Hi everyone,
David Halverson made a comment on my last entry that I think deserves a whole new entry in response. Thanks for bringing that up David, because you touched on a topic that I've discussed with other people before offline and I would like to share my views about it here.
To begin with, my approach to Buddhist practice on the practical level is to just start people off with Odaimoku - not even an explanation of it. At Faithful Fools the very first thing anyone does after taking their seats is to chant Odaimoku three times and to bow in respect to each other. Now we additionally sit in silent meditation (because the type of people I am hoping to gather there are those looking for Buddhism and who associate Buddhism with silent sitting), discuss the Dharma and how to apply it in a practical way to daily life, and we do gongyo (reciting the Lotus Sutra and Odaimoku). I do recommend to people that they try to find time during the week to chant Odaimoku or at least to do silent sitting, ideally for at least 5 or 10 minutes in the morning and evening. I almost never recommend that people study any Dharma texts, unless they specifically ask me for recommendations or they are already reading things and I think of something that might help them. So for me practice is primary, and abstruse study of Dharma theory is secondary or even tertiary.
Having said that, I will now say in addition that for myself I have richly benefited from studying the Buddhist canon, not just the sutras but also the Vinaya (monastic rules and procedures) and the Abhidharma (Buddhist pyschology). This has given me a bird's eye view of Buddhist training both in principle and in practical application. It has also given me a look under the hood at how Buddhist practice can and should develop psychologically. I am convinced that this material is not theoretical but are the compilation of notes based on actual spiritual cultivation and left as a trail blazed for those of us who are now taking up the practice.
What I have learned is that the Buddha did indeed encourage the cultivation of lovinig-kindness both in terms of a series of meditations in order to cultivate that attitude in our hearts and also in terms of our actual conduct in daily life - whether we are householders or monastics. But, they Buddha also saw this as limited, and the Abhidharma points out specifically the limitations. Loving-kindness can and is cultivated by most religions, not just Buddhists. So this is something Buddhism shares as part of the common heritage of world spirituality. What is unique to the Buddha's teaching is insight into the unconditioned wherein there is nothing to grasp and nothing to reject. In other words, insight into what is called the unborn or the deathless or sometimes nirvana or emptiness. This is the true nature that cannot be defined or delimited by words, but must be experienced and seen for oneself. It is seen when all the hindrances and afflictions are, at least for a moment, dropped or seen through. Such a moment is characterized by selflesness and a breakthough into a non-dual realization wherein there is no longer subject and object.
It is clear to me from reading the sutras that the Buddha taught that the cultivation of loving-kindness could generate the kind of mental and emotional states and subsequent conduct that would cause a person to have an affinity for the heavenly realms. In other words, they would be ina heavenly state of mind and after death would, on the strength of this, be reborn in the heavenly realms. Loving-kindness, like the "I and Thou" philosophy or Martin Buber, also presumes at least a modicum of subject-object relations. It is a very beautiful and refined state of mind, but holds back from non-dual realization. Certainly those who have non-dual realization are characterized by loving-kindness and compassion and so on in terms of their conduct and attitude, but this is encompassed by a perspective that goes way beyond loving-kindness alone. So the upshot is that if one wants to enter the four higher worlds of "Learning", "Realization", "Bodhisattvahood", or "Buddhahood" that one must gain insight into the true nature of reality (Shoho Jisso in Japanese) and not just rest content with the loving-kindness that characterizes the heavens. Loving-kindness is then not abandoned but subsumed into a higher non-dual perspective. This is an area where most religions do not go - though perhaps Rumi (in Islam), or Meister Eckhart (in Christianity) or Abulafia (in Judaism) did "go there" so to speak.
I would add that Buddhism itself tries to account for those who will realize such things who are not Buddhists. On the one hand there are the "private-buddhas" (pratyekabuddhas in Sanskrit) who characterize the so-called world of Realization. By definition the private-buddhas attain enlightenment outside of the Buddha Dharma, but they do not teach the Dharma themselves. Also, the bodhisattvas are supposed to appear anywhere and everywhere they are needed, including places and times where the Buddha Dharma has not been taught or has been forgotten. These bodhisattvas will then teach or communicate by their activities what they can of the Dharma in such situations - including the teaching of loving-kindness and compassion and so on.
Now to get technical, the Abhidharma teaches that the cultivation of loving-kindness, compassion, and sympathetic joy will only get you so far in deepening one's experience of meditative concentration. The deepest level of concentration (or dhyana) is characterized by equanimity and one-pointedness alone. At that stage, all other forms of affect have dropped away to leave nonjudgemental clear awareness alone. That form of mental clarity is then the optimum condition from which to observe the nature of phenomena and to realize their ungraspableness and thus the true nature which is the unconditioned. To see this for oneself is insight in the liberative Buddhist sense.
