Hi everyone,
I was just reading some articles on yahoo.com about Terri Schiavo including one about the perspectives of various faiths. To summarize, Terri Schiavo had an eating disorder which causes her to have a heart attack which cut off blood to her brain and resulted in what court appointed doctors call a "persistent vegetative state" with no hope of recovery. She can breathe on her own, but her mind is gone, and she must receive artifical nutrients and water. Her parents, practicing Roman Catholics, insist that she does respond to them, but doctors say these are only "reflexive." She has been in this state for 15 years and her husband does not believe she would want to be kept alive artificially in this way and has decided to have the feeding tube removed. Her parents are fighting in the courts to get it reinserted and even the president has gotten involved.
The pope has decared it morally obligatory to provide sustenance to those with brain damage in this condition. In fact, the Catholic Church declares the removal of the feeding tube in this case as "euthanasia by omission." A Muslim scholar said that it is also obligatory to provide food and water but no other extraordinary means. Jewish rabbis have various opinions - some seeing artificial feeding for this long a period with no hope of recovery as an "extraordinary means" while others see it as meeting a basic need for those who can't care for themselves.
I wondered how I, as a Buddhist minister, would respond if I had been asked about the morality of this case. To begin with, Buddhism is also unequivocally against abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia. This is evident in the first precept for monastics which specifies that killing in the case of this precept covers the death of anyone from the moment of conception all the way up to fatal diseases. One must not condone, encourage, or participate in the killing of other human beings (this precept does not cover the killing of animals which is a lesser offense in the Buddhist monastic code). Aside from this precept there are suttas wherein the Buddha condemns those who "use the knife" to kill themselves when faced with a fatal illness and also saves the serial killer Angulimala from capital punishment.
But the trick is this - what are basic needs that should be met, and what are extraordinary means of keeping a person alive who it is time to let go of? Active means of bringing about the death of a person who is fatally ill or in a coma or persistent vegetative state is indeed ruled out. But what about keeping someone alive when they should be allowed to die naturally with dignity. Where is the line between caring for those who can't care for themselves (like a baby or a bedridden person) and keeping someone alive artificially which is a form of clinging and attachment? There are no clear cut answers in the Buddhist canon that I am aware of.
In pre-modern times, before feeding tubes and such things, this would not have been an issue. I think we need to be clear that we are using our advanced technology to keep this woman alive. This is no longer a truly natural process that we are dealing with. On the other hand, it strikes me that the doctors dismissal of Terri's responses to her parents as "reflexive" may be a reduction of the human person to just what can be measured by materialistic science. I think they are claiming more knowledge than they really have. On the other hand, Terri's parent's may be deluded and clinging to an empty shell. There really don't seem to be any easy answers here.
The Buddhist way of viewing a people is to view them in terms of five mutually supportive and interactive processes - form, sensation, perception, volition, and consciousness. But Buddhist Abhidharma does admit of states wherein there is consciousness but no form, or form but no consciousness or at least not any discernible consciousness. In any case, consciousness can be present but so subtle that it is no longer measurable and no longer even produces subjective or self-aware experience. And of course even vegetables and plants are alive. If someone is in a "vegetative" state that does not mean there is no life there. Neither is it necessarily keeping someone locked into a state of suffering. We don't really know what, if any, subjective state someone like Terri may be in. But from a faith perspective, in Nichiren Buddhism we teach that even grasses and trees have the buddhanature. I fully admit that is Mahayana hyperbolic rhetoric, but there is a concrete truth to it. That truth is that all life - even non-self-aware life has a dignity and an ability to manifest buddhanature. In other words, there is a quality there worth caring for and preserving. So if I look at it from that angle, then compassion does demand that we provide care, food, drink, and nourishment if we are able to all forms of life - even life that is not or has ceased to be self-aware and/or autonomous.
But then what about all the people wandering the streets of our cities who are self-aware but are crippled by mental illness and other forms of social maladjustement, addictions, and in some cases various forms of trauma that are in fact not their own fault (I do believe there are some few cases where people are homeless and it is not in fact "their own damn fault")? Why are they allowed to starve to death, freeze to death, die of exposure, be murdered with impunity (in some cases), and to go into seizures or whatever because they are being denied proper medical care. Every couple of weeks or so there are new names on the Buddhist altar at the Faithful Fools Zendo with new names of homeless people who have died on the streets. Why is this form of euthanasia acceptable to our president, to our society?
