You Gotta Have Heart Sutra →

The question sometimes comes up, “When did you start practicing?” I was speaking to someone at a Tibetan meditation center once, and neither of us could date it any more accurately than the date of our first precepts. I'd been what I call a “book Buddhist” for quite some time with no live and in-person sangha. But while doing my reading, I came to realize that the Zen writers provided me with the teachings that felt most comfortable. I'd say that it made sense more than Tibetan or Theravada, but let's face it, a more absurd statement could hardly be made. Eventually I found a Zen sangha, eventually took the Bodhisattva Precepts, and another set, and another set, and here I am.

But then the question came up why and how I even stumbled into Buddhism at all. In college, I'd tended more toward Existentialists and Chinese history, and a linear progression from that to Zen could make sense. That's not how it happened though. After graduation, my voracious reading material became the “Beats.” That, combined subliminally with the other two, were how my exposure to Buddhism budded. I probably have read everything Jack Kerouac wrote; most of these books I still have. Gary Snyder and Philip Whalen were both Beat and Zen monks/priests/lay monks, Ginsberg became more formally associated with Buddhism eventually by way of Naropa University if nothing else, but Kerouac may have been the first to delve into it. 

“Dharma Bums” and “Satori in Paris” are two obvious Kerouac-penned titles, then there were “Wake Up!” and the “Scripture of the Golden Eternity,” which were seriously Dharma-influenced, and there's always “Some of the Dharma” for an overtly Dharma-titled piece. I could have pulled material from any and all of them, but then this might have just become an academic exercise, and that would precisely be not-the-point. Kerouac's Dharma writings are anything but academic. 

For this, I went with “Golden Eternity” for a few reasons. While most of the others are for the most part prose, and as such involve plots, “Golden Eternity” is somewhere between prose and poetry, much like the Sutras can be. So I culled verses that, at least at the moment I was culling, stuck out to me as worthy of culling. And here they are

1
Did I create that sky? Yes, for, if it was anything other than a conception in my mind I wouldnt have said "Sky"-That is why I am the golden eternity. There are not two of us here, reader and writer, but one, one golden eternity, One-Which-It-Is, That-Which- Everything-Is.
3
That sky, if it was anything other than an illusion of my mortal mind I wouldnt have said "that sky." Thus I made that sky, I am the golden eternity. I am Mortal Golden Eternity.
6
Strictly speaking, there is no me, because all is emptiness. I am empty, I am non-existent. All is bliss.
8
You are the golden eternity because there is no me and no you, only one golden eternity.

11
If we were not all the golden eternity we wouldn't be here. Because we are here we cant help being pure. To tell man to be pure on account of the punishing angel that punishes the bad and the rewarding angel that rewards the good would be like telling the water "Be Wet"-Never the less, all things depend on supreme reality, which is already established as the record of Karma earned-fate.
14
What name shall we give it which hath no name, the common eternal matter of the mind? If we were to call it essence, some might think it meant perfume, or gold, or honey. It is not even mind. It is not even discussible, groupable into words; it is not even endless, in fact it is not even mysterious or inscrutably inexplicable; it is what is; it is that; it is this. We could easily call the golden eternity "This.".... 
Both the word "god" and the essence of the word, are emptiness. The form of emptiness which is emptiness having taken the form of form, is what you see and hear and feel right now, and what you taste and smell and think as you read this. Wait awhile, close your eyes, let your breathing stop three seconds or so, listen to the inside silence in the womb of the world, let your hands and nerve-ends drop, re-recognize the bliss you forgot, the emptiness and essence and ecstasy of ever having been and ever to be the golden eternity. This is the lesson you forgot.
17
It came on time.

21
"Beyond the reach of change and fear, beyond all praise and blame," the Lankavatara Scripture knows to say, is he who is what he is in time and time-less-ness, in ego and in ego-less-ness, in self and in self-less-ness.
25
Though it is everything, strictly speaking there is no golden eternity because everything is nothing: there are no things and no goings and comings: for all is emptiness, and emptiness is these forms, emptiness is this one formhood.
28
Roaring dreams take place in a perfectly silent mind. Now that we know this, throw the raft away.
30
Sociability is a big smile, and a big smile is nothing but teeth. Rest and be kind.32
"The womb of exuberant fertility," Ashvhaghosha called it, radiating forms out of its womb of exuberant emptiness. In emptiness there is no Why, no knowledge of Why, no ignorance of Why, no asking and no answering of Why, and no significance attached to this.