However, one need not develop the deepest form of concentration in order to get insight. Access concentration is sufficient, for at that level one has suppressed greed, anger, agitation, sleepiness, and doubt and has instead realized a certain level of sustained attention to a meditation subject, and a sense of bodily and mental relaxation and ease. One could use the cultivation of loving-kindness to get into such a state. But, in order to then observe true nature of phenemona in order to directly see their true nature, one must switch from concentrating on loving-kindness as a focus to a more unfocused but still mindful awareness of physical and mental phenomena as they arise and cease interdependently. Loving-kindness, then, can be a help, but it can also be a hindrance if fixated on because its deliberate cultivation interfores with the kind of open mindfull awareness that is needed for insight in the Buddhist sense.
Does one need to be a Buddhist to cultivate loving-kindness? Certainly not. There are many ways to cultivate this quality and they seem to be the common heritage of all people.
Does one need to be a Buddhist to go beyond the affect of loving-kindness to direct insight into the true nature of phenomena? Apparently not according to Buddhism because the private-buddhas and bodhisattvas are not necessarily Buddhist when they do so. However, I do believe that the method the Buddha described in terms of right concentration and right minfulness (and the eightfold path in general) do need to be followed whether one does them as a self-conscious practice or just happens to follow through on that way of living, whether one calls them Buddhism or not. I think the eightfold path is like the law of gravity - that is the way spiritual maturity works. The Buddha taught it clearly and explicitly, but that does not mean a Calvinist or an Orthodox Jew or a Sufi or a secular humanist or whoever might not follow such a procedure either knowing or not-knowing that the Buddha taught it. In the Mahaparinibbana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya the Buddha specifically states that only those who follow the eightfold path will become liberated. To me, this is not sectarianism but merely the stating of a scientific principle. Gravity works whether you've heard of Newton or not.
Now I know someone is going to whine that in Nichiren Buddhism we do not follow the eightfold path because it is Hinayana or because Nichiren forbade the cultivation of mindfulness or the following or precepts (which is NOT how I read him btw - I give Nichiren more credit than that and his writings are much more nuanced and contextualized than that). But the fact is that if you listen to anyone who has practiced Odaimoku with sincerity and has had breakthroughs in their life you will hear them start to talk about how they realized how to stop making certain bad causes in their life and how they were inspired or empowered to make certain good causes. And when you analyze these bad causes that are avoided and good causes that are made, you will see that they are (perhaps uknowingly and unselfconsciously) following the path described by the eightfold path and/or the description of enlightened conduct in the six perfections (which is really a Mahayana expansion of the eightfold path). So the eightfold path is unavoidable if one is really enlightenment. Oh, and right intention very much includes loving-kindness and compassion.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
***************************************************************
Hi everyone,
The term "buddhahood" drives me up a wall! What exactly does it mean? Closely related to that is the phrase "attaining buddhahood" (jobutsu in Japanese).
Here is why it drives me nuts - buddhahood is sometimes used in a very narrow technical sense and sometimes in an extremely broad metaphorical sense.
The narrow technical sense is especially found in the sutras - including the Lotus Sutra. In this sense "buddhahood" means the state of someone who has not only awakened to the truth, cut off all afflictions (greed, anger, ignorance, pride, doubt, false views), and fully realizes the selfless nature of reality but also has the compassion and ability to teach others the Dharma in a time and place where the Dharma has been forgotten completely. In this narrow technical sense, there can only be one buddha per world system per dispensation of the Dharma at a time. This definition holds true even in the Lotus Sutra where the Dragon Girl must first go to another world and then transform herself into a buddha there.
Then there is the more loose metaphorical way of using the term "buddhahood" which is popular in East Asian Buddhism - esp. in Zen and some (but not all) forms of Nichiren Buddhism. In this usage, "buddhahood" indicates someone who has become very wise and very compassionate or perhaps even merely that someone is manifesting or actualizing the freedom and ability of a Buddha when they engage in chanting or meditation or some other practice.
This usage gets really confusing when one then talks about "attaining buddhahood." Does it mean a once and for all thing - like the way a person reaches a certain stage of mental, physical, emotional and social development and will (barring brain damage or drugs or disease) not retrogress to an earlier stage? Or does it mean something that comes and goes - we attain buddhahood when we chant or meditate or act selflessly but only until we stop practicing and/or revert back to our old habits?
