Truly Natural →

I’ve spent a fair amount of time as what might be called a Zen hard-ass. I see a website for a Zen center that says that meditation will result in peaceful calm equanimity, and I want to shake somebody. I’ll think to myself, “How can you say that?!? There are no results, and making promises that can’t be kept just sets people up for a feeling of failure, maybe even contempt for the Zen center or Zen practice itself!” To some extent that is false advertising; it’s not like sitting mindfully on a cushion will unequivocally bear any fruit, at least maybe not in the meditator’s time frame. There are no guarantees of peace, calm, or Enlightenment just because you sit on a cushion once a week or read a book.

And yet, I can’t deny that with practice, maybe in one instant, maybe in an instant that takes many lifetimes to roll around, peace, calm, equanimity, and yes, even Enlightenment may actually result. Meditation can be like the medication that is meant to treat one thing, and ends up having a beneficial side-effect. We get on the cushion because of some sort of suffering, and maybe that suffering is relieved through our practice, but “Hey, what made me suffer is still there, but at least now it doesn’t make me suffer...at least not right now, anyway.” A minoxidil of the struggling self, where not only is the ulcer relieved, but “Hey, look at that, I’m not bald anymore!” And that’s OK.

Bodhidharma spoke of perceiving our True Nature as Enlightenment, or Awakening, or simply “Buddha.” Mazu spoke of “Mind is Buddha.” Sengcan spoke of the Great Way as “easy for those with no preferences.” As Zen practitioners, quite often we can seemingly make things “difficult” for ourselves, argue with the idea that “Ordinary Mind is the Way,” and sometimes mistake what we think is our true nature for True Nature.

When one begins practice, it’s easy to be overwhelmed by the paradoxical, sometimes contradictory statements that the Great Sages have handed down to us. Our inability to understand must mean that we are “bad Buddhists.” We hear about Buddha Nature at some point, and contend that it’s either impossible, or maybe possible for someone else, but certainly not for “me.” We might hear about “no mind,” and assume that implies that if one is sitting in meditation and thinks at all, then we are meditation failures. And maybe we hear about Zen practice as the direct perception of reality. Shortly thereafter, the Heart Sutra comes along and tells us that all perceptions are “empty.” “Damn. This is hard. My ordinary mind is anything but the Way.”

And none of these thoughts we might have are inherently “wrong,” but maybe the way in which they are “right” isn’t readily apparent. When it comes to “True Nature,” as a result of practice, we get to the point where we can observe our thoughts, then eventually judge the thoughts as empty, and live in the realm of the Absolute, at least while we’re on the cushion. Once back in the “real world,” it’s back to greed, anger, and delusion, only to be seen in retrospect back on the cushion, with the distinct possibility that some self-scolding will begin. The wrong-ness of the behaviors I’ve mentioned may seem dualistic, that there’s “not-good/not-bad,” and therefore I’m spouting heretical views to say that there is wrong-ness. That there are “wrong” actions is undeniable.

Upon investigation of those thoughts from a classic text standpoint, maybe do you have a point, but only to a certain extent. If you want to pick and choose the teachings justify that view, then you can come to that conclusion; if you want to pick and choose teaching that refer to not picking and choosing, then it becomes a moot point as to whether I’m right or you’re right, because that’s being. “Oh hell, there’s another kalpa in the realm of hungry ghosts” for having picked and chosen is as dualistic as saying, “Oh goody, I didn’t pick and choose, Great Way here I come!”

It’s easy to come to the conclusion that in radically accepting ourselves as flawed, that stopping there is the attainment of True Nature. “I’m a jerk,” we say, justifying our perceived jerkiness as True. And while it’s true that you’re a jerk, or that I’m obnoxious, or that others are really delusional and would be a whole lot better if they practiced meditation, it may not reflect “True.” Being an obnoxious, delusional jerk is as much a part of reality in its totality as being kind, loving, tolerant, and wise. Seeing our True Nature doesn’t just mean accepting that we’re jerks. It does mean that we can accept it, seeing it for what it truly is--constantly changing--and taking steps to be not-a-jerk. Seeing the jerk within gives us the freedom to be that jerk, to see that we needn’t be a jerk, and that I’m not a jerk every minute of every day and will be forever, or that just seeing being a jerk is not actually running the whole race. We accept reality for what it is, see that not only will it change on its own, but that we can be an active participant in the changing. In the perspective of interdependence of all phenomena, when I change just the slightest bit, the entire universe changes. When the universe changes, I cannot help but change--causes and conditions differ, reactions and adaptations to those causes and conditions change, and as there’s no “universe + 1 (me)”, I’m a part and the whole of the change.

