothing to do with the level or length of our ordination or whether we have taken the Precepts in this life or in a previous one, then we also sadly discover that outside of the company of those with similar understanding we are unable to find even a moment's peace. This is why the Sangha was formed--so that those who were developing clear vision could have the company of others who were also like this. Only when you are free of the pressure to return to worldly blindness, from the demand for you to again close your eyes and stumble blindly in the darkness like others, can you be said to be following Right Livelihood. To those who have opened their eyes even for an instant, the world can never be the same again. Even if they spent every moment of every day trying to convince themselves that what they saw was the illusion and their blindness the reality, they would not succeed in this. Ultimately such persons really would go crazy because, having tasted the truth, the taste of lies becomes a poison that drives one to insanity. Monks and Nuns of today are not much different than those of the ancient times, and while the worldly life seems to have changed much, its fundamental nature is still the same. Only individual circumstances seem to have changed, but even this is not certain.

For those of us who have taken the Vows in this or previous lives, there is a necessity to cultivate the Way. Even if we are weak from time to time and attempt to find some sort of worldly life that is meaningful, in our hearts we know that this is folly and that we are really beyond the point of making choices. Having once opened even a small corner of one eye, our Buddha Nature will keep us from forgetting that we have once seen reality and that we must return to it...

Whether we admit it or not, each of us who travels the Way has asked the question, "Am I crazy?" and each of us must decide the answer. Prince Gautama asked this question; Bodhidharma asked this question; Dogen asked this question; Kuei Shan asked this question; Lung Yen asked this question; indeed, the asking of this question cannot be separated from truly entering the Way. If this question were not there to be asked, there would be no Way to enter, no cycle of birth and death to be freed from, no suffering living beings to be saved and awakened. Only monks and nuns of the highest potential ability and the beginnings of the keenest Eye of the Way dare to ask this question. Those who do not ask it are just wooden dummies dressed in the robes of the Order like a window display in a shop. They have no active principle and cannot even begin to understand the Ancient Doctrine, because understanding the Ancient Doctrine begins with asking ourselves or being asked by others (or perhaps both):

ARE YOU CRAZY?

When this happens we can then turn our vision inward and see ourselves clearly. And we must not rest with this question but must ask the second one which clarifies the first: Is there anything that I could be doing that would be or is more important than freeing myself and others from the Nets of Karma and the Cycles of Suffering? And further: Is there any way of living that can approach the daily life of one who is in accord with the Ancient Principles? Can the life of a pure-eyed follower of the Way be compared with the ordinary life and its constant confusion? Can any purpose be more noble than the Bodhisattva Vow and Path? All of these are really the same questions asked in different ways, from different viewpoints, but the answer for this question is one thing for those who can see, have seen, and know they will see again, but another for those who have not yet seen and have no idea that there is something to be seen. How then can the clear-eyed monk or nun discuss this with worldly people? He/she can not. . there is nothing that we could say that would make any sense to those who asked, and the more we attempt to explain it to them the more they become confused and angry at us. This is not helpful to them and so should be avoided. How then can the follower of the Way answer such questions? When one says to me, "You there, are you crazy?", my answer is to softly say, "No, not any more..." and quietly leave such a one to his own thoughts.

Framing the relative and absolute in spirituality

How do we describe our relative and absolute nature in spiritual/religious terms?

Ray of Dharmakara's Prayer was kind enough to share some teachings presented by David Brazier, the founder of Amida Shu, and it has inspired this writing. With regard to the opening question, I have written about this particular theme ad nauseum (really, just search this site for terms like "Other-power"), but not everyone reads the entire archive and sometimes when we say things 101 times it's the way we phrase it that 101st time that someone else may finally figure out "Oooooh, so that's what he's been trying to say." So either way, this may do some good in some way.

One of the things I've written about a number of times is the idea that there is a perception of faith versus works or Other-power versus self-power which runs through seemingly (literally??) every sacred tradition. The way this is approached depends on the needs of the individual. Some schools emphasize one or the other to some degree. In Pure Land Buddhism, for example, there is the notion of self-power, or efforts we make, and Other-power, that which encompasses all. The idea of the more "through faith" schools in various traditions is that we are too limited to do all that is needed to fully grasp THE TRUTH and then successfully engage it. We don't have the intellectual, emotional, or ethical capacity to reach such PERFECTION. So we rely on Grace. In Christianity this comes through Christ. In Pure Land Buddhism this comes through Amida.

I am not equating those two religions, just highlighting some common thematic structure. In any case, in order to get to THE TRUTH and PERFECTION we are to rely on faith in either Christ or Amida (or for some of you that which such figures represents, wink wink). But no way does self-power, or works, get you there. And what is there? Our absolute nature - the unborn/undying Source of which we all ARE, the I AM to go Old Testament for a moment. On the other hand other sects or schools within these and other religions seem to focus on works or self-power - what we are doing to purify our lives, to effect a transformation. Meditating, praying, practicing charity, compassion, and all around goodwill.

But are these paths as different as they seem?

I suppose for some they are. But not to me. That doesn't make me right, just not satisfied with the either/or nature of the proposition. It is, in fact, true that the limited being or self, and its reifying core, the ego, cannot enlarge itself enough in time and space to fully realize and actualize the totality of existence. None of us can be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. We are limited in perception, reasoning, memory, lifespan - and that's just for starters. But let look at Zen as an example of a supposed self-power school. You meditate and meditate and increase your focus and awareness and then BAM, mystical insight and magical powers. That is how some may sum up Zen (even perhaps some practitioners if we pare down the chaff of their language and refine the ore of their expectations).

Yet what about that? Zen employs methods involving directly perceiving the emptiness which then gives rise to the Great Doubt, which in turn may lead to the start of an awakening involving the teaching known as "no self". This is the teaching that we have no separate, distinct, or permanent existence apart from everything else which is formed through dependent co-arising. So while it may appear to be (and even be practiced as) as "self-power" school of Buddhism, isn't it interesting that the intended result, if that term is appropriate, is negation of the self, which then implies a profound awareness of / union with Other, often phrased as Buddha-nature. Similarly many Christian groups which emphasize various intense spiritual practices also emphasize total submission and surrender to God and giving oneself over to their Christ-nature.

I think personally one factor influencing the rise of many of the "faith-only" schools is that the intent of the practice-intensive schools was often lost, and instead of going beyond the self to the ultimate self-fulfillment/actualization of recognizing completeness within Other, they became a means to indulge the ego. A competitive game of spiritual one-upsmanship and pious self-satisfaction. Holier than thou. Bodhier than thou. Another factor, which would go hand-in-hand with the first, is the loss of a living tradition mediated by ritual and received wisdom towards a legalistic tradition which idolized ritual and turned received wisdom into unchallengeable dogma.