This is really problematic for me as a teacher of Buddhism. Both definitions or usages have their strenghts and weaknesses. The narrow definition is helpful in that it shows that buddhahood is a very exalted state and worth striving for, and that one who achieves it will really be free of suffering and not fall back into confusion and selfishness. But on the other hand it sets the bar so high that it puts it out of reach of just about everyone. One can hardly even relate to it anymore let alone be motivated to strive for it or otherwise realize it. In short, it doesn't inspire people, it just intimidates them.
On the other hand, the idea of buddhahood as some ephemeral manifestation of some hidden quality in ourselves tends to set the bar so low that some people would even claim we don't at all need to cultivate our character or do anything at all other than have faith that it is there. Or perhaps all we need to do is put in a little time chanting or meditating to get charged up. This makes buddhahood no more than just another passing phenomena, a peak experience that comes and goes but is certainly no refuge. A person could say they know that at heart they are buddhas and that when they chant/meditate/do x then they manifest that buddhahood. But then the rest of the day they lie, cheat, steal, slack off, con, manipulate, whine, screw over others, avoid responsibility and suffer tremendously all the time wondering why the world is out to get them. Something is wrong with this picture. But then again, it is very motivating and perhaps even true that if all our bad habits and attachments, and aversions are empty of substance and that the truth about us is freedom and selfless compassion, then those moments when we are in touch with that are really more true than those times when we are not. Even if it is just a temporary glimmer of something more than what we usually see it is a deep and true glimmer or expression. It would seem fair to call that "buddhahood" and to point to those moments as the truth and the other moments as the deception that we have entangled ourselves in. We touch on these moments by either dropping all our usual attachments, aversions, and fixations (which is a tall order) or by acknowledging and affirming this selfless compassionate truth through an expression of deep faith in it (i.e. Namu Myoho Renge Kyo in Nichiren Buddhism).
So there it is - two different ways to talk about buddhahood or attaining buddhahood - the high bar and the low bar. I really think both are true but it is a shame that using the same term for both causes so much confusion - despair on the one hand or complacence and presumption on the other. I think we do get glimmers of buddhahood in our practice and in those times when we do live free of self-centredness, but at the same time a point can be reached where these are no longer just glimmers but the natural way we have settled into our lives and thereupon express ourselves. The first is buddhahood in the loose metaphorical sense and the latter is buddhahood in the more strict technical sense.
What do other people think about this?
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
It seems to me that there are some people who are saying that theone great cause for liberation is x (x can represent faith in the Lotus Sutra, or Jesus, or Allah, the Great Pumpkin, or whatever) and that any other cause or condition is thereby null and void and/or irrelevant in the first place.
The conclusion one might draw from such a faith or attitude is that:
A) There is no good cause that I need to make because such good causes will not lead to liberation. In fact, one should swear off making good causes because that will show lack of faith in x.
B) There is no bad cause that I need to fear because faith in x overrides all bad causes. In fact, I can now freely engage in any kind of conduct because none of it is a hindrance to the working of faith in x.
So basically those with such a faith/attitude are in the clear and can commit any crime no matter how heinous and can not only shrink back from good causes but will even argue that no one else should make good causes or avoid bad causes either. Of course, these people are probably the very ones who will scream the loudest if you should cross them.
The idea that through faith in x (either a saving external power or some kind of original enlightenment) one overrides the law of cause and effect is an old heresy that crops up in every religion. It is called antinomianism. It is a tired old story and actually pretty banal as well as juvenile. Those who follow antinomianism will often provice many out of context proof-texts for their beliefs from their chosen scriptures and/or tortuous interpretations of said scriptures and proof texts. In most cases, the original texts are in fact saying something that may sound antinomian, but really isn't.
So for instance - it may be true that faith in x (Great Skygranfather or perhaps the Original I'm OK You're OK Nature) overrides all other causes because it pertains to the unconditioned. But there is a conditional consequence of such a faith or awakening or rebirth or Knowledge and Conversation with One's Guardian Angel or whatever. The consequence is that one is no longer bound by karmic entanglements. In other words, because one sees through karmic conditions one is no longer fooled by them and when acting in the world (because the ultimate does not erase the conditional but is its true aspect) they no longer act in a blind or bound way. This means they will quite naturally avoid bad causes and make good causes - even though they will no longer do so self-consciously with great fanfare or attachment.
This means that the person who genuinely has faith in x will quite naturally live in a way that other people not so liberated would recognize as generous, ethical, patient, energetic, peaceful, and wise.