When I see that I can hate, and that I also can love, that’s truth--reality. But when I see that my True Nature, yours, and the Nature of all phenomena, is not to think that seeing that I can hate means it has to stop there, attaching to the notion that there’s any permanence to that particular momentary reflection of reality. So far as direct perception of reality goes, letting go of notions, perceptions, and nature as real things is the Great Way. True Nature isn’t a thing, or a concept, something that can be attained, noticed, not attained, or not noticed. It can be said that it’s both attained and not attained, noticed and not noticed, but that’s getting into the territory of the conceptual. “To Call it a thing is not correct,” as Nanyue said to the Sixth Patriarch. When we look past “True Nature” and simply act truly naturally, then there is correct True Nature, truly natural ordinary mind Buddha-Nature.

Click on the title to listen to the Dharma Talk, or navigate here:
https://soundcloud.com/onemindzen/truly-natural

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.

A Nose is a Nose

In Zen, we can tend to use a lot of metaphors and analogies. No harm in that; sometimes we need a “like this” in order to help someone comprehend what is arguably incomprehensible. And sometimes the metaphor or analogy may take on a life of its own, to the point where what it pointed to is lost altogether.

Without putting too much thought into it, “raft” and the “moon” are two that jump out. Metaphorically, we use the raft of our teacher and the teachings to help us get to the other side of our originally ignorant thinking, which would be to get to the other shore of wisdom. Then it's said we are to discard the raft, as there's no longer any need for a one when the river of delusion is crossed. Fair enough. But that doesn't mean we toss the teaching or the teacher aside and disregard them. They still have value for us to use at any time where the situation fits their need. If we do toss them away without regard for the purpose originally served, we’re right back in the “river” of discontent and in need of the teacher and the teachings all over again. The raft is a metaphor. We can reify a metaphor, but the metaphor is only an empty metaphor. To someone who has never seen a river, let alone a raft, the raft becomes doubly empty.

We often hear about mistaking the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself. Double metaphor! There is no finger, there is no moon. The ineffable moon is the Great Way. To call it “moon” is not correct. To call it “it,” is likewise incorrect. The “moon” and “Great Way” are fingers, and no more. There are any number of words from the Sutras and elsewhere that are the fingers. For those of us with limited capacities, we might need the direction of the finger to point the way; a smile may not do. That's been the case since Mahakashyapa smiled upon seeing a flower. I'm making a great leap here, but this was the lesson of the flower sermon. A rose is a rose. A kiss is just a kiss, a sight is just a sigh.

I can't say whether dogs have it over us other sentient beings. Throw a ball, then point to it, and the dog becomes enraptured with the finger. On the one hand, we're no different. We attach to the finger and forget all about the moon. On the other hand, if “cypress tree in the garden” is a valid response to “What is Buddha,” then maybe “the finger in my face” is valid as well, so long as there's an actual finger waving in my face. Other answers such as “dried shit on a stick” and “three pounds of flax” only work if you've just come out of a Chinese latrine, or happen to be weighing flax. But let's not attach to fingers, moons, sticks, trees, or fibrous plant material at the expense of what they're used to represent. What's right here, right now? The present, the immediate, the unjudged are. “What is Buddha?” Virtual words behind glass, the smell of fresh, ink stained paper.

When we hear about the dewdrop reflecting the moon, the metaphorical dewdrop reflecting the moon points to something. Or maybe there's just a dewdrop that at that moment happens to be reflecting the moon. It could be said that all phenomena reflect Buddha. If everything reflects Buddha, then there is no need to attach to moon, finger, raft, ignorance, wisdom, green, yellow, rivers, or mountains. In the vast Dharmakaya, there is none other than Buddha. So why bother asking the question “What is Buddha?” The answer is literally right before you eyes, and includes your eyes, what's behind them, and in all ten directions from them. Is there honestly any real reason to think about them at all? All our thinking does is give them name and form, and concepts, and as the “Mind Only” school might say, we are creating them as concepts of eyes and mountains and moons and ducks.

They're all just fine as they are, totally indifferent to our conceptualizing them, pondering them, analyzing them, or analogizing them. They don't worry. They don't need our validation to be what they are. They're as oblivious to us as we are to them until that moment when we cause “that rather large rocky thing that juts up out of the surrounding area” to become “mountain.” When our attention is distracted, we no longer think “mountain.” For us, “mountain” falls away and so far as we're concerned, “what mountain?” We may be at the foot of the mountain, but unless we are paying attention to where we are and what we're doing, what is taking place around us, even that which is there isn't there.

It happens in the other direction also. There's the story of some monks, strolling along the road, when a flock of ducks come into view, fly overhead, then pass. Mazu asks Baizhang where the ducks went. Baizhang replies that they flew away.  At which point Mau proceeds to pull Baizhang's nose, and most likely with great force. (I make that assumption based on the likelihood that a gentle “got yer nose,” story probably wouldn't have endured for centuries). The nose was pulled because it was there, and the ducks weren't. They had flown along with Baizhang’s ability to pay attention. Baizhang falls into Master Ma’s checking trap. There had been ducks, now there are no ducks other than the ones still residing between Baizhang’s ears. When Baizhang’s nose heals, the nose stops hurting. But if Baizhang's grudge against Mazu doesn't heal, then Baizhang is hurting...himself. But any grudge passed, just like the flock of duck. I can well imagine Baizhang being hypervigilant any time he heard “quack.”

There are times where someone might say that the “nose” symbolized the “self,” and Mazu was trying to aid Baizhang in relieving his attachment to the “self” as if it were a separate entity. I can't say I agree with that. From what I've been taught and what I have read, Mazu seems extremely straightforward. I have no reason to suspect Baizhang’s attachment, if for no other reason than I'm not Baizhang. That which pulls the nose is Buddha, that which yells “Ouch” is Buddha, Baizhang’s bloody nose is Buddha, even the drops of blood on the ground are Buddha, whether they reflect the moon or not.

Use the raft, forget the raft, until the next time someone needs to hear about the raft. Then when they no longer need the raft, we can let them in on the secret that not only is there no raft, but there is no “other” shore. Unless you're explaining this on a beach or a river bank, “this” shore doesn't exist either. Point at the moon, but maybe not with a finger and not at the moon, unless it's nighttime and its relatively bright out. One can easily also use the moon and clouds if need be, so long as it's nighttime and gloomy.

But this is a great element of practice: Saying precisely what needs to be said at the correct time, and nothing more. I know of someone who was told that he was qualified to teach, and was even allowed to use words if he had to. But only if he had to with no laziness, no shortcuts, no lack of searching for the right non-word. And when a word is necessary, going straight is certainly something to aim for. The Diamond Sutra teaches this. A nose is no-nose, thus is it called “nose.”

 

Clumsy Means →

Since most likely you are reading this via the internet, you possibly have seen other Buddhist-related and maybe Zen-related posts, comments, articles, and “books”. And you will have probably come across everything from comments such as, “That's not Zen!” “Zen Masters never teach the Four Noble Truths!” to those who divide the Dharma into Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana, maybe more, and some statements by those who have no grounding in the Dharma whatsoever who still try to discuss and expound upon it. 

"A special transmission outside the scriptures,
Not founded upon words and letters;
By pointing directly to Mind.
It lets one see into nature and attain Buddhahood."

There may be those who take the meaning of this to be an excuse not to practice, not to find a teacher, and not read any Sutras or any other literature that points to the Great Way. It can, and often is, easily misinterpreted. Expecting the Big Result from studying, reading, chanting, and the like is misguided. Doing them without expectation is the Great Way.