And all of this produces the chicken-and-the-egg dilemma of theology and spiritual philosophy - do ritual and good works help you to recognize/invoke the Other or does recognizing the Other inspire you to perform rituals and do good works? The answer is, in my humble opinion, yes, both. They are complimentary, not oppositional. It is true that the ego on its own cannot become the Buddha, but we can recognize the Buddha-nature present in all things, even the ego. A supplicant cannot hope to become God but can recognize the Divine nature of all things, including herself. That is also why in Zen there is this sense that everything would be so clear if only we would just let it be so. The challenge isn't to better ourselves, but to free ourselves, to free ourselves from the habituated ways of thinking and acting that have reinforced the fundamental delusion of seeing phenomena as having intrinsic existence.

Hence even in the "faith-only" schools one is not simply to say "I have faith so there is no work to be done." Rather, there is no amount of work that could turn a foolish being into an enlightened one, a sinner into a saint. As the Apostle Paul asked at the beginning of Romans chapter six - "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?"

Heaven forbid!

Peace to you and your bridge between your relative and absolute nature, the object/figure of devotion which reminds you of the fundamental unity of both. From sand mandalas in the Himalyas to crucifixes to depiction of the Ceremony in the Air from the Lotus Sutra.

No mind but Mind? Or are minds incorporated in Mind?

You could lose your mind going over that title (snicker).

One thing that struck me when reading an online discussion on Chan recently is the old conundrum over words like "mind" and "heart" as well as "arising". I think when many people hear "mind" they think of an individual unit, such as your mind or my mind. The same with "heart". Moreover, the word mind is used to refer to cognitive processes involving perception and intellect, which combine to produce phenomena such as imagination and memory. On the other hand, the word heart is often taken to mean desire and emotional attachment/response. So with such thinking I can show the form of someone's heart by getting them to reveal their desires, their hopes, their fears, etc. Similar we can do the same with someone's mind.

Initially, I stopped talking about Mind because people thought I was talking about "a" mind, and switched over to talking about the heart. But then people thought I was talking about "a" heart rather than Heart. In both cases, the capitalized terms, I suggest, refer to profound awareness. This is not standard cognitive awareness (i.e. consciousness) - it would be more like that of which such awareness is... err, well...aware. That which is the connection of all form and the actualization of emptiness. One can compare this to light and sight. In this analogy sight is our perceptual awareness of light as consciousness is our perceptual awareness of....well, what to call it, eh? If you call it Mind, Heart, Awareness, or anything else, we are naming the sound by its shadow. That's where the ineffable nature of reality-as-it-is comes in - it is no more or less than it is. A tree is a tree because there is no tree, and all of that.

If we accept the principle that form perpetually/simultaneously arises and dissolves from/out of/back into emptiness in perpetual creation (form is emptiness, emptiness is form), then the distinction between immanent and transcendent is a trick of our "mind" (small m), a.k.a. dualistic perception. That is why I feel that paying attention, without resorting to judgment or elaboration or abstraction, is vital. While the intellect can be useful, both it and physical perception are inherently limited and introduce a bias in understanding. They are good tools but not always the right tools for every job. The minute we try to think about something like our true nature, we become lost in abstractions and fail to be aware of our true nature. It's like a catch 22 - you have to experience it and let it be what it is, and the minute you "try" to understand it, you've fallen into the trap that there are distinct things called "you" and your "true nature".

That is why I appreciate Hui Neng's (6th ancestor in Chan, a.k.a 6th Patriarch in Zen) admonition to find a thought that is nowhere supported. It isn't the drooling mindless of having no thoughts in your head, or the cold vacancy of no feeling in your heart (small m, small h). Not what I affectionately call the zombie Buddhist. Not seeing such things, which comprise the ego, as a foe to be fought or ignored, but simply for what it is/they are, without claiming it or taking ownership of it as yours, mine or ours. To truly grasp (realize? ...notice?) that sitting is sitting, crapping is crapping, scratching is scratching. No greater or deeper revelation is necessary or useful from abstract reflection or the senses to improve upon such Awareness (which is not an obsessive focus of great mental force being constantly applied like some kind of neurotic, debilitating self-consciousness). And in that situation, one is also not "being in the moment", which is already an abstraction and the start of dualistic thinking (there's you and there's the moment), but simply being (or perhaps Being)

One comment in the aforementioned discussion that provoked my interest was that Zen arises from the heart (as opposed to coming from teachers, books, rituals, etc). However, if we aren't talking about the transmission of techniques and methods for allowing us to get out of our own way in recognizing such Awareness, but rather that Awareness itself, then one could say that Zen/Chan arises in the heart in so much as we rediscover it in opening ourselves to the truth of reality-as-it-is as so crudely and poorly described in the preceding paragraph. It doesn't so much come into being in our heart (little h) as we realize its Presence. Perhaps rather than saying it arises in our heart one could say that we discover our Heart. Which would go along with the previous suggestion that Chan/Zen is already present without any particular teacher telling us it is so.

Which is why it is true to say there is nothing to attain but also why teachers can be so helpful in reminding us of that is so!

Emptiness and compassion

So what is the root of compassion?

I recently ran across Budding Buddhist, a relatively new blog, and I was impressed by the sincerity and openness with which the author ponders some fairly important questions. In particular, there are two posts which inspired me to write my own thoughts on the topic of emptiness and compassion. It is one of those insights that is all at once profoundly simple yet amazingly difficult because of our accrued attachments - because of the barriers we create for ourselves and the problems we conjure to impede us. I imagine from the perspective of a realized Buddha we must look something like a mime in our imaginary boxes, banging and pressing against the walls as we go about our quest to be liberated from our self-made prisons.

From the post Sunyata we read:

I started my exploration of sunyata after reading an excerpt from Bodhi magazine (Vol. 8, No. 3) in Buddhadharma's Spring 2007 issue. There's an article there by Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche called "Emptiness First, Then Compassion." He writes:

When we try to practice compassion without the view of egolessness, or emptiness, we are often not really helping because we ourselves are so confused. Our own lack of clarity only produces further confusion. If we have an idea that we think will help someone, it is usually based on our own interpretation of what we think they require or want. We are not looking at their situation from their point of view. Instead of giving them what they truly need, we give what we think they need. There is a difference between the two. Furthermore, we have value judgments about how they should accept our help, and so we "help"them further by imposing conditions and guidelines.

Compassion and loving-kindness that is free from ego clinging allows us to see the suffering of others from their own perspective. We can see beyond our own ideas and beliefs. We can see what they need from their point of view, and we can apply our own wisdom at the same time. with this more open and clear view, we can see more realistically what will meet their actual needs and be truly beneficial.

I do understand what he is saying. However, for myself, I come to the idea of egoless compassion and loving-kindness through my attempts to broaden my ability to be compassionate.