From a Buddhist perspective, euthanasia is never ok, whether actively or by omission, whether it is to someone bedridden in a persistent vegetative state or someone being allowed to die on the sidewalk in front of our churches. Extraordinary means do not need to be used, most people agree on that. But basic food, water, shelter, and medical care is not extaordinary, but a basic obligation of human dignity.
Perhaps someone who needs to receive food and water through technological devices is being kept alive by extraordinary means. But perhaps not. But there are people dying who are not vegetative but mentally ill and/or maladjusted and/or incorrigible, but does that make it ok to kill them by denying their existence? It mystifies me that a woman who has been a vegetable for 15 years gets the attention of the president, whereas there are actually people dying in the streets who are actively encouraged to die. From the Nichiren Buddhist point of view even the incorrigible slanderers against the Dharma also have buddhanature and will someday (in this or another lifetime) attain buddhahood - so even their dignity should be recognized. Even they should receive basic food, water, shelter, and nutrition.
This is not impossible. I did not see any homeless people in Copehnhagen. That does not mean there are not any. But it was not like here. So much of this hysteria over the rights of a woman in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years rings false to me when I see new name cards on the altar. But make no mistake, I agree that euthanasia by action or omission is wrong from a Buddhist point of view, and particularly a Nichiren Buddhist point of view.
So those are my thoughts about the issue of euthanasia.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
I would like to share with everyone what I have learned thus far in life about the practice of sitting meditation. I first became interested in this practice through reading books about Zen, like Shunryu Suzuki’s “Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind” and the works of Catholic mystics when I was in high school. In college, I actually got live instructions and practice in silent sitting at the Philadelphia Shambhala Center. For those who might not know, the Shambhala training program was created by the late Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche who was a friend of Shunryu Suzuki and inspired by Suzuki Roshi to emphasize “just sitting” with his own students. Chogyam Trunpga was also the author of “The Myth of Freedom” and “Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism” which were very helpful to me in getting back on track with authentic Buddhism after a little detour I made. I continued sitting under the direction of my good friend Rev. Bokin Kim of the Won Buddhist Temple of Philadelphia. Won Buddhism uses what is called “tanjun meditation” which focuses on a point in the lower diaphragm that is held to be the center of gravity and spiritual power within the body. When I moved to San Francisco and began attending the San Jose Nichiren Buddhist Temple, I discovered that the Ven. Ryusho Matsuda also taught that one should focus one’s awareness on this spot, which in Japanese is called the "tanden." When chanting one should chant from the diaphragm, and in sitting one should breathe from the diaphragm and keep one’s focus there. At the same time, I ended up meeting and sitting with Taigen Dan Leighton, a teacher in the lineage of Shunryu Suzuki, as well as other Soto Zen practitioners. All of this teaching and experience has been very beneficial to me, and I would like to share it with any who might want to take up such a practice but hesitate to do so because they either do not know how or perhaps have some mistaken ideas about meditation which prevent them from taking it up. I would also like to show how Odaimoku is itself a form of meditation. But first I will begin with the silent sitting form focusing on the breath as I have learned it, since this method is very simple, universal, and is a basic human activity that is not intrinsically tied in to any particular religion, denomination or sect.
To begin with, just sit down in a comfortable and stable posture, whether that is sitting up straight in a chair, in the half-lotus, or even full lotus posture. If in a chair, sit on the edge of it so that your legs are level and the knees bent at a 90 degree angle. Do not rest your back against the chair but keep it upright. If sitting on the floor, use a cushion to lift the buttocks up so that one does not need to lean forward to maintain one’s balance but can keep the back up straight. You can simply cross your legs, or rest your left foot on your right thigh for a half-lotus posture, or rest the right foot on the left thigh and then cross the left leg over that so the left foot is resting on the right thigh for a full lotus. Or you can sit in seiza which is when you sit with your legs tucked straight back underneath you with your buttocks resting on both feet and the big toes touching. This is usually done with a cushion or seiza bench so that one’s weight is lifted up off the legs and the knees are not as strained. While the lotus or half-lotus are the most stable for the body, they are difficult for most people and one should feel free to sit in any of these postures provided that one’s posture is upright, stable, and comfortable.
Again, the back should be straight, without tilting forward or backward or to either side. If you catch yourself slumping, restore your posture. This is usually a sign that you are getting either distracted or drowsy and restoring your posture usually helps you to recenter your attention as well.
