Starting in September, Bodhidharma!

Bodhidharma is credited with bringing Chan (Zen) to China. We will look at his teachings over the course of the  4 weeks in September. "Outline of Practice," "Bloodstream Sermon," "Wake Up Sermon," and "Breakthrough Sermon" will be covered and discussed. Red Pine's book "The Zen Teachings of Bodhidharma," and some alternate translations will be used.

A $10 donation will be greatly appreciated. Please drop us an email at info@onemindzen.org on the contact page with any questions or to let us know you will be attending.

You-Me-Us-Them-True? False. →

At the risk of being dualistic in a blog about a Dharma talk that is ostensibly about non-duality, as an ordained member of the clergy, I'm going to refrain from getting into any political endorsements. In the US, and from what I'm able to surmise in a number of countries worldwide, it seems there is a fair amount of divisive behavior. I've obviously only lived in this time period, so I can't really comment as to whether it's more now than previously. I suspect not. There may be a touch more than the usual amount of intransigence internally in some countries, and there is probably a standard amount of "us against them" between and among countries.

Conflict happens in the world. It's an undeniable fact. The Buddha didn't disavow the existence of, or even the need for armies. He said a number of things that would point to reasons not to use them, but he wasn't naive. ZM Seung Sahn (prior to being SM Seung Sahn) was involved in the Korean struggle against Japanese occupation. He was a proponent of correct action in a given scenario that was dependent upon causes and conditions. In one of his Compass of Zen talks, he spoke of the role of correct function for the police. If there is a mass-murderer mowing people down, correct function for a policeman is to protect the defenseless, with either speech, and maybe even killing the murdered.  Same act--killing--but in that situation, and given the relationship between the police officer and the public, and the mass killer in the public, use of deadly force by one is correct function (police), killing is not-correct function for the killer. Even the First Precept of refraining from killing is subject to causes and conditions.

Buddhist on Muslim violence in Myanmar, not-correct. Muslim on Muslim in Syria, maybe correct, maybe not. Police on unarmed motorist, not-correct. And so on. Perhaps you see that making the call on correct/not-correct is a subjective one. On a macro level, I'm making the assumption that even in wars, each side thinks they're "right." This may be totally delusional, but it is difficult for me to imagine that one government would willingly go to war without reason. Maybe I'm being naive about that.

On a more micro level, one person killing another would, I believe be more difficult to justify. Also my opinion, but I have to think there is some degree of difficulty for one person to directly take the life of another person. Of course, this difficulty in justification seems to disappear if the one doesn't actually see the other as a person. I've heard people speak of not aiming for the person, they aim for the uniform. Genocide is often justified by the lack of personhood of the victim.

All these actions are based upon dualistic behavior. If one is in a forest, the forest-ness is imperceptible due to the limitations of only being able to sense individual trees (hence the old cliche). Go in closer, one would see bark, then tree rings, then xylem and phloem, then cells, then constituent elements of the cells, then molecules, atoms, particles, and the space between the particles. The differences on the one hand are increasingly readily apparent, and on the other hand, increasingly meaningless.

Going back in the other direction, first the tree, then the forest, then a land mass, then continents, then planets, solar systems, galaxies, and if you like, on out to universe and multiverses. All these divisions are in one way obvious, but increasingly meaningless. Is one land mass arbitrarily "better" than another? One planet vs. another? Solar system, Galaxy, and so on? Seems to me that one would have to project a serious amount of "selfness" on to each, and in both directions to make these things separate. Just as the "self" is not created by the constituent elements of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin, and thought, the sense organs function (sight, smell, taste, etc.) and the objects of the sense organs, as well as the constructions we manufacture about them, none of these actually create a self or other, at least in a meaningful way. All of the above are made by thinking, subject to causes and conditions, and characterized by emptiness. Fundamentally, they don't exist in any real separate, meaningful, and permanent way.

In Huayan Buddhism, Fazang uses the example of the house and the rafter. Without a house, a rafter is a piece of wood. Its function as a piece of wood when there is no roof is different than when it is used to hold up a roof. Likewise, without the rafter to hold up a roof, the "house-ness" isn't fully realized until the walls are completed by having the roof in place, which turns it into s house. Each constituent element is interdependent upon the others in order for the potential of "house-ness" into active "house-ness." The rafter contains the house, the house contains the rafter. The universe is entirely dependent upon its constituent elements to be the universe. The constituent elements contain the universe, much as the rafter contains the house. The universe as it is, would not exist without not only the elements, but each and every cause and condition that has produced these elements. Each and every one is required, and as such, are equally important, I.e. totally interdependent, and all without inherent “good/not-good-ness.”

The same applies to that mass we call "sentient beings." Without the individuals that "exist" only in the Relative, the collective Absolute is totally dependent upon the unity of all. The Absolute only is manifested through the Relative. Just as form is form, and form is emptiness, and emptiness is form, and emptiness is empty, so do all things come to be such as they are, and all things are also no-things. There is no "you" without "me," no "us" without "them," but ultimately they have no inherent existence. As the Buddha states in the Diamond Sutra, all dharmas are no-dharmas, thus are they called dharmas. But just because out of convenience sake we call them dharmas (independent "things"), let's not fool ourselves into believing they aren’t likewise no-dharmas. Just as the atoms contain both particles and the space between them, this space is the same be it between "your" particles and "mine." Where do "I" begin, and "you" end? As ZM Seung Sahn might have said, "My Quark, and your Charm, same or different? You say same, I hit you 30 times...you say different, I hit you 30 times."

"All" sentient beings? No-beings. Thus do we call them "beings." They're numberless, we save them all. They are no-beings, there is no saving to be done. Thus do we say we save all beings. Even the ones in the uniform of the "enemy," or the political party. We do it anyway, because that's what Bodhisattvas do.

Click on the title to listen to the Dharma talk.

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?’

Where is Nirvana? →

“The One Mind alone is the Buddha, and there is no distinction between the Buddha and sentient things, but that sentient beings are attached to forms and so seek externally for Buddhahood. By their very seeking they lose it, for that is using the Buddha to seek for the Buddha and using mind to grasp Mind. Even though they do their utmost for a full aeon, they will not be able to attain it. They do not know that, if they put a stop to conceptual thought and forget their anxiety, the Buddha will appear before them, for this Mind is the Buddha and the Buddha is all living beings. It is not the less for being manifested in ordinary beings, nor is it greater for being manifest in the Buddhas.”
-Huangbo Xiyun (China, d. 850 CE)

Always asking questions, getting answers, then questioning the answer. No wonder the Buddha made the observation that living means struggling. We get something handed to us on a platter, then somehow decide that it isn't what we really wanted, or it is what we wanted, but that was then, and now we've changed our minds.

Maybe changing our "mind" isn't really an accurate statement. Maybe it's semantics, but maybe it's just thinking that changes, not really Mind. Not in the sense that Huangbo uses the word anyway. You could use “Buddha,” “Nirvana,” “Reality,” “Dharmakaya,” “Tathagatagarbha,” or any number of other words for the unchanging, the “not-green/not-yellow”, as Huangbo would say. All those words kinda point to what they point to, but there’s really nothing to be pointed to, unless you want to point at every microcosm in the billions of chiliocosms. Water doesn’t need the fish to point to water, lack of fingers notwithstanding. Reality doesn’t need us to point to it, as if it were somehow separate from us. It’s not Reality +1 on the Great Cosmic Guest List. “It” isn’t missing us, we’re not missing “It.’.

Since the Buddha first turned the Wheel of the Dharma, nobody has really had anything to add, it's all just been rephrasing, using those provisional, conditional words, and doing our best to say something that will help. And just as there is nothing to add to you or me. That’s not to say there aren’t a few things we could eliminate, but fundamentally, we are “there”, we’ve already got “it,” already are “it” for that matter. You can use whatever “noun” you want between the quotation marks, none of them accurately describe “it.”

ZM Seung Sahn would say, "...become enlightened, save all beings."

“Buddha-Nature” means you're already enlightened, or at least have the essence of “Nature of Enlightenment.” All you have to do is act like it. So go save all beings and become enlightened. Become enlightened and save all beings. Either way works. Enlightened action is saving all beings, so there's only one step. Easy. That's your Buddha-Nature, your True Nature. He and others have handed Truth to us, right there on the platter.

That's all the practice is about: helping someone else get through their struggles. Why we do it, how we do it, that's all incidental.

Where is Nirvana? Stand up. Take one pace to the left. Look at where you had just been. Now step back into that spot. Done.

Happy Interdependence Day! →

Dependent origination is one of the Buddha’s most profound teachings to point us toward how we got where we are. We start out as born into a state of ignorance and trying to grope our way through life, creating karma, and the resultant subsequent rebirth into that cycle of ignorance/try and figure things out/not quite nail it/whoops, here we go again. The optimist might say, “Great, another chance!” The pessimist might say, “Oh hell, not this again…” I think the pendulum might swing to either of those extremes, and maybe with practice we tend toward the middle.

Part of being “in the middle” is taking steps to not trip on the Twelve Nidanas, to realize that when “this” comes to exist, “that” results. When “this” doesn’t come to be, neither does “that.” We all think we know about cause and effect, and yet sometimes we act really surprised when “this” causes “that.” Drink a gallon of vodka before getting behind the wheel of a car (this), crash car into tree (that). That’s easy, especially if it’s the other guy driving. If it’s me, “Oh, I didn’t think I had that much.” Maybe in the next cycle of rebirth, there’s someone who doesn’t develop a taste for alcohol.  

In 21st Century America, if not world-wide, there seems to be a lot of not realizing that “this” is going to lead to “that.” It might not be as obvious as getting drunk and crashing a car. It might be as simple as thinking that we are all independent, solely responsible for our own fate, capable of going it alone as an intrepid pioneer as in days of yore, and then wondering why things don’t work out as we’d planned.

The Bodhisattva doesn’t “crush the competition;” (s)he would see that as leading to a self-perpetuating wheel of competition and crushing. The Bodhisattva wouldn’t be greedy when running a business, hording all the profits; it would be obvious that if everyone else is penniless, they won’t have anything to buy those precious commodities with, eventually causing the business to fail.

Where I am today is not only dependent upon what I’ve done, it’s has to do with what my parents had done. It’s dependent upon the school bus driver deciding to get up in the morning and drive the bus. It’s dependent on her not drinking a gallon of vodka the night before. It’s dependent on there being a road for the bus to drive on, and on and on. It really isn’t rocket science; it’s not as if it would seem reasonable that rockets would spontaneously spring into existence without there having been airplanes first, or an entire infrastructure of knowledge and labor that brought it all into existence.

Sometimes it takes a holiday like “Independence Day” to show how short-sighted a thought that “independence” really is. Clichéd as it might be, Happy Interdependence day. Every day.

Click on the title to listen to the Dharma talk from July 2, 2015.