And from the post Form/Emptiness -

"Form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form; form is exactly emptiness, emptiness exactly form"
-Heart Sutra

I have been slowly studying the Heart Sutra. This (quote) I get. Still, I wonder at the idea of placing understanding emptiness before compassion. Can one not understand and practice ego-less compassion without having understood Sunyata?

{emphasis added}

I can relate. I also pondered that quote from the Heart Sutra early on in my practice and blogging and it really is still an unfolding lesson to this day. I do not write here presuming I am telling the author of Budding Buddha or anyone else something new or impressive. As always, this is just a record of a shared exploration. The "you" references are all generic unless one feels something speaks to them personally - in that case I am speaking directly to you.

If we still subconsciously or overtly think of people in terms of discrete entities, that even attempts to "help" will be rooted in those misconceptions. This can occur at many levels. Imagine, for example, if someone has a flat tire. You ask if you can lend a hand, and the person ignores you. Or flips you off. Or maybe the person accepts your offer but criticizes you and needles you about the poor job you are doing the whole time. When rooted in duality, you might get angry. How dare this person not appreciate the "help" you so kindly offered. You expect a reward, even if only an acknowledgment that you spoke at all, let alone offered assistance. The interaction is not truly selfless.

Nor does it matter if the interaction is a conventional offer of help. All sentient beings are suffering beings, and someone walking the path of a Bodhisattva must engage them all. The help they need isn’t just fixing a flat or a nutritious meal (though such things are not inconsequential), but awakening from the delusion of separation and loss. So, if we perceive emptiness, which is part and parcel of no-self, nirvana, dependent co-arising, and the other fundamental Buddhist principles, then we realize that all actions that are truly selfless (and hence recognize our fundamental unity) are beneficial. With no strings. No expectations or required results. An open and spacious heart with room for all – no discrimination – from that one can not help but give rise to boundless compassion.

To cite a previous elaboration on this concept –

I think this might be good for some folks who get tripped up by the whole self/no-self discussion. This can be further distinguished by attitude. There is a difference between "I ought to/have to be nice to this person" and "I get to be nice to this person." When compassion, generosity, loving-kindness, mindfulness, etc. seems like an obligation, that is the ego-centric view (i.e. self, selfish mind). When these things seem like an opportunity, that is the other-centric view (i.e. no-self, selfless). Nor does this mean that you must de-value yourself. You are included in the "other" of the other-centric view, you just aren't THE main focus.

Of course, if it still isn't clear, here is an example that I think really makes it clear. Imagine you are standing (or sitting) near a set of steps. Really imagine you are there and seeing what I describe. A very pretty, sweet young woman, who happens to be blind and pregnant, is walking down the steps with a large bag of groceries. Tick-tack-tack-tick-tick-tack-tack-tick goes her cane. Then she stumbles and the groceries go flying. She tumbles down the stairs and crashes to the bottom...

What would be your reaction? Do you pause or hesitate? Do you think about yourself? Do you consider whether or not to help her? I am going to bet that most of you would simply run (or wheel yourself) right over to her as fast as you could and ask if she is alright. You would offer to get some additional help if she needs it and would likely help gather up her groceries. No hesitation. You would just spring into action. Just like that. That is no-self, the selfless mind, the other-centered view. The difference between a regular person and a Buddha/Bodhisattva is this: They would have the same reaction if they saw the guy that just cut them off/flipped them off in rush hour traffic sitting by the side of the road with a blowout and no spare. They would have the same reaction if a convicted murderer was scared and alone before his execution. That is, I personally believe (and obviously take that for what it is or isn't worth), the expression of Bodhi mind.

Of course, as the original author of the comments that inspired this writing suggests, the eightfold path is not linear. By acting in a selfless way, even if we don’t feel like it, we open our hearts, and by opening our hearts we are motivated to act in a selfless way.

I'll close with a quote that speaks well to the issue -

If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is tied up with mine, then let us work together.
-Lilla Watson, aboriginal activist

The half-hearted hypocrite

Even the half-hearted hypocrite can sometimes stumble out of his arrogant stupor and accidentally bump into the simple Presence of the wisdom and compassion he normally gives the appearance of actually seeking.





(Now that's karma)

I'm still a Scarecrow

Wizard: Why, anybody can have a brain. That's a very mediocre commodity. Back where I come from we have universities - seats of great learning - where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep thoughts, and with no more brains than you have. But - they have one thing you haven't got - a diploma! Therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Universita Committeeatum E Pluribus Unum, I hereby confer upon you the honorary degree of Th.D.

Scarecrow: Th.D.?
Wizard: Yeah - that - that's Dr. of Thinkology
Scarecrow: How can I ever thank you enough?
Wizard: Well, you can't!


The Scarecrow gets all the way to the Emerald City and gets his Doctorate in Thinkology, but he is still a Scarecrow. His head all full o' stuffin'. I can relate.

I spent many years acquiring degrees of higher education. I appreciate the challenges and the rewards of my endeavors - going farther than I ever thought possible and mastering many areas of study I wasn't sure I could handle. My critical thinking and organizational skills were stretched and strengthened. It will be two years this August since I finished my highly extended formal education, and it's as true now as when I received my diploma - I am still me, only now with formal credentials. My head all full o' stuffin'.

Everyone can read their own life lessons and philosophy into a movie like The Wizard of Oz, so I don't want to claim it was a "Buddhist movie". However, one can imagine a group of pilgrims arriving in the Emerald City and being rebuffed by the Great and Wise Buddha, because that is what they are expecting - given a series of challenges to become worthy. Yet behind the Bigger than Life image is a amiable and practical gentleman. And even then, the pilgrims still think the Buddha will be able to give them their preconceived version of enlightenment - wisdom, compassion, fearlessness. So he hands out a bowl and a robe and a set of beads. He shaves their heads. But he also tells them they "have" everything the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas "have".

If I only had Bodhi...

Effortlessness - simple yet challenging

I have been drawn to certain teachings (or should I say different expressions of the same fundamental teaching) and have been collecting them here. Thanks to James from the Buddhist blog I have added another. I will briefly butcher the underlying premise and then hope that your own practice and the words of others will do more justice to that which is being conveyed.

As I wrote at The Buddhist Blog, perception and intellect are limited - not bad, not something to be shunned or minimized, but also not relied on to grasp the Truth being described. I think to some looking at Buddhism from the outside such admonitions may seem like forms anti-intellectualism or anti-rationalism, given the focus on using various combinations of our intellect and our perceptions to form our basic maps of reality (memory, imagination, etc). But even so, it doesn't take much to demonstrate that both the intellect and perception, while important and useful, are woefully limited.