Your chin should be tucked in just a bit so that your eyes, open or semi-closed, can rest their gaze on a spot two hand lengths in front of you. Again, if you find your eyes closing in drowsiness, or you catch yourself looking around, that is a sign to refocus and return to a restful gaze on the spot in front of you. To cut down on distractions, it is best to have an uncluttered floor and/or a blank wall in front of you.
Your open left hand should rest lightly on your open right hand with your thumb tips touching as if to form a small moon. Hold this small moon against your abdomen just below the belly button. If the thumb tips break apart or the hands slip down into the lap or you find yourself pressing down too hard with your hands, that is a sign to recenter your attention on the subject of meditation and to either restore or relax your hands as the situation calls for.
Once settled into the posture for sitting simply follow the breath. Breathe in a natural rhythm from the diaphragm and try to center your awareness on a point about an inch and a half below the belly button which is called the tanden in Japanese. That is just about right under the area that expands and deflates as you breathe in and out. It is the still point physically and mentally which abides in the midst of changing phenomena.
It can be difficult to just stay with the breath, so it can be helpful to count your breath cycles from 1 to 10. Breathe in and out and then silently count "one", in and out then "two" all the way up to "ten." Don't try to force your breathing to be fast or slow, just breathe naturally and count after each cycle of inhalation and exhalation. Thoughts and feelings will arise and dissipate. Let them. If you get caught up in them and lose your count, no big deal. Just be aware that you lost your focus and bring it back to the tanden and the counting of the breath cycles starting with "one" again. Sometimes you might have to repeatedly go back to one. Sometimes you won't get past two or three or four. That is fine. Just keep going back to one and be aware of it. Again, it is all good as long as you are sitting there and being present to whatever is happening.
If you can keep your focus on the tanden and breathing without having to count, that is good. Just stay with the breath. Alternatively you might want to recite the Odaimoku silently to yourself. What works for me is to silently recite "Namu" as I am inhaling, and then "Myoho Renge Kyo" as I am exhaling. Other variations are possible. Find whatever works for you.
Don't try to fight off thoughts and feelings, and don't try to judge them or analyze them. If you do find yourself getting caught up in them and creating trains of thought, just be with that too and, if you can, bring your focus back as above. The same applies to any distracting noises or physical sensations or other phenomena that may arise. Just be aware of it and let it go without getting caught by it.
Now all of this counting, or silently reciting a mantra, or even focusing on the tanden are all just training wheels to keep you upright, aware, and not fixated on any particular thing. The point is to cultivate a clear and open awareness that takes in everything that arises and dissipates without judging or interference. We just let things within and around us be apparent. We may have thoughts and feelings but we do not participate in them, we just watch them come and go like passing clouds or leaves floating by in a stream. This is what "no thought" in terms of meditation actually means. It does not mean literally having no thoughts, rather it means not fixating on them or being captured by them, but just being able to let them come and go in full awareness. If we can maintain this kind of open awareness without a specific focus like the tanden, or the breath, or some active practice like mantra recitation and can just sit calmly abiding, open to whatever insights may arise or not, then that is ideal. This kind of meditation with no object or focus but just "clear awareness in the tranquility of no-thought" is very difficult to do. Most of us, including those who have done a lot of silent sitting, do end up getting sleepy and dozing off or else getting caught up in schemes, daydreams, or daymares. Then it is time to go back to using the earlier techniques to recenter. However, there is no such thing as a bad meditation session. You sit just to be with whatever is there - even if it means you fall asleep or spend the time worrying or scheming or fantasizing - just be with it and aware of it.
It is good to sit at least once a day even if for only a few minutes. It is better to be consistent and to make it a part of your normal routine. Sitting in the morning is a good way to start the day as it will help you feel calm and centered. Sitting at the end of the day is good because it can enable you to recenter and try to let go of or at least to calmly reflect upon all that has transpired throughout the day. I would not recommend sitting for more than 40 minutes at a stretch, but if one wants to do more it is good to break up long sessions with some walking meditation in order to stretch out one’s muscles and to reinvigorate oneself. Just sitting is actually hard work.
