Failing Practice, Frail Practice: Examinations of Homeowner Zen

Inspired by a recent post on Progressive Buddhism , Digital Zendo as well as C4Chaos's #openpractice tag on Twitter I thought I would quickly review and examine my own practice in an open forum. Equally inspired by my thesis advisor, I will attempt to keep it less than 500 words.

I consider myself a Zen Buddhist. This preference stems more from the fact that it is one of the few sects I have direct experience in actual practice than a real solid attachment to the teachings.

With only a small Buddhist population in my area, I rely largely upon books, blogs and podcasts for my Dharma. Many are accessible and based upon the Pali Canon while others discern more personal expositions into the practice. While I appreciate both types and the guidance from either can be helpful, I find that my own practice is beginning to wane slightly.

I make an active attempt at practice every morning. I prepare for zazen with some yoga stretches and a quick workout (this old bag of bones is not as flexible as it once was) and then open my altar and sit for 15 minutes (I used to be able to devote more but with child and work at 8:00, I am limited in time). Then I chant the Maka Hannya Haramitta Shingyo repeat my vows and listen to a relevant podcast or engage in some working meditation (dishes always need washing and floors always need sweeping).

Practice with my sangha is where I have been particularly lax. I usually attend a Sunday 9:00 zazen and chanting service at the Laughing Teabowl Zendo (a grass-roots Zen group that meets in Rapid City). It is usually a small group of 8-12 that is organized by two lay-practitioners (both have jukai). We meet in a yoga studio and operate the service as is standard in a Soto Zen temple. We take turns in opening the altar, timing zazen and striking the kesu, announcing kinhin, striking the mokugyo and leading the chants. We are loosely affiliated with the Great Mountain Zen Center in Lafayette, Colorado and have two weekend sesshins a year attended by Gerry Shishin Wick Roshi and Ilia Shinko Perez Sensei. Both qualified teachers (although I have yet to attend a seshin) have developed The Great Heart Way (a secular approach to Buddhism – Nothing new here).

At one point my home-practice was a panacea for the changes I was expecting in my life: A new, more challenging job, a child on the way and changes in my academic study. However, while a sublime experience in the preparation for these changes; my Zen practice has become superficial as of late and not holding the same depth as it was previously. Did the practice help me in the preparation for changes but not in the execution and follow through of those same changes? Did this bag of wind blow too hard and I am now simply out of breathe and waiting to inhale again? Or for all of my big words on home-practice, is my own practice deficient and lacking and needs guidance?

510 words.

Cheers,

PS - Kyle much love for the inclusion of "Sweep the Dust, Push the Dirt" in your "My Twelve: Best Buddhist Blogs by Individual Practitioners". I feel that I am undeservedly in lofty company. All of the blogs you listed were from intelligent and insightful practitioners (my personal favorites being Jaye Seiho Morris and Mujaku) as well as some others that I was not familiar with but am very happy to now discover and annoy. Cheers for the inclusion on the list!

shit. that is now way over 500 words.

Buddhism finds home in some Churches

From the Denver Post: Buddhism stengthens ties to Church

What in the recent past seemed exotic and foreign is now almost routinely folded into "the fold." Buddhism is not only accepted as a mainstream American religion, it is a path increasingly trod by faithful Christians and Jews who infuse Eastern spiritual insights and practices such as meditation into their own religions.

I've stated before that most of my practicing sangha are primarily Christians who utilize Buddhism or meditation in addition to or as a supplement to their primary Christian faith. It is encouraging that at least some churches accept this as an important aspect of spirituality that is often found lacking in Christianity - the comptemplative.

The Pew Forum's Religious Landscape Survey in 2007 found that seven in 10 Americans who have a religion believe there is more than one path to salvation. A growing number of people are contemplating more than one each. And they are contemplating contemplation itself.

Yay! 7 out of 10 Americans are not close-minded idiots. I am impressed but doubtful with this number. Would all those differing paths be Christian, perhaps? Hmm?