Instead the practice advocated in some form or another by various Buddhist traditions (but most blatantly by Chan/Zen) is paying attention/focusing on (our) actions, effortlessly, without resorting to judgment or elaboration or abstraction. To truly grasp (realize? ...notice?) that sitting is sitting, crapping is crapping, scratching is scratching. No greater or deeper revelation is necessary from reflection or sensation to improve upon such attentiveness (which is not an obsessive focus of great mental force being constantly applied like neurotic self-consciousness). And in that situation, one is also not "being in the moment", which is already an abstraction and the start of dualistic thinking, but simply being. Whether our appreciation this results from a visualization practice of Tibetan Buddhism or from the true entrusting of Shin Buddhism or the direct focus of Zen or some other tradition or lineage is irrelevant. That is why so many of the quotes are from such a diverse array of places and times. So here are those who can and have said it far better and more succinctly than I could ever hope to:

"Affliction is Bodhi and the cycle of birth and death is Nirvana"
-Platform Sutra of Hui Neng

"Form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form; form is exactly emptiness, emptiness exactly form"
-Heart Sutra

"The Way does not require cultivation, just don't pollute it."
-Chan ancestor Mazu

Recent quotes from Beliefnet:

"Although you may understand the explanations, if you are still suffering because of problems, you clearly do not understand the true nature of your mind, your body, and your senses."
-Lama Zopa Rinpoche

"You have always been one with the Buddha, so do not pretend you can ATTAIN to this oneness by various practices."
-Huang Po

"Just understand that birth-and-death is itself nirvana. There is nothing such as birth and death to be avoided; there is nothing such as nirvana to be sought. Only when you realize this are you free from birth and death."
-Dogen

"Hear me, future disciples!
Your time will have been badly wasted if you neglect to put this teaching into practice."

"What you should do is to know your own mind and realize your own buddha-nature, which neither rests nor moves, neither becomes nor ceases to be, neither comes nor goes, neither affirms nor denies, neither stays nor departs."
-The Sutra of Hui-Neng

The current quotes being added to the list:

"Happy is one who knows samsara and nirvana are not two."
-Milarepa, "Drinking the Mountain Stream"

"Enlightenment is a way of saying that all things are seen in their intrinsic empty nature, their Suchness, their ungraspable wonder. Names or words are merely incidental, but that state which sees no division, no duality, is enlightenment."
-Prajnaparamita

At this moment, is there anything lacking? Nirvana is right here now before our eyes. This place is the lotus land. This body now is the Buddha.
-Hakuin

Regarding silence

I have included a rather long list of of quotes from various sacred traditions, spiritual paths, and personal philosophies about silence, yet they only scratch the surface of the general theme to which they belong. If you have a problem using "God"-language, feel free to substitute Absolute Nature, Ultimate Reality, Ineffable Source, or whatever floats your boat...

"Be still, and know that I am God"

-Psalm 46:10


"God's poet is silence! His song is unspoken,
And yet so profound, so loud, and so far,
It fills you, it thrills you with measures unbroken,
And as soft, and as fair, and as far as a star."

-Joaquin Miller


"In the attitude of silence the soul finds the path in an clearer light, and what is elusive and deceptive resolves itself into crystal clearness. Our life is a long and arduous quest after Truth."

-Mahatma Gandhi


"You can hear the footsteps of God when silence reigns in the mind."

"Only in the depth of silence, you can hear the voice of God."

-Sri Sathya Sai Baba


"God is to creation as silence is to sound."

— Mark Woodward


"If anyone else is speaking in the temple of your soul, Jesus will keep still, as if he were not at home. And he is not at home wherever there are strange guests—guests with whom the soul holds conversation, guests who are seeking to bargain. If Jesus is to speak and be heard, the soul must be alone and quiet."

"But the perfect reflection of the One is shining by itself in lonely silence, there safely pent as one and indivisible. The unity (of God) is un-necessitous, it has no need of speech, but subsists alone in unbroken silence. The mind is rid of light when it is rid of mode; and it is rid of darkness when letting go of all natural things, it sinks in nameless actuality. Then it loses both light and darkness in the abyss that a creature in its own right never plumbs. Such is the estrangement in one as foreshadowed in the ordinary mind, but the realization of unity which the blessed have lies in the exquisite consciousness of another than themselves. O unfathomable void, bottomless to creatures and to thine own self, in thy depth art thou exalted in thy impartible, imperishable actuality; in the height of thy essential power thou art so deep thou dost engulf thy simple ground which is there concealed from all that thou are not; yet those whom thou wouldest commune with shall know thee with thyself."

"If I were to say 'God exists,' this would not be true. He is beyond being. He is a no-thing-ness beyond being. This is why St. Augustine says 'The best thing to be said about God is silence.' You must love God as not-God, not-Spirit, not-Sun, not-image, but as He is - sheer, pure absolute Oneness, without any duality."

— Meister Eckhart


"Prayer begins by talking to God, but it ends by listening to Him. In the face of Absolute Truth, silence is the soul’s language."

— Fulton J. Sheen


"Learn to get in touch with the silence within yourself, and know that everything in life has purpose."

"There is no need to go to India or anywhere else to find peace. You will find that deep place of silence right in your room, your garden or even your bathtub."

-Elisabeth Kubler-Ross


"The reality that is present to us and in us: call it being…Silence. And the simple fact that by being attentive, by learning to listen (or recovering the natural capacity to listen) we can find ourself engulfed in such happiness that it cannot be explained: the happiness of being at one with everything in that hidden ground of Love for which there can be no explanations…. May we all grow in grace and peace, and not neglect the silence that is printed in the center of our being. It will not fail us."

"Words stand between silence and silence: between the silence of things and the silence of our own being, between the silence of the world and the silence of God. When we have really met and known the world in silence, words do not separate us from the world nor from other men, nor from God, nor from ourselves because we no longer trust entirely in language to contain reality."

— Thomas Merton


"This silence, this moment, every moment, if it's genuinely inside you, brings what you need. There's nothing to believe. Only when I stopped believing in myself did I come into this beauty. Sit quietly, and listen for a voice that will say, 'Be more silent.' Die and be quiet. Quietness is the surest sign that you've died. Your old life was a frantic running from silence. Move outside the tangle of fear-thinking. Live in silence."

-Rumi


"Empty yourself of everything. Let the mind rest at peace. The ten thousand things rise and fall while the Self watches their return. They grow and flourish and then return to the source. Returning to the source is stillness, which is the Way of nature."

-Lao Tsu


"Silence is the language of God;
It is also the language of the heart."

-Dag Hammarskjöld


"There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else."

-the Maitri Upanishad



"Not merely an absence of noise, Real Silence begins when a reasonable being withdraws from the noise in order to find peace and order in his inner sanctuary."

-Peter Minard

I think this last quote really informs the rest. Yes, physical silence, i.e. sitting still, little or no loud or disruptive sounds, having fewer screaming thoughts running through your mind, etc can be conducive to entering/experiencing the kind of silence being referenced in these quotes, but they are NOT equivalent to the the kind of silence being discussed. If you have experiences with such Silence please feel free to share.

Christian Buddhists? Buddhist Christians?