Those who have not yet come to have faith in x but who believe that just asserting it to the case will miss this point and argue that one should not make good causes and that one need not avoid bad ones. This accomplishes two things: they are able to rationalize their behavior and at the same time claim that they are enlightened or liberated from delusion whereas those still concerned with living a responsible life are not.
Then there are those who are trying to cultivate themselves and may someday get to the point where they realize that self-cultivation has the nasty side effect of enforcing self-consciousness, and that working for gain (even spiritual gain) is a subtle form of egoism. When they realize this they will come to see that faith in x is actually not just more direct and more fundamental to liberation but is a necessary step to escape conditionality. Until reach that realization, such people will at least have a better and more responsible life by making good causes and avoiding bad ones. Thus will they save themselves a lot of unecessary vexation, as well as saving all the people around them from being vexed by them. In addition, they will eventually get into a situation where the good roots they have planted will put them into a situation where they can really hear and appreciate the true meaning of faith in x.
In the meantime, my path is to encourage people to take up faith in x (or to be be less coy - Namu Myoho Renge Kyo). I would not say they need to make such a such a good cause or avoid such and such bad cause to make that faith more efficacious - because it is functioning on another level as the gateway to the uncondtioned and thereby transcends the flow of the conditioned. But at the same time I would caution people that those who really have discovered what x is all about will be free of conditioned entanglements so that one cannot claim to really have faith in x if one is avoiding the good and indulging in the bad (which is a dysfunctional engagement with the conditioned) or telling other people they can do so. In other words, just because there is an antidote one shouldn't go out and drink poison. In drinking the poison, one may then get so sick one forgets the medicine.
On the other hand, the things that formerly were looked upon as good causes and conditions leading to liberation (but which are now viewed as merely skillful means for dealing with the conditioned in a wholesome way) can now be viewed as the side-effects the faith in x. In other words, they are descriptive of one who has faith in x as opposed to prescriptive. They tell us what a liberated person is like as much or more than they told us how to get some "attainment." Now if one claims to have realized the full "benefit" of faith in x (which is a funny way of talking about the unconditioned but language is like this) but is still living a karmically entangled life then something is wrong - the true spirit of x has been missed. So these things that describe good or wholesome causes to make and bad or unwholesome causes to avoid can now be seen as checking points for self-reflection and guidance to get us back on track. They are not formal practices viewed as efficacious in and of themselves, but as pointers to what faith in x's true spirit is like and how it manifests on the person and interpersonal level.
So that is how I read chapter 16-19. It is all about how the one great cause is to awaken to the unconditioned and through that to realize that while conditioned wholesome actions are transcended in it, they are also not excluded but rather become the way the unconditoned skillfully clarifies itself in the world in and through us.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Hi everyone,
I hope everyone had a happy Bodhi Day. For those who don''t know this is the day in which Japanese Buddhists celebrate the awakening of Shakyamuni Buddha.
Also, I was asked today about how to apply the Ten Great Vows of Universal Virtue Bodhisattva from the 40th chapter of the Flower Garland Sutra. I realized after writing it that it might be helpful to others and so for what it's worth here is my take on them (and yes, this is blatant Bodhisattva-ism and I think it's great):
The Ten Great Vows of Universal Virtue Bodhisattva actually come from the alleged 40th chapter of the Flower Garland Sutra. I believe it may be a Chinese creation. Thomas Cleary did not translate it in his Flower Ornament Scripture. I am not an expert on that sutra though, but that is my understanding. It has been a decade since I seriusly studied the Flower Garland Sutra. Anyhow, there is a translation of that 40th chapter iin the excellent book on the Flower Garland by Garma C.C. Chang called "The Buddhist Teaching of Totality: The Philosophy of Hwa Yen Buddhism." I heartily recommend that you read that section on pp. 188-196 because it provides some very practical advice on the attitudes and actions one should cultivate. Unfortunately I do not have time to copy these out for you right now. Looking over the Ten Vows I will briefly comment on how they apply to my practice:
1. To pay homage to all Buddhas: Homage to the Buddhas of the ten directions in included in my daily prayers and sutra recitation. Aside from this however, this means that we should have respect and reverence for the Buddha-nature in all beings that we meet including our own true nature.
2. To praise all Buddhas and their virtues: Again this can be part of one's daily prayers and sutra recitation. But in daily life it means to not only look for manifestations of loving-kindness, compassion, patience, and other virtues but to remember to encourage and praise them in other people. Complement people when it is warranted and point out the good people do.