35
The words "atoms of dust" and "the great universes" are only words. The idea that they imply is only an idea. The belief that we live here in this existence, divided into various beings, passing food in and out of ourselves, and casting off husks of bodies one after another with no cessation and no definite or particular discrimination, is only an idea. The seat of our Immortal Intelligence can be seen in that beating light between the eyes the Wisdom Eye of the ancients: we know what we're doing: we're not disturbed: because we're like the golden eternity pretending at playing the magic cardgame and making believe it's real, it's a big dream, a joyous ecstasy of words and ideas and flesh, an ethereal flower unfolding a folding back, a movie, an exuberant bunch of lines bounding emptiness, the womb of Avalokitesvara, a vast secret silence, springtime in the Void, happy young gods talking and drinking on a cloud. Our 32,000 chillicosms bear all the marks of excellence. Blind milky light fills our night; and the morning is crystal.

37
When the Prince of the Kalinga severed the flesh from the limbs and body of Buddha, even then the Buddha was free from any such ideas as his own self, other self, living beings divided into many selves, or living beings united and identified into one eternal self. The golden eternity isnt "me." Before you can know that you're dreaming you'll wake up, Atman. Had the Buddha, the Awakened One, cherished any of these imaginary judgments of and about things, he would have fallen into impatience and hatred in his suffering. Instead, like Jesus on the Cross he saw the light and died kind, loving all living things.

38
The world was spun out of a blade of grass: the world was spun out of a mind. Heaven was spun out of a blade of grass: heaven was spun out of a mind. Neither will do you much good, neither will do you much harm. The Oriental imperturbed, is the golden eternity.

45
When you've understood this scripture, throw it away. If you cant understand this scripture, throw it away. I insist on your freedom.

47
The-Attainer-To-That-Which-Everything-Is, the Sanskrit Tathagata, has no ideas whatever but abides in essence identically with the essence of all things, which is what it is, in emptiness and silence. Imaginary meaning stretched to make mountains and as far as the germ is concerned it stretched even further to make molehills. A million souls dropped through hell but nobody saw them or counted them. A lot of large people isnt really a lot of large people, it's only the golden eternity. When St. Francis went to heaven he did not add to heaven nor detract from earth. Locate silence, possess space, spot me the ego.
"From the beginning," said the Sixth Patriarch of the China School, "not a thing is."

53
Everything's alright, form is emptiness and emptiness is form, and we're here forever, in one form or another, which is empty. Everything's alright, we're not here, there, or anywhere. Everything's alright, cats sleep.

58
Look at your little finger, the emptiness of it is no different that the emptiness of infinity.

65
This is the first teaching from the golden eternity.

66
The second teaching from the golden eternity is that there never was a first teaching from the golden eternity. So be sure.

 Kerouac, Jack The Scripture of the Golden Eternity. New York, NY Corinth Books, 1960

There's a bit of the Dharma of Jack Kerouac, Jack's Sutra, as Gary Snyder suggested he write. Better known as a devout Catholic than Buddhist, he penned his Sutra with the heart of a Bodhisattva. Not a fan of Zen, but he quoted the Sixth Patriarch anyway. There are snippets of the Diamond, Lankavatara, and Surangama Sutras as well. He called it the Golden Eternity, you can call it the Dharmakaya, or Mind, or Buddha, doesn't matter. He calls it empty, or the Void; you may call it emptiness, form and formless realms, openness, it doesn't matter. You've just created those things and those words with your mind, just like you created the “sky.” Regardless of whether all are one, one is many, many are one, it just doesn't matter. Throw it all away. Smile, show your teeth, be kind.

To listen to the Dharma Talk, click the title, or navigate here:
https://soundcloud.com/onemindzen/sutra-of-the-golden-eternity

You can read this and all Eunsahn's blogs here:
http://nobodhiknows.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-sutra-of-golden-eternity.html

 

Thus have I heard:

The Buddha and his retinue of 50,000 bikkhus were in attendance at the Ball Park in the Fens. The venerable vendor approached, and taking the strap from his right shoulder bent low toward the Tathagata, saying, “O world honored one! Would you like a hot dog or perhaps a cold beer?”

The Buddha replied thusly: “The World honored one, the Tathagata  consumes no flesh, nor does he imbibe in intoxicants. I will transcend the Mezzanine level so as to procure some French Fries, whose aroma is pleasing to the olfactory organ. If you have any further questions while I am away, please address them to the venerable Guanyin.”

“Oh thank you, Great Teacher of gods and men, I thank you.” At this point the Vendor bowed deeply and removed himself from the aisle so that He Who is Thus Gone could proceed unimpeded toward the refreshment stand.

At that point, the Bikkhu Carl Yazstremski appeared before the Great Bodhisattva Guanyin, and beseeched thus:

“O Great Bodhisattva, who hears the cries of the world! You surely have heard the cries of the crowd that the ground ball to shortstop induced great suffering and dissatisfaction. Pray thee, how may I placate their struggles so that none may suffer further?”

The Great Bodhisattva Guanyin, who practiced deeply the wisdom of the ages saw that all scoreboards were empty and was saved from all struggle and distress. The Great Bodhisattva then arose from the bleacher seat and addressed the bikkhu Carl Yazstremski thus:

“Carl Yazstremski! Bases loaded is not different from bases empty, bases empty is no different than bases loaded, cheers are no different from boos! Likewise, the same applies to that which the umpire calls out, calls, safe, calls strike, calls ball.

“Carl Yazstremski, all bases are marked with emptiness, runners do not appear or disappear, scores do not increase or decrease.

Therefore in bases empty, no cheers, no boos, signs,steals, umpiring. No strike, no ball, no slide, no catch, no run, no hit, no error, no line up and no realm of press conferences.

No second guess and also no extinction of second guess, no rookie, no old timer, and also no extinction of them.

No strike out, no first pitch, no base path, no coach’s sign, and also no scoring with nothing to score.

The battersattva depends on perfect swing and the mind is no hindrance. Without any hindrance no strikes exist. Far apart from every blown call, one dwells in the dugout.

In the three outs all pitchers depend on fast balls and attain three strikes and three outs. Therefore know that perfect game is the great transcendent ball game, is the great bright ball game, is the utmost ballgame, is the supreme ballgame, which is able to relieve all injuries and is safe not out.

So proclaim the perfect game mantra, proclaim the call that says,

Strike one, strike two, strike three, you’re out, batter up!.

Strike one, strike two, strike three, you’re out, batter up!.

Strike one, strike two, strike three, you’re out, batttttttter upppppp.

 

Not-Prefect, Not-Imperfect

At this time of year, the Buddha could have just walked down 34th Street, pointed to Macy's, and said, “Dukkha,” and everybody would have gotten the First Noble Truth without a second word needing to be spoken. But 'tis the season of giving. Bright, fresh-faced, rosy-cheeked children sitting lovingly on Santa's lap in the department store, the jolly Salvation Army bell-ringers with kettles overflowing with donations, peace on earth, good will toward men, fake snow on palm trees in Australia and Africa, and all the rest of the Norman Rockwell world that is the holiday season associated with Christmas. Religious or secular, here it is, the time when people give. I could go into the realm of conspicuous consumption, commercialism, what's ostensibly a Christian holiday (with possible pagan origins) being thrust upon the rest of the world as a capitalist orgy, and I guess I just did. But that's not news.

Reality may be slightly different than the greeting cards might imply. It's not all “peace, love, and crunchy granola.” Families get together for the first time since the last wedding, last funeral, or last Christmas. And quite often, telling the difference between Christmas and one of the other two may not be easy. There's a good chance of excessive consumption of alcohol, much wailing and gnashing of teeth, arguments, and resentments. And then there are the funerals. Along with all that, there is a sense of being placed sometimes forcibly, into the role of gift-giver. Maybe random names are drawn from a hat at the office, where you get to play “Secret Santa,” which invariably results in wondering what face that name goes with, or maybe worse, drawing your boss's name: “Don't want to look unappreciative, so it's gotta be nice, but it can't be too nice, or he'll think maybe I don't need that pay raise.” What do you get for the person who...you don't even know, much less know what s/he has and wants/needs more of, or something that shows you care, or that they'd even like?

'Tis the season of giving, of giving grudgingly, mandatory giving, guilt-laden giving and the occasional giving associated with warm feelings for someone, out of compassion, maybe just to see the smile on someone's face when they receive something donated anonymously, and of being OK with someone appreciating a gift or maybe not. There's probably some of all the above to varying degrees with all of us. There are some assumptions in all these situations: A) There's a giver; B) there is a gift; C) there is the recipient of said gift from the aforementioned giver.

The first of the Six Perfections (Paramitas) is dana, or generosity. By the very act of giving, we release attachment and clinging, at least in a best-case scenario. Generosity is a perfection, so it must be a good thing, right? The temptation might be to renounce all our worldly possessions, to assume a post-ghost Scrooge stance, showering the world with all the worldly goods we can. And that's fine, so long as it's done in the actual spirit of generosity.. If we are generous just to be generous, without any expectation of reciprocation, maybe anonymously, Wonderful! Even if we are generous with maybe a tinge of puffing ourselves up, maybe to get a little pat on the back, Wonderful! Do it anyway, with more practice, maybe that will wear off. Maybe not. I'd guess the homeless guy who just received a gift of food really doesn't much care about the motives of the giver. There's just, “Mmmmm.” Perhaps spending some time on the cushion, looking deeply at our motivations might be in order though.

Then there's the version of the recipient actually asking for a handout. The original Sangha, including the Buddha, relied on donations of food and shelter. It's common practice in many countries that there is a day set aside for the laity to make donations directly to the monks. I'm not fond of megachurches and ashrams demanding donations, especially when the clergy end up living lives of wealth and fame. That's fine, it's just not where I'd choose to send my generosity, any more than to the organizations who run the $1,000 per week meditation retreats. Go to any Zen center website, and more often than not, there's probably a “donate” button. That's fine too. The Dharma is free, but mats, cushions, incense, rent, etc. tend not to be. So go ahead, donate. The Zen Center probably needs donations to stay afloat, and trust me, being a Zen priest isn't exactly the way to wealth and fame. (If you'd like to further investigate the commodification of Zen in the West, Dōshim Dharma wrote a book entitled “Brand-Name Zen,” which details all this quite well).

In China, where the peasantry probably had virtually nothing to give, Master Baizhang Huaihai is attributed with having set up the dictum of, “No work, no food.” Apparently when his student monks hid his tools because a Great Sage shouldn't have to do such menial chores as planting and spreading manure, Baizhang essentially went on hunger strike. This wasn't out of some Zen Master pouting, it was his way of living the ethic of “No work, no food.” It could be said that the monks' generosity to the peasantry was that they didn't demand that they support the temple. Baizhang generosity was to set the example of no one being special. There's also the story of the monk living alone as a hermit being visited by robbers one night. He remarked to them that they must really be in need, so he gave them what possessions he had--the clothes on his back. The monk's generosity, much less the sight of a naked monk, did nothing to deter them from stealing however.

My writing this, instead of finding someone in need of something and giving is probably “self” indulgent. I can justify it in terms of the Dharma being a gift, that any insight I might have that saves all beings demands it must be shared. If I really looked on this cold wintry night at 1:00 AM, I could probably find someone who needs something. But maybe someone will read this and be moved to find that homeless guy and give him a sandwich. Whatever merit is accrued can be dedicated to some other sentient being. It does call for some time on the cushion to investigate this further.

As I mentioned previously, there are three grounds to generosity: the giver, the gift, and the recipient. If any of the three is missing, then generosity is merely a concept, not an action. And our practice is all about action. “It is better to give than to receive” is at best a miscalculation if not downright wrong. “Lie” might be too strong a term for it, due the three grounds of generosity, but it falls way short of the entire process of generosity. Someone gave me the idea to write this. That's right, gave me the idea. I accepted it. It was an entirely natural process, give idea, receive idea, no thought required. That's much different from “No, I couldn't possibly accept this from you.” That attitude does nothing but perpetuate superiority, the duality of self/other, and give rise to false humility. It's as “I, I, I, I” “want,” want,” “want” as one would see in Macy's any of these days.

One of the acts of generosity that can be performed is to receive. There's no, “Oh, I couldn't possibly” to it. There's no false “I”-based motivation to it, if done in the true spirit of generosity. The Second Precept is “Do not steal; do not take that which is not freely given.” A corollary of that is to graciously and without attachment accept that which is freely given. Not to do so is in effect stealing the opportunity from someone to practice the First Perfection. Who am I to deny you the opportunity to perform the Perfection of Generosity? Would I deny you the opportunity to meditate or act morally, or any of the other Perfections? So far as I'm concerned, the “I-ness” involved in that is potentially as dangerous to the well-being of all beings as being greedy. Self-lessly giving is best accompanied by self-lessly receiving. To paraphrase the Diamond Sutra, if you think of yourself as a Bodhisattva, and that are beings to save, and saving to be done, you're not a Bodhisattva. But regardless, we act as Bodhisattvas and save all beings. Giver, gift, and recipient are all subject to causes and conditions and characterized by emptiness as giver and gift, but in the spirit of the Bodhisattva, give a gift, and just as willingly, receive a gift. Now go out and find a homeless guy and give him a sandwich. Thank you. You're welcome.

 


 

It is What it Is (You got a problem wit dat?) →

My old sangha was Original Mind Zen Sangha in Princeton, NJ, and half-jokingly we had a rather Jersey-like motto: “It is what it is (you got a problem with that?)” I used to work with a crew of electricians in New York whose motto was, “It is what it is, we'll get it done. We always do.” We hear the phrase “It is what it is” so much, it probably has no meaning anymore. But if we dissect it, it is one of the most “Zen” statements around.

We can look at the statement from a purely objective point of view, where there is a separate subject & object, and state that there is an “it” to be what “it” is. This “it” exists as totally separate from me, in fact may have nothing to do with me at all, other than I perceive that there is an “it” to be what it is. Is there an “it,” is there a “what,” is there an “is” all would be answered yes. Nothing more to it, it's there, it exists, and there is a “it-ness” to “it.” Everything is only ever seen in the realm of form. At this stage, we don't even ask any of these questions; it never dawns on us to even ask them, because the answer is only “It Is What It Is.”

We can look at it from the “emptiness” perspective and say, “What is this 'it'?” Is there any 'is' to 'it'?” What is implied by 'what'?” Is that a subject/object separation? Am I “it,” and is “it” me? Does “it” have any “it-ness” to it? Do I have any “me-ness” to me? Is that an implication of existence as a physical form? Is there an “is-ing” or “being” to be done? If we consider only the Absolute, the answer to the multiple-choice quiz would be “None of the Above.” Here, we're stuck in emptiness, asking questions that may stay as exercises in intellect and nothing more. Everything is only ever seen in the context of the Absolute, we're stuck in the Absolute, which is no better than being stuck in form.

From a broad, geopolitical standpoint, neither of these views is particularly useful. Saying “There is no bomb, there is no Paris, no birth, no death, all is oneness,” would probably not be well-appreciated by someone who just lost a loved one in Paris last week. Subject being object, object being subject is only skillful in certain circumstances, and as Bodhisattvas, it's our duty to ascertain when that is. The other side, where subject and object are totally separate may result in, “We've got to keep them out of our country, they're all terrorists, they should go back where they came from.” Likewise, perhaps not the most Bodhisattva of expressing oneself.

On a more personal level, what do you or I have going on that's holding us back? Tonight is the last night we are sitting in this space, because financially it isn't feasible. The sangha is small, attendance swings widely from one week to the next, we don't receive enough in donations to justify continuing to rent the space. It is what it is. I asked Venerable Wonji about “trying to grow a sangha” when we were on retreat a few weeks ago. His response was, “Maybe you should stop trying.”

Now, that can be taken a few different ways—I can stop putting up notices about our schedule, posting blogs and Dharma talks, put everything in the realm of, “If it's here, then they will find it.” Consequently, I could be sitting alone week after week, maybe happily, maybe angrily. Happy or angry is largely irrelevant to the matter of growing a sangha, because neither has any effect on whether anyone is here or not. So that's a “not-trying” that is purely passive, and probably ineffective on a number of levels.

Another way I could take “not-trying” would be continue to do the same things that I've been doing, posting schedules, flyers, and so on, and if anyone comes, Wonderful! If anyone doesn't, Wonderful! This is fine, it's non-attachment to results, I do what I do, and the rest, “It is what it is.” That's a good attitude, except it leaves out a few things: am I doing this because I should be doing this? Am I doing it out of ego, out of stubbornly hanging on to the notion that “There's a Five Mountain Order Sangha, and I'll be damned if I'm the one to close it down.” The option I'm taking for now is seeing that neither of those views contains the “totality of reality.” For now, it is becoming financially difficult to continue to meet here. That doesn't mean that we won't meet somewhere else in a matter of weeks, months, whenever. For the moment, that's the “it is what it is.” It's not an either/or, it's a “for the moment, this is what I need to do.” Very practical, or so it seems at this moment. That may be proven to be incorrect as much as anything else. It is what it is.