I have found the question of the compatibility (or lack thereof) of Christianity and Buddhism to be very contentious in certain circles, so I thought I might take the topic out for a spin. So can you be a Christian and a Buddhist? Of course. And absolutely not. Given the choice between the two answers, which would you prefer? But before you decide, let's take a closer look at how we can arrive at these two mutually exclusive answers.

Let's start with the rejection of compatibility. That's not too hard to understand. You start by presuming that being a Christian requires the following beliefs:

1. there is an anthropomorphic Supreme Being, that is, a Creator God who has a will and a consciousness with a personality; more or less this God is like a human being without all the faults and with unlimited knowledge and power; as a perfect Being this God is changeless and eternal.
2. this same God made the Universe at some point in the remote past and either directly created or set in motion the creation of human beings who were initially in total union with the divine will.
3. sin is separation from direct union with the mind/will of God
4. original sin is the story (interpreted figuratively or literally) of how humanity became separated from God, that is, how they came to neglect an inherent awareness of the Divine.
5. the story of the Gospels is the story of how God became manifest in the human world as Jesus Christ in order to bridge the gulf that came to separate humanity from the Divine; this was accomplished by Christ acting as a substitute for all those who deserved eternal separation from God because of either original sin (which is inherited) or their own sins (acts separating them from/going against their sense of the Divine).
6. Jesus was crucified, laid to rest in a tomb, and experienced a bodily resurrection after three days, eventually directly ascending to Heaven, the realm beyond the mortal world where the heart of God dwells.
7. only by believing these stories and accepting the grace of God offered through Christ can a person's soul escape eternal torment/annihilation.

On the other hand, you assume that being a Buddhist means believing teachings which state:

1. everything is impermanent (so a changeless, eternal God as required above would not be compatible with this view) because everything is empty (of intrinsic existence); this is also argued to go against the concept of an eternal soul if a soul is also supposed to somehow be eternal and fixed.
2. even heaven and hell realms are temporary (and possible figurative/metaphoric) and reflections of our choices, i.e. karma; there is no appeal to a Supreme Being to change our karmic consequences.
3. everything is interdependent via the concept of dependent co-arising, so again, there is no existence outside of this connected web of causality and presumably no place for an eternal, changeless Being.
4. one may experience many lifetimes before being liberated from the cycle of birth and death (this can be seen literally or figuratively), which conflicts with the idea in traditional Christianity of living one life then being judged for eternity.
5. the narrow exclusivity of the previously described beliefs of Christianity doesn't fit well with the idea of following the teachings of a different religion.

The conflict, then, between a traditional Christian view and a common Western Buddhist outlook, is fairly obvious. A deeper or more comprehensive comparison and analysis is certainly possible, but even at such a superficial level as has been outlined here one can apprehend why Buddhism and Christianity are often said to be mutually exclusive. Yet there are people who write books comparing the saying of the Buddha and Christ, as well as those who claim to benefit from a syncretic belief involving Jesus and the Buddha (and perhaps other teachers). To appreciate why this may be so, let us consider the distinction of being a Christian Buddhist and a Buddhist Christian.

The distinction between a Christian Buddhist and a Buddhist Christian was not really relevant for discussing why the two sacred traditions are incompatible - no matter how you mix them it doesn't work. But what about those who do mix it up? Presumably, the latter label takes precedence, i.e. a Buddhist Christian would be a Christian first and a Buddhist second (and vice versa). A Buddhist Christian can still adhere to most of the aforementioned list of traditional Christian beliefs while simultaneously picking and choosing certain aspects of Buddhist teachings and practices, such as meditation. A Christian Buddhist can likewise adhere to Buddhist teachings (including but not limited to those listed above) while simultaneously picking and choosing certain aspects of Christian teachings, such as the admonition to love others as ourselves.

Then there are what may be called non-traditional Christians (which traditional Christians, and even many Buddhists, would likely not recognize as being "true" Christians). Many of their beliefs have been on the wrong end of history and have been declared heresies and false teachings, or in some cases are simply in the minority/ignored by most practicing Christians. Yet in the ongoing dialog with eastern mysticism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc, many of these beliefs are being reconsidered and in some cases resuscitated. Sounds good. Let's get a brief sketch of what that *might* look like:

1. "God" is a term for the endless potential from/in which which all existence/universes spring, known as I AM, as the Tao, as the essence of shunyata and tathata expressed as the dharmakaya, and other hopeless attempts to name the ineffable, which is simultaneously transcendent and immanent.
2. in an attempt to grasp and make this Source familiar, myths arose in which God was fashioned in our own image as an anthropomorphic Supreme Being, that is, a Creator God who has a will and a consciousness with a personality; more or less this God is like a human being without all the faults and with unlimited knowledge and power; as a perfect Being this God is changeless and eternal.
3. creation is a perpetual act of the Divine in which all of existence participates, arising and dissolving in a continuous flow of what can be and what is.
4. sin is separation from direct union with the mind/will of God; rather than a blood curse inherited from the disobedience of Adam and Eve, it is a description of how certain actions, speech, and thoughts lead one away from the truth of the fundamental inter-connection of all things and our own inherent completeness as an individual within a greater whole.
5. original sin is the story (interpreted figuratively) of how humanity became separated from God, that is, how they came to neglect an inherent awareness of the Divine.
6. the story of the Gospels is the story of how God became manifest in the human world as Jesus Christ in order to bridge the gulf that came to separate humanity from the Divine; it is an ahistorical (its value goes beyond its historical reality) story providing an exemplar of the the proper relationship of humanity and the Divine.
7. the story of Jesus being crucified, being laid to rest in a tomb, and experiencing a bodily resurrection after three days, is a part of the larger ahistorical teaching; the truth of the story lies in the heart, not in what cannot be verified or rejected empirically.
8. the message of Christ is one of reconciliation with God and the abundance of undifferentiated grace; the plight of the unsaved is a depiction of the suffering of those who have not been reconciled to God, whether it be through religion or not.

In the case of such Christians (or those who share at least some of these variations from the traditional views), at least for those who will allow them to use that label, it is fairly clear that they can not only find compatibility with Buddhism but even a deep connection between the fundamental principles of Buddhism and their faith in Christ, especially the life of Jesus and the idea of the bodhisattva. It is just as clear how Buddhists might also find a connection with this form of Christianity. As I am not an expert in the history of Christian theology, I cannot argue whether the more traditional view is somehow more authentic to the original teachings of Christ as opposed to the panentheist/universalist view, but I am aware that there is a long thread of such thought in the Church, especially in the more contemplative orders/traditions which practiced mysticism to experience conscious union with the Divine. From what I have heard, there are contemporary theologians/philosophers which have explored such ideas of Christ and God (Paul Tillich comes to mind), so whether or not it is considered orthodox, it is a view that has both a history, is relevant to modern theology, and is actively practiced (see for example the works of Thomas Merton or Wayne Teasdale).