3. To make great offerings to all Buddhas: At my home shrine or butsudan I offer incense, flowers, candlelight, fruits, and suchlike. In daily life this means giving of my time and resources to my family, co-workers, and those in need as appropriate (I don't usually give money to homeless people but I do give to charities and there are opportunities to donate food or clothing). But as the sutra notes the most important thing is to offer the Dharma by trying to implement the Buddha's teachings in one's life - cultivating and acting on one's loving-kindness, compassion, generosity, self-restrain, patience, peace of mind, and wisdom and so on.
4. To confess and repent of one's evil deeds and hindrances: None of us are perfect. If we are honest with ourselves we will see that we more often than not fall short of our ideals. We do what we shouldn't do and fail to do what we should do. We should humbly recognize this and make determinations to do better. We should not wallow in guilt or remorse (which is unskillful), but should see clearly what we are or or not doing. We should see our entanglements clearly. We should also realize that the entanglements are themselves empty and only entangle us if we let them. Buddhist repentence can take on a liturgical form, and I occasionally will say longer or shorter statements of repentence as a form of cultivating and expressing such self-reflection and determination. But as or even more importantly, is to realize that there is no sinfulness in the selfless self-nature and to let go of such attachments as greed, grudges, laziness, bad-habits and so on and to have the freedome to think, speak, and act more skillfully without attachment.
5. To rejoice in the attainment of merits by others: This can also be done liturgically or as a form of generating sympathetic joy in silent meditation (I have articles on this at Ryuei.net as well as on loving-kindness, compassion, and equanimity). In daily life it is pretty straight forward advice. Do not begrudge people or envy them. Rejoice in their good fortune, particularly if brought about by good causes. Take it as an inspiration to make good causes yourself.
6. To entreat Buddha to set in motion the 'Wheel of Dharma." Again this is part of Mahayana Buddhist liturgies, but in daily life it is to foster an attitude of seeking out good teachers and supporting them. Of course one must be discerning and not just support anyone who calls themselves a teacher. Determining who is or isn't a good teacher requires some observation, comparison to what the sutras teach to see if they live up to that standard of insight and conduct, and observation of their followers/students/disciples to see if these are really people you would want to be around. But when a good teacher is found they should be supported by showing up, or assisting them (even if just in helping them set up or clean up the meditation hall), or even financially so they can continue teaching. Do not take good teachers for granted because they are continuing the Buddha's work in the world.
7. To beseech Buddha to remain in the world. This one is especially poignant for me because one of my own teachers is getting old and has alread officially retired while another of my teachers is moving to Chicago. Don't take good teachers for granted. Support them and their teaching and let them know they are appreciated.
8. To be a zealous follower of Buddha's way at all times. I think this means to not be lazy about one's daily practice of meditation and/or sutra recitation. We should regard spiritual cultivation as just as necessary as taking a shower or brushing or teeth - perhaps even moreso. And to constantly be mindful of our intention, speech, and actions throughout the day to make sure that we are living in accord with the Dharma and not just with our own selfish ideas, habits, and entanglements.
9. To accomodate all sentient beings for their own benefit. It has been said by the punk rocker Jello Biafra that the motto of Americans has changed from "Give me liberty or give me death" to "Give me convenience or give me death." This is an exageration perhaps, but seems too sadly true in many ways. We should be more considerate of others and of all life on this planet. If that means selling our SUV to drive something less taxing on the planet's resources than we should do that. If it means giving up our seat on a crowded bus to an older person or pregant woman we should do that. There are many ways, big and small, by which we can accomodate all sentient beings.
10. To turn over one's merits to all sentient beings. Jesus said that when we give we should not let the left hand know what the right hand is doing. In other words we should not be self-congratulatory about our meritorious acts. We should not do things just to make a name for ourselves or to be seen as the good guy or to earn a place in heaven. We should do it become selfless compassion is the most natural and wonderful way to be - it's own reward. Even more than that, we should consider that our acts will ripple out to touch all sentient beings. We should relinquish all thought of personal reward and act for the sake of all beings in every act big or small. Ultimately there are no separate beings and there is no merit, but causes and conditions unfold without boundary. This is why Bodhidharma told Emperor Wu that the result of all his generous support of the Sangha was "no merit." Bodhidharma was not telling him that his generosity was no good - but he was trying to shock him into a larger perspective.
So that is my take on these Ten Vows. They are more than just sentimental liturgical statements. We might include them (in various ways) in Buddhist prayers and meditation in order to cultivate our minds and foster such bodhisattva intentions, but those intentions to be authentic must become the way we live our lives. Though the vows are stated in grand mythic terms - they are really pointing us to the attitude we should express in even the littlest act of smiling at a co-worker, giving up our place in line to someone in a hurry, doing our job with begrudging it or slacking off, reflecting on ourselves and determining to do better, rejoicing in others good fortune, expressing our appreciation and gratitude to others, perhaps dropping off food or toys at a charity drive. All of this is encompassed by these vows.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
I am sure I have mentioned it before but koans are "case studies." They are often pithy little comments or dialogues between Zen Masters in the past. But they could also be full blown stories, or passages from the sutras, or even statements of Buddhist teachings. Back when I was in high school some of my teachers were really into these stories and shared them in class. That was my first exposure to Buddhism. I was already hooked on the parables of Jesus because of the way they overturned the prejudices and expections of his contemporaries (and of ourselves) and pointed to a deeper and more compassionate way of living. At least that is how I was taught about the parables from 6th grade on (when I started going to Catholic schools). And now to discover not just a handful but whole books full of such thought-provoking brain teasing and sometimes humorous teachings and anecdotes seemed too good to be true.
So I devoured books by Alan Watts, Paul Reps, D.T. Suzuki and so forth, and that is how I started wondering about Buddhism itself. It was obvious to me that these stories were emerging from a wisdom, practice, and way of life that I knew nothing about. Instead of Zen Buddhism, however, my first encounter with "Buddhists" was with the Nichiren Shoshu of America. I was deeply suspicious and critical of them from the very first meeting I accidentally stumbled into - but the chanting really resonated with me. In the end I did give it a try for two years and that was enough to discern that what they were teaching was not authentic Buddhism. Fortunately they did also expose me to the writings and practice of Nichiren Shonin, the Lotus Sutra, and the practice of Namu Myoho Renge Kyo which I did feel was authentic.
After leaving NSA I hooked up with the Won Buddhists, and though they have a list of a dozen (or more) koans, they don't really stress them at all. But I continued reading about koans on my own over the years. When I came to live in San Francisco I found my spiritual home base with Nichiren Shu. At the same time I finally met people who had real experience working with koans. These were people who actually used them in contemplation training in authentic lineages as opposed to armchair Buddhists (like myself) just reading about them. This gave me a chance to really get into them on the level of practice and not just literary appreciation, to see them as contemplative tools and not just clever stories or paradoxes.
To be honest, while I have long been fascinated by koans, I have also long been intimidated by them. The whole koan thing has this "I know something you don't know" mystique about it. I always found this infuriating and disconcerting. I always wondered if I really was missing out on something, because heaven knows I didn't see the point of many koans and even the one's whose point or points did seem clear also seemed to hold the tantalizing promise of something else just over the horizon. Also from reading the accounts of Bankei and Hakuin and even the stories in Phillip Kapleau's Three Pillars of Zen, it seemed like working with koans (at least the Rinzai way) would involve deliberately driving oneself to a nervous breakdown. My life certainly had and has enough problems without all that! And yet Zen (or at least certain strains of Rinzai) seem to be saying "No pain no gain." So I had always carried around in the back of my mind the thoughts that (1) you are missing something BIG, and (2) you are a wussy for not seeking out a Zen Master and taking up this challenge, and (3) if you present yourself as a Buddhist teacher (which I became expected to do after being ordained as a Nichiren Shu minister) someone who really does know the big secret(s) and has done the hard work is going to ambush you in Dharma Combat and expose you as a Dharma fraud because you don't know what the sound of one hand clapping is or whatnot. So these little Zen gremlins were really undermining my confidence in myself and in my own Buddhist practice. Of course my faith in the Lotus Sutra and the efficacy and sufficiency of Namu Myoho Renge Kyo (when understood as not merely a verbal formula) kept these gremlins in line. Still, something had to be done!
Fortunately I met two people over the last few years who, as I said, had done real work with koans and were willing to work with me based on their own experience and understanding of koan training. Because I trusted them and knew that they respected the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren Buddhism and would not try to turn me away from my primary practice or compromise my faith I decided to trust them and take up the challenge of koans.
The first person (who has asked to remain anonymous) really taught me a lot and helped me see what koans were and were not. That helped a lot! Having done koan work he knew the officially accepted responses in the traditions in which he had trained but of course was trying to make sure that I really got it and wasn't just accidentally stumbling upon the right phrase or gesture. More on that later. We went through the Sound of One Hand, Joshu's Mu, All Things Return to the One, Nansen Kills a Cat, that damn story about the Ox which is #38 in the Gateless Gate (I really found that one frustrating and always have, and now that I know at least one "official answer" it still bugs me - maybe even more) .