There are Jubus — Jews who bring Buddhism into their practice of Judaism — and Bujus, who are Buddhists with Jewish parents. Then there are UUbus, or Unitarian Universalist Buddhists, and Ebus, or Episcopalian Buddhists. There are Zen Catholics.

Damn, do we need to label everything? "No, sir! I am not a Buddhist...I'm a Buju". Yeah, I'll being saying that out-loud anytime soon. Zen Catholic does have a fancy ring to it though.

"There is a definite trend and movement that will not be reversed," said Ruben Habito, a laicized Jesuit priest, Zen master and professor of world religions at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. "We are in a new spiritual age, an inter-religious age."

Judaism, Catholicism and Islam have rich traditions in contemplative practices, yet these had all but disappeared from everyday congregational life. For many Christians cut off from the past, or alienated from the faith of their upbringing, Buddhism has served as the bridge to ancient wisdom.

"We sensed that the Eastern religions, with their highly developed spirituality, had something we didn't have," Keating said. "In the last generation, 10 to 20 years, some didn't even think there was a Christian spirituality, just rules — do's and don'ts and dogma they didn't find spiritually nourishing. It's important to recover the mystical aspects of the gospel."

No problem there...rules suck and get in the way of everything. I like the blurring of the edges between spiritual and religious outlets. This is even occurring within Western Buddhism itself - practitioners are attempting to combine different vehicles together to better serve our own spiritual needs. Some complain that this is going against the "true" Buddhist teachings or blur the edges too much to the point that it is degrading the Dharma. For the most part historically different vehicles, sects and schools adapted teachings from each other and monasteries would often be filled with both Theravada and Mahayana monks. Evidently, some even included Christian monks and missionaries (if you really want the citation, I can look it up but seriously, its a freaking blog).

A great blog to check out this blog of a great melding of Christianity and Zen - Although granted it's Sweden...

Christian contemplative practices were lost or weakened in the Protestant Reformation and later in the Great Awakening — religious revolutions in colonial America that advanced the themes of Protestantism.

I am so psyched that I can just sit back and blame Kirby. Damn you Kirby, you f-ed up Christianity. I'm kidding Kirby, no need to comment here....ever.

The Buddha was non-dogmatic and non-authoritarian — a compassionate guide, not a god, Buddhist texts say. The Buddha was silent on the subjects of a supreme being and the immortality of the soul.

"Buddhism is more about spiritual practice than believing in certain doctrines," Habito said. "There are more definitive and particular requirements for saying 'I am a Christian.' " Yet the fusion of strong Buddhist elements with mainstream Christian religion has created a backlash, Simmer- Brown said.

*Heavy Sigh* - Well, no wrong. Buddhism does have dogma and sure as hell is authoritarian (currently reading about Togagawa Japan) but the preferred Western view tends to be that Buddhism lacks all those things that makes Christianity unpalatable to many.

In "The Three Pillars of Zen" Kapleau describes 5 levels of Zen Practice. This melding falls well within the second level "Gedo" Zen or "Outside Way" Zen where you incorporate Zen spiritual practice into another spiritual framework to further and enhance your spiritual path.

Overall, an encouraging article with a positive message.

Cheers,

Is Western Buddhism Neutered? Part III - The Zen Fallacy

From William's "Toward a Social History of Zen"

Through the study of...prayer temples and parish temples, this book proposes a three part explanation for the growth of Soto Zen Sect...namely the ability of Soto Zen priest to attend to the needs of both the dead and the living while successfully negotiating government directives.


To arrive at this conclusion, Buddhism is treated, first and foremost, as a religion (a complex of institutions, doctrines and rituals) not a philosophy. "Lived religion" in contrast to a timeless philosophy, compels us to examine the interrelations among religious lives of actual persons...[through] popular literature, ritual manuals, villager's diaries, government records and stone markers...in a sense this prioritizes the study of Buddhists rather than Buddhism....it is the study of people's lives and the ideas that inform them.