Speaking of being outside of conventional/"traditional" Christianity, the Unitarian Universalists were essentially founded in such an extreme ecumenical revelation and expansion of Christianity and now embraces members who identify as everything from Wiccan to Jewish to Buddhist to atheist. So I will let a UU/Christian have the last word here on the concept:

Who is Jesus Christ to me? He is both a teacher of the Way, and the Way itself. For one who has always had a hard time grasping the concept of God, let alone developing a working definition of God, Jesus both points me toward a definition of God and then lives that definition. Jesus Christ is the freedom that laughs uproariously at the things of this world, while loving me dearly for being human enough to lust after them. He is my soul’s safety from all harm. He is the avatar of aloneness, a compassionate and unsentimental narrator of the soul’s exile on earth, and proof of the soul’s triumphant homecoming at the end of the incarnational struggle. He is not afraid to put his hands anywhere to affect healing. He mourns, and weeps, and scolds, and invites. He is life more abundant and conqueror of the existential condition of fear.

“By their fruits ye shall know them,” Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount. There are indeed degenerate branches on the tree of Christian life, but this does not keep me from Christ. There are even disagreements among Unitarian Universalist Christians about the appropriateness of this or that perspective, practice, or teaching—debates that I regard mostly with affection, if occasionally with irritation. We have so much else to do.

My daily Christian practice, although it changes frequently and is augmented by wisdom and practices from other traditions, consists mostly of clumsy efforts to love my God with all my heart, all my mind, all my soul, and all my strength, and to love my neighbor as myself. That’s work enough for this lifetime.

I call myself a Christian because I am a disciple of Jesus Christ—not just Jesus-that-great-guy-and-teacher-with-the-long-hair-and-sandals but Jesus the living avatar of the great God and Jesus the Christ of Easter morning.

How Jesus claimed me

One Unitarian Universalist's religious journey.
By Victoria Weinstein

Contemplating death gives gratitude for life

The contemplation of death is vital for the clarity and enthusiasm for living fully. In particular, reflection on death can be a source of a virtue that helps greatly improve one's peace of mind and quality of life, namely gratitude. [There was a great article recently in UU World on why gratitude should be the defining element of Unitarian Universalism by the way] The Buddhist readers may have heard about various practices for contemplating death, and Christians just recently did so for Easter. I am not sure what elements in other faiths, such as Judaism and Islam, specifically focus on the ramifications of death, but I would be greatly surprised if there were none.

In contemplative mystical terms, including the Buddhist perspective, from the historical perspective, we are born, we live, and we die. In the historical dimension these things are spread out in time and space, and because of this gap, there is a possibility to either not think about death or to not accept that one will die. Those who believe in a literal Second Coming could talk themselves into believing that Jesus will return before they must endure physical death, and besides, they won't really die in a permanent sense anyway. Even those who believe no such thing could believe that genetics and medicine and technology might find some way to use gene therapy to affect the telomeres and somehow makes select people immortal. For those less versed in developmental genetics, there is also the "hope" of cryogenics. But whatever one does, physical death is inevitable. We can slow it, but it will eventually occur, and there is no credible alternative on the table.

And we must die. Why? Well, the answer is deceptively simple - the Buddha is reported to have said that we die because we were born. In Buddhism, the cause and effect are seen as being created simultaneously - however, the effect may be delayed until the proper conditions cause/allow it to manifest itself. Another way to say it is that the price of life is death, the consequence of being born is dying. Again, from the ultimate perspective, that is, taking a "God's eye " view of everything, there is not much distinction. I will be/am being/have been born and I will/am/have died. I may not know the exact point at time in space at which the latter will happen, but for all practical purposes, it's a done deal.

If, indeed, I am (to borrow a phrase) "living on borrowed time", then what about the contemplation of my eventual death? I can visualize myself at a cemetery in front of a headstone, a marble slab with my name craved into it. Tracing the letters with my fingers, the stone is smooth and cold. There is an epitaph, and I can smell the freshly dug soil under my feet. The mist is burning away as the sun rises over the horizon leaving the morning dew on the neatly manicured grass nearby, and a bouquet of flowers is starting to drop a little at the base of the headstone. I have lost everything. My relationships, my health, the use of my body, my money, my career, my possessions - everything. I am just a memory dwelling at the site of the final interment of my remains. Somewhat like Scrooge when visited by the Ghost of Christmas Future, I am faced with the stark reality of my mortality. Eventually even my remains will decay and perhaps be part of other life forms, microbes, or worms, and maybe eventually some of that matter and energy might even find its way into another human being.

And then I am back here, which seems so far away, and yet if these words outlive me, the relative illusion of that distance will be all the more apparent. Pondering this reflection and meditation, it is almost like time travel. I know that I will become ill, and that I will grow old, and eventually die, if death does not not claim me before I become sick or infirm with age, and that the seeming gulf between my current situation and these states of existence is an illusion, a wish, a breeze that plays on my face for a brief moment and then fades away. A blink and I am at my life's end.

So how will I respond? What is my reaction to this realization? What does this mean for my life? I will be grateful. Should I lose my sight or other sense, I will be grateful for the time I had it and all of the things I saw and heard and tasted and felt. Should I lose my limbs, or their use, I will be grateful for the time I had them and the chance to run and jump and swim and climb and romp. Should I lose my health, I will be grateful for all the healthy years I've enjoyed. Each day I will not be upset about what I haven't had or what I've lost, but what I have had and what yet remains, seeing each day as a blessing. And as the moment of my death, if I am conscious, I will be grateful for the chance to live this life.

Groundhog Day

"What would you do if you were stuck in one place, and every day was exactly the same, and nothing that you did mattered?"-Bill Murray playing the fictitious Pittsburgh weatherman Phil Connors in the 1993 film Groundhog Day

Some days, perhaps too many, I agree with Ralph (one of the drunks in the bowling alley to which Phil Connors is asking this semi-rhetorical question):

"That about sums it up for me."

A lot of people like to see some form of their life philosophy, spiritual path, or sacred tradition tied up in some way with the movie being discussed. It's the same with films like The Wizard of Oz or It's a Wonderful Life. They speak to basic human questions, and when they do it well, everyone can see a part of themselves in the story. But Buddhists (well, some of them) are especially fond of Groundhog Day because of the concept of the endless cycle of rebirth caused by selfishness which is supposedly reflected in the repetition of February 2nd over and over for the self-centered weatherman character.

But I find the line in the bowling alley really stands out because it helps to take the theme out of the unrealistic plot device of someone literally reliving the EXACT same day over and over with complete conscious continuity and recollection and sends it out into the real world, so to speak. Ralph's familiarity with Phil's plight then is the bridge from comic farce to depressing mediocrity. People are often trapped in circumstances that they may feel are beyond their control. Yes, they could change something, but the consequences (how would I pay the bills, what if I lost my benefits, who would take care of my relative or friend, what about Bob... oh wait, wrong movie, scratch that last question) are so bad that they are actually worse than continuing on in the same depressing rut. Other people may have other reasons for not wanting to change, such as fear of change, or because they don't have faith in their own potential, etc. I am not wanting to short-change these folks, but then, there are plenty of self-help books and seminars as well as peppy phrases and witicisms to help such folks find the courage to change (kidding, I'm kidding).