Later I took up this kind of practice with Taigen Dan Leighton who is designing his own koan curriculum. Taigen's approach is not Rinzai but Soto, so he is not looking for any official answers or responses as I don't think the Soto way of working with koans ever came up with any. Also, instead of focusing on just one word or short phrase as Rinzai tends to do, he wants people to look at the koan both as a whole and in each of its parts, and to let the koan really sink in through the whole of one's life as opposed to just hammering away at a part of it in order to force a kensho (seeing one's true nature) experience. Rather, he emphasizes genjo (actualizing the nature) in daily life. With Taigen I have worked on several other cases from the Gateless Gate as well as a Chinese poem that relates to practice. And Taigen makes it clear that one never really finishes a koan, even if one moves on to others. There are always greater depths to realize, or perhaps it would be better to say the unfolding of them in the actuality of our daily lives does not cease.
One last element I'll add here because it pertains to what I have learned about koans. Many years ago I found a book called The Sound of One Hand which is a translation of a Japanese book wherein a disgruntled Rinzai monk in early 20th century Japan decided to expose the fraudulent practices and corruption of Rinzai Zen by publishing all the official answers of the two most prominent Rinzai lineages in Japan. I held off on buying that book (it is out of print but fairly easy to find used copies in San Francisco) for a long time. I finally did buy it and put it on my shelf. I finally took it down a couple of months ago. At that point I had been doing koan work with Taigen for almost two years. It was a fascinating and very illuminating read to see what kind of answers the Rinzai tradition was looking for and accepting in the early 20th century in Japan. It was disillusioning to realize that these so-called enlightened Zen people weren't really expressing their own insights but a bunch of rote answers instead. Still, while those answers were often culturally bound and in any case useless because real Zen doesn't accept hand-me-down second or third hand responses, it was useful to view the book as a kind of pointer to the different koans in the same way the many commentaries and talks about the koans can be useful pointers.
So what was the result of all this? Do I still feel that there is something I don't know? Or am I know "in the know"? Do I still feel like a wussy? Or have I earned my koan spurs? Do I still fear being ambushed by Dharma combatants? Or am I now the one who can cut others down to size? No to all of it.
I now realize that there is nothing to know. There is no secret gnostic code to learn, no mystical rapture that must be attained. What I was missing out on was what everyone tends to miss out on and what I still tend to miss out on - being really and fully present to life. The koans help direct you back to that.
I no longer feel like a wussy because I have dared to take up the challenge and to test my insight and the depth of my practice in private encounters with koan teachers. Note that when I say "practice" this includes the depth of my practice of Odaimoku. I do not mean that the depth of Odaimoku was being or is being tested. What I mean is that the depth of my practice of Odiamoku is what was and is at issue. How deeply have I seen into, realized, and actualized what the Odaimoku is about? That is the real question. Even still, I do get a kind of "stage freight" before the practice discussions (Taigen uses the term dokusan), esp. if I don't have anything to "present" insofar as my understanding of the koan goes (and it can't be a merely conceptual understanding). And each new koan is a new challenge (or perhaps the same challenge in a different guise), and even the old ones are new each time one looks at them. Life is like that.
What about Dharma combat? I am less worried about that now. I have yet to be challenged in that way at Faithful Fools, and I have survived being guest speaker at several Zen centers. If I was going to be blindsided by Zen it would probably have already happened. As it is, I have yet to feel that I have been caught "with my pants down" by any questions from Zen students or teachers. This does not mean I am Captain Know It All Supercool. It simply means that I have confidence that I am able to share and explain Buddhism, the Lotus Sutra, and Odaimoku in a competent way and that I can do a serviceable job of handling questions about it and perhaps more importantly of grounding it all in actual practice and daily life. I have in fact engaged in what might be called Dharma combat from time to time and the ground didn't open up and swallow me. So I am more secure about it now. And in any case, I have learned that if you fall off the horse, just get back on again. (If Pia is reading this you know how literally I have learned that lesson.)
So now a few words about koans themselves. Here, in no particular order, is how I currently think about them (this is of course subject to revision):
Koans are not the secret keys to enlightenment or buddhahood. The teachers who have worked with me have not presented them that way either. My first teacher said that they were kind of like diagnostic tools in that each koan is about a different aspect of Buddha Dharma and tests your ability to relate to that principle in a very concrete way and not just conceptually. In other words, you must not only see the point of the koan but must fully embody it as naturally as you take a breath or write a blog, or drive a car, or hug your wife and daughter, or whatever the moment truly calls for.