In “The Compass of Zen,” Zen Master Seung Sahn talks about the Huayan Sutra:

If you wish to thoroughly understand
All the buddhas of the past, present, and future,
Then you should view the nature of the whole universe
As being created by mind alone.

Truth contains both correct and incorrect. Truth contains both greed and generosity. Truth contains good and bad, and simultaneously doesn't make good and bad out of there being good and bad, greed and generosity, correct and incorrect. Sangha is here? Wonderful! Sangha is not here, Wonderful! It is what it is.

But is we only leave it there, we're still in the realm of the Absolute without taking the Relative into account. Our thinking makes sitting here good and bad, and that is Truth. It's not necessarily reality, but it is Truth. So whether we're meeting here in this room Thursday evenings is only good or bad when we make it so. The next step after “thinking makes good and bad” is, what is the enlightened behavior that accompanies this? In any situation, what is Bodhisattva action? Bomb goes off in Beirut, bomb goes off in Syria, and Paris, and Nigeria. Bombs have already gone off. Don't make good or bad, just help the injured. See if there is something you can do to keep the next bomb from injuring people.

Sit with sangha? Wonderful! Sit alone? Wonderful! Meditate in order to become a Bodhisattva? OK. Meditate and be a Bodhisattva? Wonderful. All we do is save all sentient beings. That is what it is. You got a problem with that? Wonderful!

Click on the title to listen to the Dharma talk, or navigate here:
https://soundcloud.com/onemindzen/it-is-what-it-is

What Have I Done for You Lately? →

A number of years ago, I started compiling a collection that I called “Numbered Buddhist Things.” Not a particularly clever title, but certainly to the point. Looking back at it, I’ve found that there is a vast number of numbered things that I left out, and some that are often overlooked when the teachings of the Buddha are discussed. Four Noble Truths (including the Eightfold Path), everywhere. Four Signs? Not so much. Three Dharma Seals, sure. Three Doors to Liberation? Not so often.  Five Skandhas, yep, every time we chant the Hear Sutra. Five Hindrances? Can’t really remember the last time I came across that one.

This is all very nice, and certainly puts the teachings of the Buddha into bullet point form (Did the Buddha use PowerPoint? No, that was probably Ananda). As mnemonic devices, these are great; numbering things is a useful means to spurring our often-faulty memories. But we also use numbers in less-than-skillful ways to remember things. We may remember the number of times “I gave you a ride to work,” or “I paid for dinner,” and “How many times have I told you!?!” And it would be mighty convenient to forget about that $20 you lent me.

Keeping score is great in Baseball, not so great in terms of Bodhisattva action. I’ll violate keeping “Don’t Know Mind” here, but from what I’ve heard (from people who haven’t actually died yet) that there is no Karmic scorecard at any Pearly Gates ready to tally up our lives when they are over. Our karma will manifest just fine without us having any control over it. (One of the Five Remembrances is “ownership of one’s actions). And there is really no numerical value to it.

I don’t often see all Six Perfections listed together, but I’ve always found them to be a guidepost for how I’m doing day-to-day. If there’s greed, I can practice Dāna Paramita and exhibit generosity. Not living quite right, Śīla Paramita, morality, discipline, proper conduct will take care of that. Tapping my foot and rolling my eyes in the grocery line—time for Kṣānti Paramita to remind me to be patient and tolerant. Do I have that, “Oh, I don’t wanna, I’ll get to it later” attitude? Nothing like Vīrya Paramita to bring a bit of energy back to my efforts. Mind wandering? Dhyāna Paramita will get concentration going again. When I’m doing the previous five Imperfections so much I need to remind myself of their antidotes and what I need to do instead, that’s when I’m exhibiting some Prajñā Paramita, a moment of wisdom.

As the Bodhisattva Vow is there likewise as a reminder, “Sentient Beings are numberless, we vow to save them all. So since I’m already being told they’re numberless, why even bother trying to keep score? It’s not like there’s a sentient beings checklist that I can tick them off as they are saved. And “all?” Well, that means I’m going to have a lot of opportunities to ask myself, “What have I done for you lately?’