But what about those who can see no realistic means of transforming their lives in terms of location, vocation, etc. that don't entail fumbling their legitimate responsibilities? The folks who don't just go on a whim and leave it up to others to sort out the mess. The ones who are often known as dependable, reliable, or sensible? In such cases, just "shaking things up" isn't an option, it's a juvenile fantasy that will create an even bigger mess than the one in which the person already finds him or herself.

While I like the film, Phil Connors has plenty of money and, short of leaving Punxsutawney, plenty of options. He has no crushing debt, no dependents, no major health problems, or any other visible major responsibility to worry about other than his job and his attitude about life/other people (and of course why should he in a comedy like Groundhog Day). Many people though, the Ralph's of the world, have two or three or more of these kinds of major responsibilities, and hence the feeling of quiet desperation so brilliantly captured by Rick Overton's delivery (he's the guy who played Ralph the drunk).

So without 453 takes to get a single day right, and given the more complex and tenacious problems and burdens of real life, what would you do? In the film, the main character eventually decided to make the absolute best he could of the situation he was in on behalf of everyone he met, and this became his path to liberation (svaha!). So could Ralph find the same purpose and contentment? Again, I know it's outside the scope of the plot of the comedy, but if we are to use the film as any kind of meaningful analogy, this question seems crucial to me.

If the principles espoused by traditions such as Buddhism are true, then the answer must be "yes". And if the answer is yes, and if you also concur with Ralph's reply, then here is something to consider: What can you do/are you doing to make the absolute best of the situation you are in for everyone you meet?

Just put your little hand in mine
There ain't no hill or mountain
we can't cliiiimb--babe.
I've got you babe.
I've got you babe.
I've got you babe...

A good start is saving all sentient beings from yourself

You may have heard about the generic vows of the Bodhisattva. Even if you do not study or practice a form of Mahayana Buddhism, if you have spend much time looking at Buddhism in the West you likely have come across something about saving all sentient beings. Now, specific archetypal Bodhisattva's may have their own unique expression or extension of these vows, but they still get back to the same concern. But is there a way we can do this? I mean, sure, if you are in a position of fame or power, you can focus the media and public consciousness on issues that will help people by going on record in the media or showing up at various fund raisers. If you have a suitable amount of disposable income, you can send a check or two or three to such fund raisers or to other outlets for charitable contributions. If you are a gifted writer or speaker or motivator and if you have the time, you may be able to form or help lead a local branch of some socially-conscious group working to fight violence or poverty or illiteracy. So, what if instead you are just getting by, don't have much in the way of free time, and can't contribute in any of these ways?

I think that describes a lot of people. Maybe some could, if they worked at it, find a few extra dollars or minutes now and again, but is that it? And even if you are famous or rich or have the free time, is there nothing more to be offered? Is the path of the Bodhisattva only for those who are on the one hand famous or wealthy or on the other hand who are renunciates who leave the ordinary world of work and family and rely on the contributions of others to fund their cultivation? I find this to be an absurd proposition, and it is true, then the path of the Bodhisattva is equally absurd.

But is charity the only form of salvation with which we are familiar in the West? Hardly. In fact the term itself conjures up the notion of Abrahamic religion, in particular evangelical Christianity. Rather than take a run a the superficial and profound similarities and differences between different denominations and sects of Buddhism and Christianity and theology and the dharma, suffice it to say that proselytizing to get people to believe a particular mytho-historical account of human existence and subsequently recite a prayer affirming this belief to avoid eternal damnation and be reconciled to a specific depiction of a Creator-Deity is not a meaningful or suitable approach for Western Buddhists.

So, that does leave the question wide open - what is salvation in Buddhism? What does it mean for people practicing Buddhism in the West? What does it mean for those encountering practicing Buddhists in the West? How does a person of no great means go about the business of saving even one other sentient being, let alone all of them?

If you think I am going to give a comprehensive and detailed exposition on the answer to this question, I am afraid you are going to be awfully disappointed. But it isn't a rhetorical question, either. As the name of this essay suggests, a good start is saving all sentient beings from yourself.

No matter how busy or isolated you may be, you DO encounter other people, both directly and indirectly. Your intentions as well as your resulting actions, speech, and thoughts do have an effect on other people. Hence, even if it may seem to be the smallest possible offering or contribution you can make, having the spirit (here referring to gusto or enthusiasm or embodying certain qualities) of bodhicitta is important. The exhibition of patience, equanimity, compassion, and other qualities displaying an utmost concern for the welfare of others is the embodiment of the Bodhisattva path.

But I am not just talking about refraining from unskillful speech or helping the elderly lady next door take out her garbage. Though to be honest, even in that kind of boyscout way, to consistently be honest, kind, and helpful all the time is a standard that would overwhelm most of us. And it is certainly a good place to start. But then there is also the way that we hide from others. We hide the truly warm, enriching, inspiring parts of ourselves from general view. Because we are shy. Because we fear being teased or mocked. Because it isn't the fashion. So that even kind gestures can be done with a kind of cold distance. But to share that glowing aspect, even if we don't say a word, is truly a blessing to all we meet.

Pardon me, I need to go on being a complete hypocrite on this issue now.

The Big Picture

Senator Tim Johnson had a blood vessel rupture yesterday and was rushed to the hospital. Cable news pundits tried to make it about the 'balance of power' in the Senate should Johnson die. Some of their guests tried to dismiss such talk and focus on well-wishing/praying for the Senator and his family. I saw one pundit keep at it though - "but, looking at the big picture..." blah blah blah about 51-49 difference between Democrats and Republicans, etc.

No.

That is the little picture.

The big picture *is* a sick man and his worried family and friends.

Blessing and metta to them.

Affirming the Forty-Eight Great Vows

Here is a link to link to the English translation of Juseige, and here is a sample:

The cosmos will resound with the dharma.
Flowers of enlightenment
Like a rain of light
Will adorn all beings.

May it comfort and inspire you :o)

The gateless gate

You should always try be in the present moment.

You should always be in the present moment.

Always be in the present moment.

Be in the present moment.

Be in the moment.

Be the moment.

Be.