So far, a great and interesting book. Some of comments brought up in its introduction do affect the way that I think most of us view Buddhism - Zen in particular and Western Zen even more so. We gather much of what we know from the Great Zen Masters as well as from the koan collections. We read sutras and meditate faithfully but with all of this we have succeeded in ungrounding our practice. Our practice comes from the lofty attributes of these great Master's deeds and thoughts but what is being, seemingly, proven is that this is not the base that Buddhism should sit upon...

Nor should it sit primarily upon the Buddha and his teachings. It is based on us and on how we (in the past as well as present) adapt those teachings to our daily lives.

However, the people at the center of this study are not exalted monks recorded in the annals of Zen History...Accounts of great Zen Masters and their doctrines have often been strung together and then published as a History of Zen _ an approach labeled as the "String of Pearls Fallacy". Without reference to non monastic traditions and popular practices, these studies masquerade as a full representation of Zen history.

This "string of pearls" fallacy extends far into Western and Modern Zen. We, for the most part, take the works of the "Masters" as our primary resource into the study and practice of Zen as well as Buddhism in general, and that is all. We mark the works of Dogen, Huineng as supremely inspired and important works of transcendence and then extend that to the current "Masters". We extol the Roshi and Zen Master ideal to the point that we are creating our own (from Shunryu Suzuki and Kapleau to Wilber and Shinzen Young). Nothing is wrong with the content of the teaching but the emphasis placed on them is unilateral and over-inflated. For the most part, Buddhism in Asian countries have moved past this idolization while here in the West, most sanghas (apart from a few, I suppose Engaged Buddhism begins to move toward this) do not actively engage the community. The modern history of Zen is being written through the words of a few elite individuals. Williams suggests that we...

examine the other side of Zen - the lives of ordinary clerics and lay-people - the "little people"...which challenges some of the traditional perspectives in the study of Buddhism...aiming to shift our attention from an exclusive focus on outstanding, exceptional religious individuals and their ideologies to the daily practices of the majority of ordinary Japanese Buddhists. I am not suggesting that doctrinal dimensions of religion, or its exemplary figures, are of not importance, but rather that we question our tendency to place them at the center of what constitutes the Buddhist tradition.

This is where, I think, Western Buddhism fails and fails horribly. We tend to disregard the cultural aspects of Buddhism - the Buddhism of the lay-person and the householder. Even the Western Buddhism that we consider to be "connected" to Buddhism's past (monastics, Lay-Ordained) only attach to the larger, obtuse doctrinal writings and philosophical expositions. That isn't culture. Well, it is culture but it is a very obscure and polished version of a very vibrant and human culture and it is what we are building the Western Tradition upon. Not upon the vibrant and human versions of Buddhist culture but the obscure and polished. This has lead to the creation of the archetypal "virtuously arrogant" American monk that sneers at poor state of Buddhism in other countries versus the "pure" version presented (or re-born) here. This has stemmed (at least I think so) from a disconnect between Western Zen and the standard "from the trenches" Zen practice and purpose.

...to suggest that they [the Zen Masters] or their doctrinal formulations are central to the Buddhist religion, or that the broader social contexts in which they existed is irrelevant, is to seriously misconstrue not only the Soto Zen tradition, but perhaps the Buddhist tradition in general...

Amen, brother.

Is Western Buddhism Neutered? Part II - Buddhism as non-religion religion

Recently posted by the Angry Asian Buddhist and I agree with the sarcasm. I tend to get annoyed at people when they say that my religion is not a religion. But I think that the reasons why people say this should be examined...

