Hulk Zen Banner Zen

If you are familiar with me then you know that I have a distinct distaste for the term "zen" used as a descriptor of other things (ie. the zen of marketing) as well as the term Zen to infer a mystical ethereal quality, which has been popularized in the west by various self-help zombies and new age gurus.

Now part of this is funny since I often title things with the "Zen and the..." in my blogs. Although, granted, I do try to make the relation funny or at least ironic when I do it. Whether or not I suceed in that endevour will be judged by history.

However the concept of "mystical" Zen still annoys the crap out of me. Zen is constantly inferred to grant practicioners with some mystic or supernatural qualities (or at least the teachers or purveors of wisdom are assumed to) or that even the concept of Zen, while complicated, is endowed with some ethereal foundation. Nothing about Zen is mystical, spooky or supernatural. It just isn't. You may want it to be soooo much but still...it isn't. Deal with it.

You can even pretend. You can give your practice a really cool sounding name like "Dark Zen". Oooooo...I feel all special and mythic when you make it sound like that. Maybe I should call my own practice something cool like "Epic Zen" or "Hulk Zen".

ZEN SMASH!!!

Wow, that would be awesome. That would make my mundane little practice seem so much more interesting. It could even get me some followers and maybe even a book deal. Imagine that...all I have to do is lie alittle and stretch the truth abit and grow my hair longer, maybe get a cool goatee, Oh! and black, i need to wear lots of black. Black everything. Maybe learn some kung-fu. That should help....

Lets not make this more than it actually is...a meditation school.

Zen is quiet and gradual. It is an abbreviation. A form and a style of meditation. Why it got abbreviated in the first place, I have no idea. Who cares.

Zen is loud and abrupt. Sure, why not? It is sometimes and sometimes it isn't. But quiet or loud, gradual or abrupt, simple or complex; the one thing Zen is not is fucking magical. Sorry.

...anyway...I thought I could provide a brief outline of Zen Buddhism and Zen practice. In my opinion (humble as it is) if you function in the way below you are on the Zen Buddhist path. Whether or not you want to call yourself one is entirely up to you. Personally, to me, Zen isn't a religion in the classical sense - it is a path - one that can mix with any other religion or belief system.

Meditation:

• All Buddhist schools focus in some way on meditation. In some the primary form is scholarly study of sutras (meditative in a way), others utilize visualizations (mental or actual physical representations of buddhas or bodhisattvas), mundas (positions of hand or body) and mantras ("power" words or phrases, nembutsu).


• Zen focuses on zazen or seated meditation. Meditation can be silent with no-thought (shikintaza) or with a focus (koans, riddles). Most, if not all, schools of Zen focus on breathing as the first step in mediative practice.


• Where Zen really moves away from the rest is that the zazen is only a first step in Zen practice. It is more than quieting and focusing the mind. It is more than finding the still point - that area of your practice where we can sit, presently, in the moment. The goal then is to transfer that feeling to all aspects of life. It should be there when we laugh, cry, work, play and eat.


• This is the reason that kinhin (walking meditation), samu (working meditation) and chanting are used in Zen practice. In each of these activities we focus the same attention. We process less during the tasks but reflect more.


• The best description is your reflection in a pool of water (cliche!). When the water is disturbed and waves are appearing the reflection in the water is difficult to make out. But once the water clears you can see that reflection perfectly. These waves will always happen in your mind as well as in the pool. But once we get that reflection for the first time it never goes away. We now know what we are looking at no matter how obscured it gets...that is our buddha-nature.
  

No illusions,

Return of the daughter of the samsara baby

Hi....I am 1 now. That means with this singular year of experience under my belt I will utterly and irrevocably destroy my parent's sense of self.

I am daddy's Zen...

whether he likes it or not.

but he usually likes it. 'Cept at 4 a.m. when I wants to dance.

The Creed of Buddha - Ambedkar Syle!

Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar was born an "untouchable" in the Indian state of Maharashtra, worked on Indian Independence from Britain as well as for rights of the untouchables and towards an end of the caste system.

While Buddhism was long since defunct in India, B.R. Ambedkar chose it as a possible religious identity for the untouchables as caste prejudice was too dominate in Hinduism and Islam, Christianity and Sikhism were too embroiled in the politics of the time.