_

The toolbox

I sometimes think about the fact that many of the separate Buddhist traditions are so heavily distinguished by emphasizing a particular method. Pure Land, as most of us casual students of Buddhist history will know, with its emphasis on nienfo, was a part of the larger package of techniques and emphases before it became a separate tradition. Focusing awareness through meditation and short-circuiting our habitual mind/conditioned existence through bizarre riddles, shouts, and whacks with a stick, while now associated with Chan and most especially its Japanese transmission Zen, were in fact part of this larger package of tools. Even Nichiren Buddhism's recitation of the daimoku, "Nam(u) myoho renge kyo", can function both as a form of nienfo (Buddha-remembrance or Buddha-embodiment) and as a koan. -And I don't want to leave out all the other traditions and schools, so feel free to add yours to the list in the comments section.-

Whereas in the Nichiren tradition and its many schools, there is an emphasis on their own method as the superior practice in the current age, there is also an appreciation for the teaching of the Lotus Sutra that the various methods of different Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and Enlightened Beings were expedient means used by skilled teachers to reach people in different circumstances. Getting away from the idea that everything other than the Nichiren practice is "provisional" and antiquated, I have always found the ecumenical aspect of the Lotus Sutra to be quite inspiring. I am not concerned with whether the historical Buddha really gave this teaching before he died, or whether those who inherited his living tradition and realized this truth put it in a proper and acceptable form as yet another expedient means.

I was thinking about this idea, of the tool box, as I struggled to find a remotely useful analogy in clarifying my thoughts about having a settled mind. I was trying to convey that in areas where we should be perpetually open to experiences, flexible, and free from preconception, we in fact are closed to experiences, inflexible, and bound by preconception. This is particularly true when we are pleased with just how open-minded and impartial we are. And, ironically, this inflexibility comes from not being settled where it counts. With the clear vision, pure mind, and boundless heart of Bodhi (these are actually just three different labels for the same thing), we can, as the popular expression goes, be comfortable with uncertainty. With a settled, or adamant, mind, or as some traditions refer to it, a diamond that cuts through illusion, one has the truest form of what is captured by another popular Western Buddhist phrase - beginner's mind. And thus one who is so settled is able to be "unsettled" (which I previously referred to as "agitated"), or more accurately, unhindered, when encountering the utter novelty of the ever-unfolding moment in which we live.

(As an aside, that last though reminds me of many of the teachings of which I have become fond... "Affliction is Bodhi and the cycle of birth and death is Nirvana"-Platform Sutra of Hui Neng; "Form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form; form is exactly emptiness, emptiness exactly form"-Heart Sutra; "The Way does not require cultivation, just don't pollute it."-Chan ancestor Mazu. Teachings which are oft-repeated: "Although you may understand the explanations, if you are still suffering because of problems, you clearly do not understand the true nature of your mind, your body, and your senses."-Lama Zopa Rinpoche; "You have always been one with the Buddha, so do not pretend you can ATTAIN to this oneness by various practices."-Huang Po; "Just understand that birth-and-death is itself nirvana. There is nothing such as birth and death to be avoided; there is nothing such as nirvana to be sought. Only when you realize this are you free from birth and death."-Dogen)

Does that mean that any Buddhist tradition is valid? No. But the proof is in the pudding. Rather like the Bible verse that suggests "By their fruits shall you know them" (Matthew 7:16). Nor is a tradition valid just because it worked for some in the past. Any sacred tradition which is not a living tradition is hollow and headed for hot-headedly intolerant radicalism or which goes the other direction into stale, inflexible, musty formalism. If you assume for the sake of argument that there is a Source which pervades and sustains our existence, whether this is expressed in terms of shunyata and tathata, or the yin and yang of the Tao, whether it is personified or non personified, as religious or non-religious, etc., and if you are a teacher who is trying to open people's eyes to their true nature, then one must further presume that an effective teacher is one who:

A) has had her or his own eyes' opened,
B) is deeply concerned with helping others do the same, and
C) is good at doing so.

Hence such an effective teacher would need to be able to read people, gauge their capacity for different types of teaching, and pick and choose from the toolbox to use not only the right practice but the right level of practice for each person they are teaching. For one student, a very direct method may helpful because they are already on the verge of awakening. For another, this same method may only cause confusion, frustration, and resentment.

In my previous attempt to write about being settled and unsettled, I ended with "So get settled and shake things up, or, for some of you, shake things up so you can get settled!" I think that's how it is with some methods. For some, you start by emphasizing being settled in Buddhanature, which in turn allows you to truly change how you see the world. For others, you may have your views of the world shaken up, which allows you to then be settled in Buddhanature. But no matter where you start, I suspect that this dialectic never truly ends as each reaffirms and sustains the other, because they are both manifestations of the same. Hence the common affirmations in Buddhism in general that you cannot "achieve" Bodhi nor can you ever "locate" Buddhanature.

No wonder some Chan masters chased their students with a length of bamboo and whacked them each time they tried to answer questions such as "What is your original face?", even when the student gave the answer of not answering at all. Each time the master asked the question, habit mind, conditioned mind, popped up, so "whack". Then again, "whack". Kind of like whack-a-mole with the . Unfortunately I think this kind of story suggests to some people that anti-intellectualism is the ultimate goal, rather than training the mind. A hammer is a very useful tool, but not for watering plants. In the same way, the rational, analyzing intellect is awesome and wondrous and highly useful for many things, but that doesn't mean it's the right tool for each occasion - enjoying a song, for example, or creating art. So to get to that clear insight and settled mind, the master would drive away things which hindered the student's perception. No wonder masters in that and other traditions would encourage students to visualize and verbalize something which would invoke a vibrant and peaceful yet non discursive state. No wonder other masters in various traditions instructed their students to develop serene trust in the vows and compassion of the Buddha(s).

So, rather than simply telling their students to do exactly what their teacher(s) told them to do verbatim, an effective teacher tries to discern what will be of use. That doesn't mean they won't have common methods, but that they won't apply them in the same way for each student. I would hope, for example, that even in Shin, where one moves toward trust in Amida's vow and develops "deep hearing" through recitation of that Buddha's name, that a teacher would recognize the different needs of those who may not yet truly see saying the nembutsu as a form of gratitude and those who do. That is, whatever tool one may find helpful at a given moment, it is just that. Which would normally bring us to the popularized phrases about not mistaking fingers pointing to the moon (sacred traditions and their practices) for the moon itself (reality as it is) or perhaps about ditching the raft (similar lesson). But that would just be a little too... too... well, too much. Instead, I just want to bring it back to this--

For some, you start by emphasizing being settled in Buddhanature, which in turn allows you to truly change how you see the world. For others, you may have your views of the world shaken up, which allows you to then be settled in Buddhanature. But no matter where you start, I suspect that this dialectic never truly ends as each reaffirms and sustains the other, because they are both manifestations of the same. Hence the common affirmations in Buddhism in general that you cannot "achieve" Bodhi nor can you ever "locate" Buddhanature.

Which is why my favorite teaching, the one that has been most effective so far in revealing and reminding me of both aspects of this single truth, is one that was given to me by the Venerable Shih Ying-Fa...

"Never think that you've got it, and never doubt that you do."