I’m 100% fine with people who insist that Buddhism isn’t a religion. But if they’re going to make that stand, then they should be fine with telling self-professed Buddhists that because Buddhism isn’t a religion then… Freedom of religion doesn’t apply to Buddhism. Buddhism doesn’t belong in interreligious dialogue. Monks and nuns should not be eligible for visas as religious workers. Buddhism doesn’t belong in religious studies. Persecuted Buddhists shouldn’t get religious amnesty.I’m probably preaching to the choir here. But in all honesty, if I find such a person who’s willing to do all that, I want to meet them. I want to bring my video camera too.

Hah! Funny the second time too! Seriously this whole religion/non-religion thing spreads around like a virus. With one camp insisting that the other camp is following (or not following) a religion (or non-religion). It starts to get silly. Hell, I used to consider a combination of Robitussin and Jim Henson's The Muppet Show as a religion and we're going to argue over this? Although, this distinction does some origin. I personally think this issue stems from some of the reasons that many individuals turn to Buddhism in the first place - reasons which turn out to be false. And what do you do when you discover that you were mistaken? Blame the people who may have had it right in the first place.

A deep dissatisfaction with the Judeo-Christian religion or an initial interest in agnosticism/atheism.

The lack of a creator god is a huge reason for the switch over to Buddhism from Christianity as well as the lack of an "official" holy text. Rather in Buddhism the emphasis is on a canon of works as well as supplemental works from other commentators and Masters. It then comes as a large surprise when practitioners learn that while no creator per se there are several celestial entities floating about dependant upon the specific school. The same thing applies to the Buddhist canon - it is far more than a vague roadmap to some Buddhist schools.

Buddhism is all about the individual and not about the group.

We would like it to be since we place so much emphasis in the West on individualism. Many of the aspects of the philosophy associated with Buddhism gives a sense of an amorphous, free floating belief system with rare intersections into society and politics. Of course this is utter bunk but it does seem to be how many new to Buddhism tend to view it.

Thus it comes as quite a shock when they learn that many organizations operating in the United States (Buddhism Churches of America) as well as those that have operated for a long time in Asia (the Soto school of Buddhism comes to mind). These have a well-defined hierarchy and priesthood. They perform the perfunctory role of religious educator, purveyor of services as well as arbitrator of rules and regulations - just as in any church the westerner may be familiar with.

Man, I can't even pop over to Twitter for a break without seeing this - "Buddhism is not an organized religion, it is an organized way of life without all the beliefs of a religion." or "Atheism is defined by not believing in deity. Buddhism is an atheistic religion (so are many others)." or "I have a hard time with religions. Buddhism comes the closest, only because to me it's not a "religion" so much as a philosophy."

While the above are true in a way. Buddhism is a way of life and does not believe in a divine creator it does have a massive amount of hierarchy and a defined cosmology. But to be fair, I do believe that Buddhism does take into account philosophy much more than other religions but it doesn't change the fact that it is,well, a religion.

So does this make Buddhism as a religion bad? No. Does it make Buddhism as a non-religion good? No. It just serves to highlight the difference in viewpoints - One a Westerner with no Buddhist experience just beginning to walk the path versus a person who grew up in a culture with an established Buddhist tradition. One views and desires a Buddhism free from all hierarchical entanglements and the other is more familiar with Buddhism functioning as a religion as well as a philosophical tool and cultural base. That religion is going to contain a cosmology, as well as spiritual realms and deities. It remains within us to determine which are useful for our own lives and which are not. If you wish to believe in a literal belief in the afterlife and deities then by all means do so. If you wish to view these as analogies and symbolism then you also have that right.

The problem lies when one insists that the other is a perverted or lessened form of the other.

Personally, I don't see too much in the way of one being better than the other. My own initial experience was with Buddhism in an academic or philosophical realm. Beliefs and the structures of those beliefs are presented in very academic and cold terms (read "faith free" or pragmatic). Like studying any philosophy, it is based largely on logic. A very "here is the outline and now apply to personal and daily life" sort of approach to it. Great, I learned some of the philosophical branch of Buddhism and next to nothing about why and how we practice and study. Nothing of the personal and communal aspect of Buddhism and certainly nothing of the history or culture of Buddhism - nothing of faith and belief (for the best definition of faith that I have seen in while, click the link). It was similar to learning a dead language. A very interesting topic but one that has long since passed from common usage and practice. ("No one actually believes that do they?")

So, yeah, I walked through that stage of it, myself, but was rather turned off by the view and moved to other studies and interests. Until, some time later, I turned back to the study of Buddhism with a more worldly and religious view. I began to view Buddhism it as more a pattern of belief and faith rather than by philosophical constructs and metaphysical discussions.

But I think the disconnect exists when people insist on what Buddhism is. I have gotten into the habit of stating it as a religion and the sneakily include in parenthesis (non-religion) because it really comes down to what Buddhism does for you. Many (myself included) view it as a religion with all the trappings that any religion brings into your life (including but not limited to - fundamentalism, differing sects, arguments, persecutions, entitlement and snobbery) rather than as a guiding philosophy with all the trappings that it brings into your life (including but not limited to - snobbery, entitlement, persecutions, arguments, differing sects and fundamentalism). Are you picking up on my point here? The difference is minimal and mainly rests in the person and how they express their beliefs (religious or not).

I began like many others and took the pragmatic aspects of Buddhism in an attempt to adapt them into my daily life in the hopes of making myself happier and my life more enriching. This included the reading of secular and philosophical books on Buddhism as well as a pragmatic, non-religion viewpoint on what I was practicing. But an amazing thing happened on my way to the stupa - I began to see the forest from the trees and I slowly began moving towards a faith based mode of worship. Different from my Christian upbringing and past but worship and faith-based nonetheless.

Many enter the river through different streams and nothing, nothing makes Buddhism less attractive as a religious practice then when others state that what they are doing is not Buddhism. Just because it is secular rather than religious, practical rather than faith-based does not mean that it is inferior.

And before the Modern Buddhists start snickering, I would like to mention that the reverse is true. Get off of your secular high-horse and realize that just because someone engages in Buddhist worship and religion, it does not make them any less rational or deserving of respect. To snicker and degrade those that are on the SAME PATH AS YOU because they choose to believe in some symbols that you do not believe in or in some aspect of magic, miracle or mantra makes you just as bad as those zealots that you dislike so much.

In the long run we all go back to the same place...the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. The jewels are the same they just shine differently for different people. Get over it. Scott Mitchell stated it well in his review of the book "North America Buddhists in a Social Context"...[this is specifically the review of the chapter "The Emergence of a New Buddhism: Continuity and Change" by Coleman]

...On the contrary, he constantly compares these so-called "new Buddhists" to "Asian Buddhists," setting up the latter as a straw man to the positive and creative innovations of the former. According to Coleman, "new Buddhists" are embracing the positive effects of modernity whereas Asian Buddhists are "simply born into the faith" and have imported their "cultural baggage" to the West. Further, Coleman claims that "new Buddhism" bears a "striking likeness to the original 'Buddhism' of Siddhartha Gautama" (p. 186), since "new Buddhists" are largely converts as were the Buddha's original disciples. This is an unverifiable claim. As we have no direct access to the teaching of the Buddha, nor to the "conversion experience" of Ananda or Mahakasyapa or Maudgalyayana, how can we compare their Buddhism to that of disaffected white liberal Protestants from Northern California?

The point he brings up is that the conflict between "converts" and those with a cultural connection to Buddhism is a non-issue. By that I am not belittling the differences between to two groups, nor marginalizing their viewpoints. Instead I want to point out that it is a largely contrived difference. The main difference is how much the religion is attached to the culture. Converts may not have a cultural attachment to the religion while those that are born into it usually do. However, that difference is not only between the two groups as described but also exist within each group separately. Many born into the religion make Buddhism a part of their cultural identity and many do not. I was born into a Greek Orthodox family. The Greeks and Greek-Americans do not differentiate between their culture and their religion. The religion is an integral a part of their national identity and heritage as important as Souflaki and the Parthenon.

The point that I am attempting to make, and I hope it is clear, is that a statement against a group because of the culture that surrounds their belief system is a statement against that culture.

I am a converted Buddhist. I was originally Christian. I am now a Greek Buddhist. My Christian heritage is not baggage as would be inferred above but instead is an important part of my make-up and background. The same goes with someone from Thailand, Japan, Korea or Tibet. To say that one's culture is baggage is ignorant at best and at worst racist.

I really hope that we are not in the midst of developing a Fundamentalist group of Buddhists. Because nothing neuters religion (and Buddhism) more than exclusivity, dip-shits and douche-bags.

Cheers,

Householder Zen: Zen out of the Monastery

Sometimes lessons in practice can come in the strangest and most mundane places. Digging through my pile of books I came across a Zen cookbook that I never read but decided to flip through. I liked this passage...

How to Crack a Hard-boiled Egg

During one of Roshi's formal talks, we were given a lesson in the matter of cracking a hard-boiled egg Zen style. In his inimitable fashion, Roshi demonstrated how most of us had cracked the shell of our egg that morning at breakfast, and then showed us how a Rinzai Zen student should crack an egg. Not as we have done, with multiple taps on a table, but with one loud thump. Pierce the silence and be done with it.

Next morning what a difference, Crack. Pow. Bang. And then quiet. No tentative taps. A tap sufficient to crack an egg, constasting with the silence and somehow not disturbing it. Simple. Elegant. Brisk. Determined. The Rinzai approach to cracking an egg.

Rinzai students crack an egg in one swift movement. Much like their practice. The ego is shattered by following the teachings of the Buddha, zazen and koans study. No bull-shit and no mollycoddling. Unlike an egg though which can be cracked quickly with one hit but no preparation; we require time and practice to prepare ourselves for our eventual "cracking" and then the silence follows.

But it begs the question - How would a Soto Zen student crack an egg? I would expect that they would coddle, hug and nuture the egg until the shell just sloughs off.

Two schools with similar practice but different views on the shedding and casting off of the ego.

Cheers,

Buddhism and Hellenic Culture - Alexander the Bodhisattva

I recently picked up some material online about "Greco-Buddhism". So being of Greek ancestry as well as a practicing Buddhist, this would obviosly strike me as, well, awesome. I summarized some of what I found. If anyone knows of any primary sources that I could go to please let me know in the comments. An interesting thing that I found was that mostly the authors state that Hellenic culture may have had an effect on Buddhism rather than the reverse. This tends to make me believe that it is more of a Western scholarly pursuit rather than an Eastern one. In all likelihood the effects of this cultural mash-up would have effected both sides rather than one dominating.

Greco-Buddhism is the religious combination of the Hellenic culture of Classical Greece and Buddhism, which developed over a period of close to 800 years in Central Asia in the area corresponding to modern-day Afghanistan and Pakistan, between the 4th century BC and the 5th century AD. Greco-Buddhism seemingly influenced the artistic development of Buddhism, and in particular Mahayana Buddhism, before it was adopted by Central and Northeastern Asia from the 1st century AD, and spread to China, Korea and Japan. Most interestingly is the idea that perhaps that Mahayana tradition was effected and maybe influenced conceptually by the the Indo-Grecian kings that ruled following Alexander the Great's death.



This interaction between Hellenistic Greece and Buddhism began with Alexander the Great when he conquered Asia Minor and Central Asia in 334 BC, thus creating a direct contact with India (through trade and the establishment of new cities in Oxus and Bactria), well after the establishment of Buddhism. And where goods are traded, so are ideas.

Following Alexander's death generals founded their own kingdoms in Asia Minor and Central Asia. Eventually forming the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom (3rd–2nd century BC), followed by the Indo-Greek Kingdom (2nd–1st century BC), and later still by the Kushan Empire (1st–3rd century AD). The interaction of Greek and Buddhist cultures continued until it ended in the 5th century AD with the invasions of the White Huns, and the later expansion of Islam.