Koans then are about taking the next step after conceptually learning the Dharma. Perhaps one doesn't need to even begin with a conceptual understanding as the koans demonstrate the various teachings, but it sure helps. Or again, koans are about taking the next step after formal practice of the Dharma. Sure you can recite the sutras or sit still staring at a wall until your eyelids drop off or chant until your jaw drops off, but if confronted with the Buddha Dharma in everyday situations or if expressed in a less formal and perhaps more spontaneous and natural way would you still recognize it? Would you be able to relate to it? Could you be it? Too many people who get interested in Buddhism or Buddhist practice (and I include myself in this) get caught on the level of conceptualizing or just relating to the teachings and practices in formal and structured situations, discourses, and practices. But life is not always like that. Can you really see and live the Dharma in your whole life? Koans are ways of testing how well you can do this. Actually they are invitations to do this. In one sense they are also as artificial as reading discourses or chanting or formal sitting meditation. But they are on the fringe of artifice and the actual way life is lived. They invite us to enter into them and then to see how the principle(s) they express are being enacted here and now in the actual mess in which we are living.
This is why koans are so seemingly irrational. Actually they are not about being irrational or illogical or amoral or anything of the kind. They simply invite us to enter into life situations as they really are without all the projections and filters and divisions that we usually approach life with. This does not mean that concptualizing and analysis and conventional distinctions are to be ignored or disregrded, but the must be put into perspective as the impermanent conventional constructs that they are. In fact, there are koans that also challenge a one-sided attachment to the nonconceptual.
It should be noted that the sutras themselves contain many passages and teachings which aim to do the same thing. In fact, the classic koan collections include sutra passages. So this way of trying to assimilate, realize, and embody Buddhist insights concreteley, directly, and immediately is not unique to Zen or the koan tradition. It is the heritage of Buddhism as a whole. But the koan tradition has taken this particular approach and refined and utilized it to an unprecedented degree.
In reading through the koan collections now I find that they are a lot less opaque. They have become even more meaningful to me than they were back when I was first intrigued by them in high school. For one thing, I have learned a lot more about Buddhism on the doctrinal and practical levels. This has provided me the background and proper context for the koans. And now that I have really begun working with as opposed to just reading them I now see that their aim is not just to be paradoxical, or witty, or irrational, or clever, or shocking. I see what they are aiming at - the concrete reality that is the life I am actually living - and that it is direct presentation or demonstration of Buddhist teaching and not some new or unique teaching. It might be an overstatement but koans are not exoteric secret doctrine but are actually very down to earth exemplifications of Buddhist teaching and practice (even if their language is sometimes rather exotic or strange or in the nature of very obscure inside jokes).
So it might seem that suddenly I am peppering my writings with koans. But this interest is not actually any sudden development at all. It goes back to even before I first heard of Namu Myoho Renge Kyo. It is only now, however, that I feel competent enough to publicly write about them. (It helps that I have recently learned that people like Alan Watts didn't have any of the background and experience that I have and in fact wrote a lot of rubbish, and I even find D.T. Suzuki's writings suspect now.) I am not saying that I am an expert in them or that I am in any position whatsoever to teach koans to other people (I am not). But I feel that I am at least in a position to take advantage of their richness and share some of that with others as the teaching stories that they are. I am really appreciating how they can shed light on Buddhist principles and practices that are shared by all Buddhists and are not just the provenance of Zen.
One other thing, my discussions or reference to koans also does not mean that I rate them higher than the practice of Odaimoku or that I am jumping ship to join the Zen camp. In fact, I feel more confident as a teacher of Nichiren Buddhism for having worked with koans, and this includes in the area of shakubuku (by which I mean breaking through entangelments and subduing afflictions). I now see from the inside and not just the outside what koans are about and how to keep them in proper perspective. They are not meant to replace the sutras or cause the neglect of the sutras (and it was a Zen teacher who pointed this out to me when he overheard my critique that koans seem to do this in Zen practice). They are just skillful means to help us relate more directly and concretely to the Wonderful Dharma unfolding in and as our life right here and now. Furthermore, while the practice of Odaimoku can benefit from approaching it as a koan (Hakuin's Letter to a Nichiren Nun explains this), I still do not think that Odaimoku should be reduced to being viewed or used as just another koan (one among many). While the Odaimoku does have functions that overlap with the function of koans, it is also about more than just that. To oversimplify, koans are about raising a sense of doubt about the Dharma's concrete meaning and really making an effort to see into one's life. Odaimoku should also do this. But Odaimoku is also an expression of the single moment of faith and joy in the Wonderful Dharma, and that is a whole other topic and gets into a whole other aspect of Buddhist practice that I believe is outside the direct purview of the koans.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei