Zen Ranting & Raving Buddhists
I've got to comment on all the drama happening in this corner of the blogosphere. I think everyone that reads this blog is also reading Brad Warners's blog, as well as Gudo Nishijima's, and perhaps Mike Cross'.
Nishijima's last entry created quite a stir, and is worth reading, if you haven't done so already. Be sure to check out the comments by Mike Cross and Michael Luetchford, both former students of Nishijima's:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16723429&postID=115760939365269267
Following so closely on the heels of the "eyes wide shut" debate and the very emphatic but contradictory views expressed by various experts on Zazen, I have linked these two debates in my own mind.
What I find interesting is not that such disagreements occur, but rather that they seem so controversial.
It has really been an education in the rigidity and politics of "traditional" Zen.
Let's face it, if you ask the same question of 10 different Zen "masters," you are likely to get 10 different, contradictory responses. And each Zen "master" is likely to insist that his answer is The Truth. And no, don't even think about questioning it, because "Reality does not bend in order to please you and neither does the philosophy and practice of Zen."
Well what about when all the Zen "masters" disagree? Which one reflects the REAL Reality?
You always hear, "Find a teacher, and stick to that teacher's teachings." Personally, I think the danger of wasting time on dogma and cults of personality may outweigh the potential benefits of having a teacher.
I think the Buddha himself might have been a pretty good teacher, though. Problem is, I haven't come across the Buddha on the road lately. And if I did, doesn't Zen philosophy tell me I would have to kill him?
And while I'm being critical...
A problem I see in Zen Buddhism is a general pride in ignorance. To be more specific, the little sound bytes that practitioners cling to, such as "Just Sit," "Sit Without Intention," and, "Zazen IS Enlightenment." The problem is not the 'pearls of wisdom' in themselves, but rather the thinking that such pearls are so important, at the expense of all other knowledge, and definitely at the expense of critical thinking.
I think an unintended consequence of this attitude is wrong thinking, and gullibility. Practitioners think they know what they are talking about because their "teacher" told them, or because they had some "feeling" during Zazen.
Even some Zen "masters" seem to take pride in their ignorance of Buddhist teachings other than that of their personal teacher.
I think the Zen tradition of not placing so much emphasis on the teachings of the Buddha (is it a Zen tradition?) may have made more sense historically in Japan, because the teachings of the Buddha were already culturally integrated... Here in the West, though, we do not have the luxury of that context...
A master/student relationship of blind faith and obedience at the expense of critical thinking makes me shudder. Reading accounts of sexual misconduct and financial scandals perpetrated by Zen "masters" while their students accepted the behavior as the unfathomable and unjudgeable "in-the-moment" action of an enlightened being, makes me think... cult.
I don't think that is what the Buddha had in mind.
Don't get me wrong. I am not down on Buddhism, and I am not down on Zazen. I just think that as students of both, we must be critical and vigilant in our thinking.
There is a tendency to put the "master" on a pedestal and revere him, because he is called "master."
I say the measure of a man is his actions--master or no master--Dharma Transmission or not--lineage, SCHMINEAGE.
posted by Anatman @ Tuesday, September 19, 2006
19 comments
19 Comments:
An image of a train wreck comes to mind.
For me, the core insight of Zen is that our thoughts and words about reality are always thoughts and words, never the reality they were intended to define. Yet there the temptation to cling to our own beliefs is strong even when those beliefs are about not clinging to beliefs. Even saying that, there is a danger of clinging to it.
Brad gives the impression that his idiosynchratic personal theories are in some way supported by Zen.
It has become a cliche now but Mike Cross has mental health issues, which don't appear to be helped by either Zazen or Alexander Technique.
It might also be a problem with 'Internet Zen' in general.
Surely theorising about Zen, advocating those theories and Zen politics are not Zen practice.
I think that a good teacher has an inner quiet and openness, a freedom from clinging to beliefs that we can learn from.
Anatman,
regarding the critical thinking/ individuality/ authority/ picking and choosing topic, I understand where you're coming from. The way I see it at the moment is that we all need to think critically to make good decisions - I for one am practicing Zen precisely because of such critical thinking among other things. However, inconveniently, such picking and choosing conflicts with the practice of 'just being'. But rahter than abandon critical thinking altogether perhaps it is more helpful to just use it from time to time to adjust one's path? Of course doing so is to engage in goal-oriented thinking but there are other dangers to avoid too. When we sit we just sit, but sometimes we need to think and when we do we need to do it well.
I'm not sure how much that can be manifest on the internet if at all.
I was discussing the necessity of belief in literal rebirth with a teacher and she followed up by email with a helpful quotation from the Genjo Koan and a few comments about openness, and non-dogmatism. I responded at some length with details of my own ideas about life and death. But she didn't reply. I was slightly disappointed at first, but then realised that seeking to show how insightful I was and seeking some sort of approval I had in a sense missed the point. It's possible that there may have been another reason, but after reflection her silence on the matter seemed like a gift.
As for MC, well he hasn't started from a good place but I think he is making progress. Bizarrely and amazingly.
Well, I genuinely hope he is able to continue to make progress. One of the striking things about him is that he is not only very angry, but seems to recognise no need whatsoever to show any sort of courtesy or sensitivity in what he says. I'm not sure if this is a symptom of his problems or justified by an aspect of his interpretation of zen.
Anatman,
I thought your post was well-thought out and sensible.
Really good.
Interesting that nobody really (aside from Justin) commented too much on it.
There's a lot of fodder there but perhaps people are tiring of the dramatics.
That would be nice.
Or maybe its that the traditional Brad/Gudo defenders are stumped as to how to defend these kinds of absurdities.
Sorry, i am kind of trying to stir things up. Work is so boring lately.
g
Thanks for the thoughtful analysis, Justin.
"...picking and choosing conflicts with the practice of 'just being'. But rather than abandon critical thinking altogether perhaps it is more helpful to just use it from time to time to adjust one's path? Of course doing so is to engage in goal-oriented thinking but there are other dangers to avoid too. When we sit we just sit, but sometimes we need to think and when we do we need to do it well."
I think your last sentence hits the nail on the head.
And it's true that "picking and choosing conflicts with the practice of 'just being'," but really, in the same way, all thinking conflicts with the practice of 'just being.'
Personally, when I sit, I try to sit skillfully, and just sit. But when I think, I also try to do so skillfully, and this means periodic critical evaluations of my own beliefs.
When we listen to proponents of other religions talk about Faith and "because the bible says so" and how theirs is the "one true religion," we scoff and feel glad that we are not so delusional and gullible.
Why? Because we use our intelligence and critical thinking to evaluate our beliefs rather than living lives of illusion based on fear, dogma, and blind adherence to some ancient superstition, or infatuation with a particula teacher... Right?
Gniz:
I think the dramatics do get tiresome after awhile and, in the end, it doesn't mean much. I'm glad all the discussion took place, though. It prompted me to evaluate my own journey and, like Justin said, adjust my path. I think my practice is healthier now because I've experienced a bit of disillusionment with formal Zen tradition.
I'm grateful for the dis-illusion. Nothing like stripping away illusions to see what is left behind the curtain!
And personally, I don't mind how you stir things up.
Well i called myself a troll in the interest of full-disclosure.
I have, in other posts, admitted to being afraid, confused, full of shit, and someone who needs more practice.
However, to some extent i mean what i say, and i really do question guys like Brad and Gudo and Jundo Cohen...etc etc.
I did like Hardcore Zen but i think Brad's blog postings, though entertaining, are specious and i view him with skepticism.
Mike, I assume you were referring to me with that troll comment. Anyhow, thats my reasoning.
BTW, Mike, i like your blog a lot.
g
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
sounds like this ongoing conversation is mounting to a nice turbulent critical mass. Good luck with the results; sincerely.
"For a Buddhist who condemns the actions of others, you sure like to rant and rave yourself."
Drunken Monkey, the "ranting and raving" in the title referred to my own actions, not those of Gudo and Brad.
Yes, I am being critical and ranting and raving about the problems I see in traditional Zen.
The whole critisism of the teacher, I think, is valid. We still have to recognize that the teacher is human, that we have to inspect our given teachings and give them time to percolate. If a teaching doesn't work for you, that's ok. Just let it not work for you and re-visit later. I think the big mistake is on the behalf of the student - allowing teacher be unquestionable, absolute, pure. We have to be able to question the teacher - we may end up fools, but it's worth while.
Karen, welcome back, if even for a moment, and thanks for your comment. I am sorry to hear you have not been well, and I hope you do recover soon.
I also went to catholic school, so I know what you are saying. It makes me smile to 'hear' you went through the same training in recognizing dogma ;-)
When you feel better, please come back, check in on us, and maybe even tell us what you have learned, on the 'main' page.
Jinzang,
You wrote:
"And different teachers will say different things...What you call dogmatism is really is just the inability to fit what the teacher says into a conceptual scheme."
What you just wrote is the same idea as the "crazy wisdom" excuse of charlatans such as Andrew Cohen and Adi Da, etc etc.
'We', the unenlightened, are too spiritually immature to fathom the nonrational ways of these Buddhist masters, so we get 'confused' using our critical thinking.
I just dont buy it. Again, i dont actually know Gudo or Brad or these people so I cant say what they are...and even if i knew them, i'd still just be guessing.
But, yeah, i'll trust my critical thinking, thank you very much.
I think what you wrote is the start, for some people, of accepting charlatans and fools as as 'masters' simply because it is now spiritually accepted that we need to trust our masters in order to learn from them.
Why? The whole point of it--i thought--was to learn a technique or set of techniques that we would then apply in our own lives and determine for ourselves whether they hold value.
I dont need to trust Brad or the Dali Lama to do that. The whole thing smacks of fundamentalist rhetoric. Critical thinking, i agree, is certainly not the only way to ascertain someone's trustworthiness. But it is part of a package which can help us to examine and try to make the best decision possible so we are not taken in by fakes and scammers.
Honestly, i have a teacher that i trust (about 99.9% anyway)so its not as if i refuse to ever trust anyone.
A few of the unusual things he told me to look for (and i offer them up so others can use them) in the worth of a teacher.
1. Watch their eyes and see if they are still and present to the moment or moving all around and blinking constantly, lost in thought.
2. Watch their breathing to see if it is smooth and rhythmic or if it is hurried and unnatural, again, indicating disturbance.
3. Listen to how they talk and whether they are placing more emphasis on their verbal gymnastics, or do they seem to be paying more attention to "how" they say things.
4. See if they can be still or if they appear antsy and nervous, even little ticks can be a giveaway.
None of the things i listed are written in stone, i get that. But those things are observable and i truly feel that over time, you can observe someone to see if they are relaxed, peaceful and at home in their body. Even if this person isnt enlightened, its more likely they have at least something to offer. And probably are not a total fraud.
But when you view this advice against the typical "trust the master" crap, i think i'll take observation, especially self-observation any day. You can keep your leaders.
g
I totally understand where you're coming from gniz.
If someone has qualities of wisdom then I try to learn from them. I use my own intuition, judgement and yes, critical thinking to assess people.
If someone declares that what he says is true because he is enlightened or because the person who said it is enlightened (or knows God or whatever) I'm not really interested. It's just the same as the claim that the Pope is 'infallible' and that seems unlikely, especially now.
The whole 'you will understand when you are enlightened' argument is flawed and could be used as easily by a charlatan or deluded dogmatist as by a genuine sage.
No one has to accept anyone else as an infallible authority or even as a teacher if they don't want to.
Trust your instinct.
The nearest I have to a 'Zen Master' is Godo Guy Mercier who I have met only on two sessins. He certainly seems to have a stillness and awareness about him which I hope to learn from. Having said that, I don't necessarily believe everything he says nor feel a need to 'submit to his will' or his Truth or his Authority like some sort of cult guru.
It's just a matter of recognising people we can learn from.
You wrote:
[quote]I think the Zen tradition of not placing so much emphasis on the teachings of the Buddha (is it a Zen tradition?) may have made more sense historically in Japan, because the teachings of the Buddha were already culturally integrated... Here in the West, though, we do not have the luxury of that context...[quote]
I think this is important. We have to be careful in this respect, especially since there is so much emphasis on the copying of orientalisms. Which are less than useless.
I like the practice of Zen. It's a great feeling to sit, you know?
I've haven't felt particularly one way or the other about teachers. I figured out a long time ago that people are imperfect and what they are.
Funny thing is that I know deep down inside that this is perfect too. Exactly how it's supposed to be.
So I trust my gut, like you Zensters say. I just kick it with the homeless of L.A., or chat it up with some famous cat, or even the barrista at the coffee shop.
I don't really expect anything. I just keep my eyes open. Pay attention, you know?
Anyway, I hear ya'll about thinking people are going to rip you off and make you into bad Buddhists. That might happen.
But what if it's supposed to? Maybe, that's some good teaching, right?
Who knows? All I do know is that I've had lots of different kinds of teachers. They've taught me lots of different things.
Some of my favorie stuff has been from Trevor. He's a homeless guy on Hollywood Boulevard. He sits with me when I draw and tells me stuff about Marilyn Monroe. Those are some of my favorite moments.
There was even this other time when I was sitting at the coffee shop when this Shakespearian actor laid out the whole race problem for me. I hadn't ever thought about it like that. It was some good teaching.
Anyway, I hear ya'll and the gripes about Buddha and teachers and everything. It's making me want to go sit for a while. It's also got me writing.
Thanks for that. Thanks for writing this blog.
I'll catch you,
P.
When a Zen master gives an answer to a student, it is for that student only. He may give a different answer to the same question to a different student. This is because the master knows his/her students personally and sees qualities and behaviours in them that they are completely unaware of having. It is for that reason that it is so important to have a teacher who knows you. You can learn some from the internet, some from books, but it only boils down to introjected material that has no basis in experience. Therefore, a professor of Zen can know a lot about it, but will never reach enlightenment unless they have the experience of Zen.
Post a Comment
<< Home