Evidence of direct religious interaction between Greek and Buddhist thought during the period include the Milinda Panha, a Buddhist discourse in the platonic style, held between king Menander and the Buddhist monk Nagasena.

Also the Mahavamsa (Chap. XXIX) records that during Menander's reign, "a Greek Buddhist head monk" named Mahadharmaraksita led 30,000 Buddhist monks from "the Greek city of Alexander-of-the-Caucasus" (around 150km north of today's Kabul in Afghanistan), to Sri Lanka for the dedication of a stupa, indicating that Buddhism flourished in Menander's territory and that Greeks took a very active part in it.

Buddha standing upright in toga....:D

Several Buddhist dedications by Greeks in India are recorded, such as that of the Greek meridarch (civil governor of a province) Theodorus, describing in Kharoshthi how he enshrined relics of the Buddha during the reign of Menander or his successor (Tarn, p.388).

Finally, Buddhist tradition recognizes Menander as one of the great benefactors of the faith, together with Asoka and Kanishka.

Buddhist manuscripts in cursive Greek have been found in Afghanistan, praising various Buddhas and including mentions of the Mahayana Lokesvara-raja Buddha (λωγοασφαροραζοβοδδο). These manuscripts have been dated later than the 2nd century AD. (Nicholas Sims-Williams, "A Bactrian Buddhist Manuscript").

Buddha with Hercules...XD

The Mahayana movement probably began around the 1st century BC in northwestern India, at the time and place of these interactions, on which Greek thought may have had some influence: "It may have been a Greek-influenced and Greek-carried form of Buddhism that passed north and east along the Silk Road" (McEvilly, "The shape of ancient thought").

Dharma wheel and palm...:P

Indo-Greek Temple in Pakastan w/(left to right) images of Greek Temple, Indian Temple and Buddhist Stupa...awesome

[All info paraphrased from wikipedia and images too 'cept this one]

Cheers,

Is Western Buddhism Neutered? Or Compassion w/o the Dogma.

I have always thought of Buddhism as being an inclusive rather than exclusive religion. The Buddha, when teaching in India, did not cast aspersions on the local religion but instead incorporated many of the beliefs into his presentation of the Dharma and his Path. At the same time allowing for a progressive movement away from some of the less desirable aspects of the religions of the time (caste system, sacrifices and asceticism).

As Buddhism moved out of India and into Asia, it adapted to and evolved with local traditions and indigenous beliefs. Thus we are introduced to the Mahayana sutras as well as the melding of Buddhism with Taoism and Confucism in China and with Shinto in Japan. It then melded with the Mystic/Spiritual Movement of Europe during the 1800s and early 1900s (most of us agree that this was unfortunate and has led to many ingrained misconceptions about Buddhism that still exist today). It melded with the beatniks and hippie/communal living movements of the 50’s and 60’s. It (ugh) melded with the New Age movements as well. We are still doing damage control on that one.

But I ramble. Someone commented that Buddhism is still working through its growth spurt in the West. I think they give it too much credit. We are still in our infancy. As a religion/non-religion and as a philosophy we are still shitting our diapers. We can barely make out a coherent sentence. We can’t even walk.

I’m not being pessimistic here, just realistic. We (the West) have not even begun to meld with Buddhism as a culture. And when it does begin to happen, it will be much more complex then it ever was in the past. What is being created is a division between the “western” converted Buddhists with those born into Buddhism (or reborn, as the case may be).

Problem is that, sometimes, neither of those two camps realizes that they are both equally powerful forces in the shaping of Buddhism in the West. The idea that the traditional Buddhists are holding back the evolution of Buddhism is ridiculous. Equally ridiculous is the idea that the non-traditional forms of Buddhism out there (and, holy shit, do they span the gamut) are destroying or irrevocably changing the face of Buddhism.

But while they may not be destroying Buddhism they are growing out of our culture’s need for a quick and easy fix and well as our need to consume. Big Mind by Genpo Roshi comes to *ahem* mind when one thinks of Western Zen (not Western Buddhism, mind you, and that is the problem). There seems to be a disconnect growing between what westerners want and what Buddhism actually is. From Genpo Roshi’s website…

Big Mind Big Heart is the name given, by American Zen Master Dennis Genpo Merzel, Roshi, to a special new way to discover, experience and appreciate your life. It’s also a good way of working out the kinks, the stuck places, and the unhealthy patterns that keep us down. Life is complex, and the inner self is an exquisite network of the psychological and the spiritual. Understanding it well naturally leads one to a better life.

The Big Mind Big Heart approach to life is a method of self-investigation and analysis that is straightforward and effective, and working with it will open your heart and mind to a new appreciation of the fullness and richness of life. It’s a new combination of tools, a blend of Western psychology and science, and the Eastern traditions passed on to us, and it’s been developed for the express purpose of helping us to better understand the mind and the nature of human life.

So sounds great and it only costs $150 for the 10 disc set and cool metal carrying case. Nice, I hope it delivers what it promises…but it isn’t Buddhism. Everything about Big Mind is end-results and eye-candy but very little about the process and the foundation. I am all about Western Zen finding itself and growing into something new but I hope it doesn’t forget its roots. It would be a shame if we were just creating another version of Blavatsky or Olcott except lose the mysticism and add a heaping dose of consumerism instead.

Some comments by Brad Warner also rang some bells for me...

Dennis Merzel, who calls himself Genpo Roshi, has developed a system he calls Big Mind™. And yes, the little ™ is part of the name. According to the Roshi, by usingthis technique, "you will have in one day — before lunch actually — the clarity and experience that a Zen master has. But Zen is seen as the school of sudden enlightenment. And we're just making sure it remains sudden." Ken Wilber, in his foreword to Genpo Roshi’s forthcoming book on Big Mind™ says, “In Zen, this realization of one’s True Nature, or Ultimate Reality, is called kensho or satori (“seeing into one’s True Nature,” or discovering Big Mind™ and Big Heart). It often takes five years or more of extremely difficult practice (I know, I’ve done it) in order for a profound satori to occur. With the Big Mind™ Process, a genuine kensho can occur in about an hour—seriously. Once you get it, you can do it virtually any time you wish, and almost instantaneously.”

Our culture still likes our stuff quick and easy. "Big Mind"seems to be marketed right to this ingrained American need of instant gratification. Why wait long years when you can get it now? Why suffer and work and sweat when it is as easy as a credit card charge and a seminar? Isn't easier to just buy satori. Not that I particularly trust Brad Warner either. From what I see both are trying to sell books and cash in on a reputation. Either way, I know this is coming off harsh but the whole thing smells like a scam to me. Endorsement by Ken Wilber hardly helps either. The amount of flash on his website makes me want to vomit and reeks of snake-oil.

Buddhism is hard. Even "sudden enlightenment" take time and training and more than a wee bit of strain. Promising quick results is fine but it isn't Buddhism and it sure as hell isn't Zen.

But at the same time, if these approaches help people or attract them to some of the basic tenets of Buddhism without actually being "Buddhist", who are we to judge it or them? It seems horribly hypocritical for people who are supposedly on a path of enlightenment and compassion to denigrate others because they prefer a different "brand" of Buddhism or an approach that removes the Buddha from the Buddhism.

Postscript: Any comments about Genpo Roshi’s program are more than welcome (positive or negative). I’m still working on making up my mind about the whole thing. So if you are familiar with Genpo roshi's work and Big Mind please fill me in. Also give me a break, I'm typing thing while holding a baby in one hand and a beer in the other. dad of the Year.