Before his death in 1956, B.R. Ambedkar publicly converted to Buddhism and led an audience of 380,000 to take the Pancha Sila "5 Precepts" of lay practitioners.

He wrote his Buddhist Creed as follows: (I usually like to comment on specific aspects of the excerpts I post, but I think that the aspects of this creed that I disagree with will be obvious. More importantly I think that this shows what a standard "agnostic" or "non-spiritual" view of Buddhism looks like. Not necessarily discounting god but instead relegating the concept to others and stating its unimportance in Buddhism.)


The Creed of the Buddha:

• Religion is necessary for a free society.
• Not every religion is worth having.
• Religion must relate to facts of life and not to theories and speculations about god or soul or heaven or Earth.
• It is wrong to make god the center of religion.
• It is wrong to make salvation of the soul as the center of religion.
• It is wrong to make animal sacrifices to be the center of religion.
• Real religion lives in the heart of man and not in religious texts.
• Man and morality must be the center of religion. If not then religion is just cruel superstition.
• It is not enough for morality to be the ideal of life. Since there is no god it must become the law of life.
• The function of religion is to reconstruct the world and to make it happy and not to explain its origin or end.
• That the unhappiness in the world is due to conflict of interest and the only way to solve it is to follow the Ashtanga Marga (the Buddhist Eightfold Path).
• That private ownership of property brings power to one class and sorrow to another.
• That it is necessary for the good of society that this sorrow be removed by removing its cause.
• All human beings are equal.
• Worth and not birth is the measure of man.
• What is important is high ideals and not noble birth.
• Fellowship to all must never be abandoned.
• Everyone has a right to learn: Learning is as necessary for man to live as food is.
• Learning without character is dangerous
• Nothing is infallible. Nothing is binding forever. Everything is subject to inquiry and examination.
• Nothing is final.
• Every thing is subject to law of causation.
• Nothing is permanent. Everything is subject to change. Being is always becoming.
• War is wrong unless it is for truth and justice.
• The victor has duties towards the vanquished.

[text adapted from the writings of B.R. Ambedkar on his readings of the Tripitaka]

[image from http://www.ambedkartimes.org/drAMD.html]

Gary Busey, Western Buddhism and Zen

Great blog by the zennist here on Zen and Buddhism in the west and how much it sucks. I don't agree with all of the points he made but I do agree that Zen has very little place in either the mystic or self-help circles that it tends to run in.

I would like to disagree alittle more but something about the zennist scares me. I don't know what it is, exactly. For some reason I picture him looking like Gary Busey. That should be enough to scare anyone.

No illusions,

Koans and....uh..what?

Image from http://mojo1000.com/1000cuts/koan-1000-jaws.html

Below from http://flatbedsutra.com/flatbedsutrazenblogger/ Ted mentioned this...and I thinks he brings up an important point... (Red and italicized are me)

A visiting Zen monk asked, “In the Rinzai School of Zen they introspect koans. In the Soto sect we are taught that introspecting koans in meditation only leads to intellectual understanding and diverts us from true, objectless meditation. Do you think that koans are even necessary in Zen?” Actually, both Soto and Rinzai schools utilize koans. It depends upon the roshi and the level of the student to determine how and when they are used. Most consider "empty-mind meditation" or Shikantaza to be too difficult for beginners and start with easier, less frustrating forms. It depends upon the student. One way is not better than the other.

Louie Wing said, “Zen without koans would be like Christianity without Christ. The koan literature and practice methods are really the only major factor that distinguishes Zen from the other Mahayana Buddhist schools. If you are attracted to a path that does not utilize koans, fine, but why call it Zen?” Well, as described below, zen is not defined by any physical practice (koans, meditation, archery, whatever). It is defined by how we do the things in our life. Thus, meditating, does not make you a zen buddhist but doing something wholeheartedly and compassionately does.

The monk said, “We don’t disregard koans; we just don’t use them for
objects of meditation.”

Louie Wing said, “If you distinguish meditation from no meditation then you turn meditation itself into an object.” Yes, that is an awesome way of putting it. Don't objectify, just do it.

Zen isn't defined by koans anymore than it is defined by zazen or by the sutras or anything else that you may see buddhists do. Zen is defined by its approach to the tools we use. In essence, everything is a tool for realizing enlightenment; whether it is meditation, sutras, koans, roshis, work, family, gardening or doing the dishes. They are all the same. What differs is how much attention we put towards these activities. And at that point who cares if it is termed Zen or not. It doesn't matter what you call it, the end result is the same - Enlightenment.

This insistence on naming or categorizing tools just leads to the annoying statement "zen and the art of.......whatever" or "Zen and ....". A better statement would just be *insert activity here* because if done correctly (with mindfulness and moderation) the action itself is zen and is no different from anything else.

Don't get attached to things because they seem more "zen-like". Just do what you need to do when you need to do it. If you fish then FISH. If you run then RUN. If you meditate then MEDITATE. If you concentrate on koans then DO IT.

Just please don't tell me or anyone else that because you do it then it is zen and that others should do it as well. It simply doesn't work that way. We are too different.

Some of my most "zen-like" experiences have been playing with my daughter in the morning because she is up and any chance at zazen was shot to hell. But I see the action of playing with my daughter just as integral to my practice as sitting in zazen. No difference, just the same. All those actions of mine are all just tools towards my practice (not really Eliza, Daddy's just kidding). I know that sounds so cold but it is true. It doesn't mean that those actions don't illicit an emotional response.

Take home message: Don't get attached to things. They are tools. If koans work then use them, if not then don't. In the end, if my axe breaks while using it, I don't build an alter to it and revere it. I throw it away and find a different axe. Maybe similar, maybe different but its usefulness is over.

No illusions,

People actually read this?

I am floored that this blog it listed here as one of the "50 best blogs for Zen-like living".

First of all - I can't believe that people read this. Second of all - I'm running with "hardcore zen" from Brad Warner and "zen under the skin" from Chalip. Two blogs that I read religiously (hee) and respect very much.

and lastly...NUMBER 50! I squeeked in? Read the description below. Very nice.

It is also interesting that I am listed in the "Spiritual Zen" portion of the post. Which is funny because I consider most of what I say to be practical in nature and based upon reflection and observation rather than dogma and superstition. But then again, maybe reflection and objective observation are spiritual and the dogmatic reading of text is materialistic.

50. Sweep the dust, Push the dirt - This down-and-dirty site explores “Buddhism without bull#@#@,” offering thoughts on what enlightenment means in the 21st century.

Cheers,

DT Suzuki and the Question of God

Choosing belief over doubt has profound, eternal consequences for practicing Christians, while for religious Jews and Moslems alike, faith in God is the cornerstone of righteousness. Yet elsewhere in the world, revered spiritual traditions exist in which the struggle between belief and unbelief is of little importance. Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki is an eloquent international spokesman for one of these traditions. A widely traveled Japanese scholar, Suzuki taught in that country's university system, translated several Eastern philosophical works into English. Through his books and lectures, Suzuki became Zen's leading voice in America during the mid-20th century. His Introduction to Zen Buddhism, published in 1956, not only offers an overview of the historical background of Zen philosophy and practice, but succeeds in conveying something of its seemingly inexpressible essence.

From An Introduction to Zen Buddhism

Is Zen a religion? It is not a religion in the sense that the term is popularly understood; for Zen has no God to worship, no ceremonial rites to observe, no future abode to which the dead are destined, and, last of all, Zen has no soul whose welfare is to be looked after by somebody else and whose immortality is a matter of intense concern with some people. Zen is free from all these dogmatic and "religious" encumbrances.

As to all those images of various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas and Devas and other beings that one comes across in Zen temples, they are like so many pieces of wood or stone or metal; they are like camellias, azaleas, or stone lanterns in my garden. Make obeisance to the camellia now in full bloom, and worship it if you like, Zen would say. There is as much religion in so doing as in bowing to the various Buddhist gods, or as sprinkling holy water, or as participating in the Lord's Supper. All those pious deeds considered to be meritorious or sanctifying by most so-called religiously minded people are artificialities in the eyes of Zen. It boldly declares that "the immaculate Yogins do not enter Nirvana and the precept-violating monks do not go to hell". This, to ordinary minds, is a contradiction of the common law of moral life, but herein lies the truth and the life of Zen. Zen is the spirit of a man. Zen believes in its inner purity and goodness. Whatever is superadded or violently torn away, injures the wholesomeness of the spirit. Zen, therefore, is emphatically against all religious conventionalism...

The truth is, Zen is extremely elusive as far as its outward aspects are concerned; when you think you have caught a glimpse of it, it is no more there; from afar it looks so approachable, but as soon as you come near it you see it even further away from you than before. Unless, therefore, you devote some years of earnest study to the understanding of its primary principles, it is not to be expected that you will begin to have a fair grasp of Zen.

"The way to ascend unto God is to descend into one's self"; — these are Hugo's words. "If thou wishest to search out the deep things of God, search out the depths of thine own spirit"; — this comes from Richard of St. Victor. When all these deep things are searched out there is after all no "self" where you can descend, there is no "spirit", no "God" whose depths are to be fathomed. Why? Because Zen is a bottomless abyss. Zen declares, though in somewhat different manner: "Nothing really exists throughout the triple world (past, present and future); where do you wish to see the mind (or spirit, *hsin*)? The four elements are all empty in their ultimate nature; where could the Buddha's abode be? — but lo! the truth is unfolding itself right before your eye. This is all there is to it — and indeed nothing more!" A minute's hesitation and Zen is irrevocably lost. All the Buddhas of the past, present, and future may try to make you catch it once more, and yet it is a thousand miles away. "Mind-murder" and "self-intoxication", forsooth! Zen has no time to bother itself with such criticisms.

The critics may mean that the mind, by Zen, enters a state of unconsciousness, and that when this obtains, the favourite Buddhist doctrine of Emptiness, Sunyata, is realized, where the subject is not conscious of an objective world or of himself, being lost in one vast emptiness, whatever this may be. This interpretation again fails to hit Zen aright. It is true that there are some such expressions in Zen as might suggest this kind of interpretation, but to understand Zen we must take a leap here. The "vast emptiness" must be traversed. The subject must be awakened from a state of unconsciousness if he does not wish to be buried alive. Zen is attained only when "self-intoxication" is abandoned and the "drunkard" is really awakened to his deeper self. If the mind is ever to be "murdered", leave the work in the hand of Zen; for it is Zen that will restore the murdered and lifeless one into the state of eternal life. "Be born again, be awakened from the dream, rise from the death, O ye drunkards!" Zen would exclaim. Do not try, therefore, to see Zen with the eyes bandaged; and your hands are too unsteady to take hold of it. And remember I am not indulging in figures of speech.

I might multiply many such criticisms if it were necessary, but I hope that the above have sufficiently prepared the reader's mind for the following, more positive statements concerning Zen. The basic idea of Zen is to come in touch with the inner workings of our being, and to do so in the most direct way possible, without resorting to anything external or superadded. Therefore, anything that has the semblance of an external authority is rejected by Zen. Absolute faith is placed in a man's own inner being. For whatever authority there is in Zen, all comes from within. This is true in the strictest sense of the word. Even the reasoning faculty is not considered final or absolute. On the contrary, it hinders the mind from coming into the directest communication with itself. The intellect accomplishes its mission when it works as an intermediary, and Zen has nothing to do with the intermediary except when it desires to communicate itself to others. For this reason all the scriptures are merely tentative and provisory; there is in them no finality. The central fact of life as it is lived is what Zen aims to grasp, and this in the most direct and most vital manner. Zen professes itself to be the spirit of Buddhism, but in fact it is the spirit of all religions and philosophies. When Zen is thoroughly understood, absolute peace of mind is attained, and a man lives as he ought to live. What more may we hope? ...

From An Introduction to Zen Buddhism by Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, edited by Ch. Humphreys, with a foreword by C.G. Jung. Copyright © 1991 Grove Atlantic, Inc.

Ok, I am not as articulate as DT Suzuki but I don't really expect myself to be. But I think that a summary is in order. Here it is... again.

• First of all, no god. Not because such an entity does not exist but because we don't know and it does not matter.


• Second, no scripture. Scripture is a blockade to our own understanding. We become dependant on written words because they give us the illusion of understanding.


• NO ILLUSIONS!


• Add what you need, just don't expect everyone else to either need it or to want it.

You can call this what ever you want.