In the “Outline of Practice,” Bodhidharma tells us:

“...If you don’t see your nature, invoking Buddhas, reciting Sutras, making offerings, and keeping precepts are all useless. Invoking Buddhas results in good karma, reciting Sutras results in a good memory; keeping precepts results in a good rebirth, and making offerings results in future blessings-but no buddha. If you don’t understand by yourself, you’ll have to find a     teacher to get to the bottom of life and death.

“...If you don’t see your nature and run around all day looking somewhere else, you’ll never find a buddha. The truth is there’s nothing to find. But to reach such an understanding you need a teacher and you need to struggle to make yourself understand. Life and death are important. Don’t suffer them in vain”.

In Chapter 2 of the Lotus Sutra (“Skillful Means”), the Buddha says:

“And what is that sole object, that sole aim, that lofty object, that lofty aim of the Buddha, the Tathâgata, appearing in the world? To show all creatures the sight of Tathâgata-knowledge does the Buddha, the Tathagata appear in the world; to open the eyes of creatures for the sight of Tathâgata-knowledge does the Buddha, the Tathâgata, appear in the world. This, O Sâriputra, is the sole object, the sole aim, the sole purpose of his appearance in the world....

If, O [Sâriputra], I spoke to the creatures, 'Vivify in your minds the wish for     enlightenment,' they would in their ignorance all go astray and never catch the meaning of my good words....

And considering them to be such, and that they have not accomplished their course of duty in previous existences, (I see how) they are attached and devoted to sensual pleasures, infatuated by desire and blind with delusion....

From lust they run into distress; they are tormented in the six states of existence and people the cemetery again and again; they are overwhelmed with misfortune, as they possess little virtue....

They are continually entangled in the thickets of (sectarian) theories, such as, 'It is and it is not; it is thus and it is not thus.' In trying to get a decided opinion on what is found in the sixty-two (heretical) theories they come to embrace falsehood and continue in it.”     

In the Lotus Sutra, also discussed is the Buddha-Nature of all beings, the ability for any being to become a buddha. Mass murderers, Devadatta, the guy next door whose dog digs up your flowers and does nothing about it, the internet troll, your teacher, the teacher who proved he was way too human for your liking, the founder of your lineage, everybody, they are innately Buddha. This can be a real drag, because the Buddha I see in the mirror every morning may not be particularly fond of the one you see in the mirror. But this nature is immanent in all beings. 

There's a joke that goes like this:

“Two mobile phone salesmen leave work to go home. That night, one attains Awakening, the other does not. What do they do the next day?”
“The unenlightened one goes to work to sell mobile phones. The Awakened one goes to work to sell mobile phones”.

The tenth of the Oxherding pictures is of “going into the marketplace with outstretched arms.” I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but that's where I live. This marketplace, this world, is where Bodhisattva action takes place. We don't get to pick and choose who is getting the benefit of “Sentient being numberless, we vow to save them all.” As I've mentioned elsewhere, “all” is a pretty big number, numberless even. If nothing else, that means we have an opportunity on any given day, in every moment, to save all beings: the ones we like, the ones we don’t like, the ones who sell mobile phones, the ones who steal mobile phones.

Upon Awakening, what did the Buddha do? After a shaky start, he shared his findings. He expounded the Dharma for the benefit of all beings. He did all the hard work for the benefit of all of us, that we could awaken as well. “Could” doesn’t mean that we’re already awakened no matter what, it just means that if everything falls into place, we could awaken. He, and all the great sages have spent 2,500 years trying to use skillful means to get the point across to us. Some of us have different capacities for learning than others. Even in the Sudden Enlightenment school of Zen, “sudden” can take kalpas. We all could awaken in this lifetime, but maybe a few more lifetimes may also be in order.

Great Korean Master Chinul described it as “sudden enlightenment, gradual cultivation.” When one finishes brushing his/her teeth, that last bit is spat out, and voila, the teeth are suddenly clean. In order to keep them that way, we rinse and repeat, cultivating that captivating smile of enlightenment. Stop brushing, things might start to slip. The teeth underneath all the crud are still undefiled, but there’s layers of crud that keep their bright nature from coming through. (The “Zen-dentist” might pick out the discrepancies in the metaphor, correcting everything from defiled/not-defiled, to tooth decay. Sorry). The Buddha was more adept at coming up with metaphors than I. I sincerely doubt that in another 2,500 years, people will talk about the “Toothbrush Sutra.” I could mention something about needing to brush up on my metaphors; but that will most likely result in 500 rebirths as something with no teeth, so I’ll defer.

Kanhua Chan sage Dahui Zonggao states in “Swampland Flowers” (Cleary translation):

“In the conduct of their daily activities, sentient beings have no illumination. If you go along with their ignorance, they're happy; if you oppose their ignorance, they become vexed. Buddhas & Bodhisattvas are not this way; they make use of ignorance, considering this is the business of buddhas. Since sentient beings make ignorance their home, to go against it amounts to breaking up their home; going with it is adapting to where they're at, to influence and guide them”.

So here we are in the world, in the world of the interwebs, the realm of i-Dharma. Metaphors being understood is only a part of the problem of aiding all beings. As one prone toward puns, somewhat cryptic references, and even some things that make perfect sense to me and possibly no one else, sometimes it’s obvious that my intended message falls short of the mark. To some, I may be way too paradoxical, for others, my lack of zen-speak profundity may be annoying. Thich Nhat Hanh can ooze lovingkindness in his writings; my writings may ooze irreverence and snarkiness more often than not. I’d like to think that in either case, we’re operating from a place of the Bodhisattva.

As ZM Seung Sahn said, “Try, try, try for 10,000 years, become enlightened, and save all beings.” The intention to save all beings may result in wholesome karma, but if the outcome results in more struggle on the part of the reader/listener, maybe I could have taken a more skillful tack. The struggle and suffering may have lots more to do with the reader/listener’s karma than mine, but I can’t use that as an excuse to get lazy. What I’ve found is that in an impersonal setting where one person types at another, or passively listens to a recorded Dharma talk, it is impossible to reach everyone. Sometimes that comes out as spreading the mess, sometimes spreading the message. But that impossibility is no cause for not bothering to try to reach everybody, any more than the “impossibility” of saving all beings is a reason not to save all beings.

We could go into the “all beings are no-beings, thus are they called ‘beings’,” Diamond Sutra territory, but that isn’t appropriate to the situation I’m addressing. Likewise, we could go off on some detour into sunyata or emptiness or boundlessness, but that also only diverts attention away to the actual saving of all beings in this context. This issue, right here&now, is what’s being addressed. And just as it would be easy to go off onto an intellectual left turn into the off-ramp of conceptualizing, that won't do.

It takes as much attention and concentration to spread the Dharma on paper or in 1’s and 0’s as it does in any other way since the Wheel of Dharma was set into motion. I can't exactly get 5,000 readers to divert their eyes as the Buddha was able to divert the 5,000 monks and nuns in the Lotus Sutra to give a teaching tailored to his listeners. That chapter is usually titled “Skillful Means.” That means I don’t go to kong-ans when the person who is reading or listening doesn’t work on kong-ans with me. I can’t go into Huayan territory at an advanced level when making it simple enough for almost anyone to understand would be more appropriate.

What an opportunity to practice this all is! Get whatever feedback there may be, and respond appropriately. Don’t answer questions that aren’t asked, don’t play pride-driven smartest guy in the room games. As Dahui said, don’t trash someone’s house then tell them they live in a dump--they might get just a little defensive about it.

Above all, I have to try, try, try to use skillful means. Even when the other party might be mean rather than skillful. Even when something I read really ticks me off, try, try for 10,000 years to see only the changing nature of emotions. There can be skillful correction without malice; and malicious enabling that is unskillful. And if it turns out that something I say or write was unskillful, try, try, try to be more skillful the next time by paying better attention! After all, there isn’t a chapter in the Toothbrush Sutra called “Clumsy Means.” 

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

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.