Walking meditation is just walking slowly and mindfully in awareness of our every movement. It is often done silently, but in Nichiren Shu we do this while chanting Namu as we step out on the left foot, then Myo for the right foot, Ho - left, Ren - right, Ge - left, then Kyo - right, and back to Namu - left. This can be done fast or slow. When doing walking meditation in Nichiren Shu we place our hands in front of our solar plexus with the left hand folded over the right and the right thumb over the left.
Now I shall explain how these instructions apply to chanting practice:
You should chant as much as you want (though make sure to get up and do walking meditation if chanting for longer than 40 minutes at a time), and at whatever speed or rhythm you want (though if chanting with others it is best to harmonize with them), the point is to deepen and express your trust and confidence in the Wonderful Dharma of the Lotus Flower Teaching. Chanting Namu Myoho Renge Kyo is a way of immersing yourself in the view that all beings have buddhanature and that this buddhanature can be recognized and actualized in each other in our daily lives. What is buddhanature? It is that quality we all have that is reality-centered instead of self-centered, that is a treasure house within our hearts of loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, equanimity, generosity, virtue, patience, enthusiasm, focus, and transcendent wisdom - all the fruits of the spirit.
When chanting it does help to do so out loud when you can so that you involve not just the so-called inner voice but your whole being, body, voice, posture, everything. In doing this, one should chant from the tanden, that is to say from the diaphragm, and not shallowly from the lungs or throat. One should not dissipate the energy by shaking or nervously rubbing beads but with a still firmness centered and grounded in the tanden. The same goes for reciting chapters or passages from the Lotus Sutra. Once when I was chanting with my sensei, the Ven. Ryusho Matsuda, I was sitting in seiza but my shoulders and body were moving up and down in rhythm with the chanting. Without missing a beat (he was setting the rhythm on a percussion instrument called a mokusho) or looking up from the sutra book my sensei reached out with one arm and put his hand on my right shoulder and I knew to make my body still and to keep the energy grounded in the tanden even as I continued to chant with power from the diaphragm. The chanting became more focused and the energy less hysterical and dissipated.
Another thing about chanting that is similar to silent sitting is that you are not trying to ignore, fight off, or override any feelings, thoughts, or sensations. All you have to do is just center your awareness on the Odaimoku and let whatever comes come, and whatever goes go, and keep coming back to the Odaimoku if and when you become distracted. Don't let the chanting become rote while you daydream about something else. Bring your attention back to it and just let whatever else is happening inside or outside be what it is - illuminated by the Odaimoku. Once when my sensei, the Ven. Ryusho Matsuda, was leading Shodaigyo chanting a spider came crawling over to him. He saw it out of the corner of his eye as he was holding a hand-drum in one hand and beating out the rhythm with the drumstick in his other hand. He could not do anything about the spider as it would cause him to miss the beat. So he just let it be and came back to the Odaimoku. Fortunately the spider did not crawl up on his robe but went off somewhere else. He told us what happened afterwords. All our thoughts and feelings are spiders. Don't let them bug you - keep chanting.
My friend Taigen Roshi advised me not to make a big deal out of the practice - thinking that it is so exotic or special or that you are being pretentious or hypocritical in doing it, or that you should be getting something extraordinary out of it. Our practice is just ordinariness, and learning how to be with the ordinary. And that is what is really extraordinary - to deeply appreciate what arises and what falls away and just be at home with ourselves, the people around us, and the world we are in just as it is. And in that we unselfconsciously, inconspicuously, and quite naturally manifest buddhanature for the sake of all beings.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Hi Doug
You get a whole blog entry as a reply because I didn't see your comments for so long as I didn't bother to check for replies in those old blogs after awhile. I better close them out if I have not done so yet. I'll check soon.
As for one of your questions - no Nichiren Shu and Nichiren Shoshu are not the same. To see where we differ and why go to:
http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Ryuei/index.html
and check out the articles on the Fuji Lineage.
As for gosho wherein Nichiren says not to chant for worldly benefits, I do not believe there is such a gosho. Nichiren never says not to do that, but he does state that if such is all you want, you might as well remain a brahmin. I gave a Dharma talk about this wherein I cite passages from the WND with page numbers. You might want to check that out.
http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Ryuei/Does-it-work.html
For my views on Buddhism and the so-called "Just War" theory see my May 17, 2004 blog.
http://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/ryuei/archives/2004_05.html
I will see that I believe that being a conscientious objector is something that Buddhists should give serious thought to. While I do believe that theoretically there can be such a thing as a "just war" I still see it as the lesser of two evils, and I more or less align myself with Quakers and Catholic Workers in their stance against war.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
So yesteday I am doing my thing at Faithful Fools and after a great meditation, discussion about how to reach those most in need of Buddha Dharma, and gongyo, one of the participants asked me what I thought of a statement he had heard at the Zen Center to the effect that Buddhism is not a religion.
How absurd. I told him that I thought that was the kind of ridiculous thing I have come to expect from some Zen Buddhists in America. I also said, this is the kind of thing some Buddhists say when what they are really trying to do is not be Christians and so are doing their best to make Buddhism into something they want it to be so that it will be as different as possible from Christianity. He thought that was pretty funny, but I followed my flippant remarks with some things I'd like to share here:
1. People say, "Buddhism is a Way of life" but as Marcus Borg points out in his excellent book "The Heart of Christianity", all religions encompass a way of life. Borg points out that according to Act of the Apostles and other early Christian writings, Christianity was originally called "the Way." Borg points out that it is modern people (meaning since the European Enlightenment) who have tended to reduce Christianity to a matter of believing in a set of unbelievable propositions. When I was in Catholic school, the Beatitudes were stressed quite a bit, and the way of life portrayed in the Acts of the Apostles (an egalitarian, communitarian way of life) was pointed out. In fact a constant theme in the Catholic Church as I experienced it was this: "Can one really be a Christian and still conform to the values of this society?" The implied answer was that a fully authentic Christian would be in jail, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer or the Berrigan Brother or dead like Bishop Romero. Ok, I exaggerate only slightly, but the point is that it strikes me as absurd to say that Buddhism is a Way of Life and somehow Christianity (or at least Catholicism) or Judaism or Islam are not meant to be a Way of Living in the World.
2. From my point of view a religion encompasses a Way of Life, but also includes the worldview that gives context to and motivation for living that Way; also a moral and ethical system is a big part of that Way; also a system of spiritual development such as sacramental acts and/or prayer and/or contemplative practices and/or acts of loving-kindness and compassion; and also devotional practices; and also a sense of community which includes such things as the passing on of a certain culture and heritage. Not a single one of those elements is missing from Buddhism, and even Theravadin temples have devotional practices. Those Americans who think Buddhism is not a religion are creating some kind of new thing, because they can't possibly have been around Asian Buddhism and think that Buddhism is not a religion.
3. I think that when people say things like that what they really mean is "Buddhism is not fundamentalist monotheism." I have also noticed that among people who dismiss religion and are proud of having risen above religion, they are almost always thinking only in terms of Christianity or monotheism at least. It doesn't seem to occur to them that religion can encompass traditions that are very different from what they grew up with so they falsely overgeneralize and think that all relgions are about believing the unbelievable, simple affirmations of a set of propositions, and blind belief over spiritual development.
4. The conversation last night also touched on the issue of "faith" and there is the real sticking point. The gentleman I was talking to had grown up in a very cult like fundamentalist Christian Church. Blind belief was stressed so that people would not think for themselves and would only fear and obey. In other words - be perfect little culties. But for me, "faith" is not "blind belief" (and Marcus Borg's The Heart of Christianity has a great section on this) and I have talked about this before. Faith in Buddhism (the Sanskrit word is sraddhah) means trust and confidence. It means trust and confidence in the Buddha, the Buddha's teaching, and that there have been those who have genuinely upheld and passed on those teachings and it means trust and confidence in one's own ability to put the teachings into practice so that one can see for themselves whether they are true or not. Then faith blossoms into wisdom. I pointed out to this person who "no longer has faith" that from the Buddhist point of view to even spend a single moment of your precious time and energy on listening to the Dharma, or reciting it just a little (like chanting Odaimoku for instance) or sitting quietly in calm abiding and clear attentiveness is itself a show of faith. It shows that one has at least enough trust and confidence in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha that one is willing to give it a hearing and try it out even if for just a moment. And from the Buddhist point of view, that is planting the seed of the Dharma - a momentous occasion.
5. So Buddhism is a religion, it is a Way of life, a worldview from which that Way emerges, a system of ethics and morals, a system of spiritual development and a community encompassing a culture and heritage. It is also a Way that begins in faith, faith as a trust and confidence that will lead us to see for ourselves, thus a blossoming of our own wisdom, our own buddhahood.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei