I was thinking about this tweet. I was thinking about the author's lack of self-awareness.
Here's a good thought exercise I thought of years ago to help with such things.
Take a basic sentence, like "Even so called “enlightened” people are not immune to brainwashing coz of the principle of “Garbage In, Garbage Out."
And do a Mad-Libs on it, changing verb tense as needed, or adding or deleting words for better meaning/context/etc. For example, "Even so calledI am not immune to brainwashing coz of the principle of “Garbage In, Garbage Out."
And I probably am not. Human beings are susceptible to being drawn into crowds, either physically or mentally or both.
It's an important exercise. More people should know of it, and use it.
I'm tempted to write several pages on this topic alone, but in response to those (OK 1 or 2 or a few) that decry the fact that white convert American Buddhists tend to be progressive seem to be unaware of the recent history of lay Zen practice.
The newly established Meiji government promoted a nationalistic ideology that condemned Buddhism as a foreign religion. This ideology known as the haibutsu kishaku (廃仏毀釈; lit: abolish Buddhism destroy Shakyamuni) reached its peak in a series of organized attacks on Buddhist temples and establishments all over the country.
So, in contrast to those who decry white American Zen Buddhism as the toy-thing of a progressive elite, it in fact was never that, even in Japan; and moreover, those decriers tend to ignore that "Suzuki's hippies" were originally social outcasts before they got older and bougie. Moreover, in the traditions in which I practice, there are resources allowing for those of lesser means to participate; one person I regularly see at retreats has taken a vow of poverty.
And I assure you, every single practitioner I have seen at every single Zen center has come to Zen "like a refugee" - to steal a phrase from Leonard Cohen and aptly apply it.
Finally, let's not forget Brian Victoria. Although Japanese Zen "opened up" to all lay people, especially in the Rinzai tradition, it did so by accommodating itself to 文明開化, or perhaps better put in hindsight, "Make Japan Great Again," it did compromise some fundamental Mahayana principles, which were, thankfully, repudiated after WWII.
I've written this elsewhere: I know of no zendo or temple that would turn away a Trump supporter. But, like reality and the Christian Sermon on the Mount, I submit Mahayana Buddhism has a distinctly progressive bias. It just is what it is, and you can accept it or not. But don't build straw-men conspiracies out of it. Read the links, especially the first link; it's very instructive.
The Buddhist blogosphere is largely moribund these days, which I guess gives me a space more or less that isn't that crowded... Someone I know in social media mentioned if you want to know if some person X is in or leading a cult, just Google "X cult."
Well, I did that and here's one of those links. There is an allusion to a "1993 Dharmsala Western Buddhist Teachers' Conference," which, according to that author, seemed mentally in the same category as a conspiracy theorist's ruminations on the Bilderberg Group or maybe Davos (though I do have reservations about Davos, to put it very mildly). Here's the only substantial link I could find on said conference.
Now full disclosure: In the 90s when I lived in New York I did meditate at zendos that no doubt were affiliated with the teachers who attended that conference, and while the prevailing politics were liberal/progressive, I doubt that came from some conspiracy hatched at a conference 31 years ago.
In fact, I would submit that one reason this conference was held was rather for the Dalai Lama to project soft power for the Tibetan government in exile; read that link I mentioned above. Clearly Bhodin Kjolhede was rather enamored and deferential to the Dalai Lama. Now, I myself am on record as being rather critical of the Dalai Lama and the whole "Free Tibet" movement. (Also here.) I'm not an apologist for Chinese rights violations, but the record is right there out in the open if people will look.
However, this is not the message the author of "Vividness" wishes to convey, but rather, those nasty Boomers with their "Boomeritis" created liberal Western Buddhism, yada yada yada. As things would around this time or later be, it turns out that both views by second generation American convert Buddhists and the Ken Wilber/Brad Warner/Vincent Horn/etc. "new generation" American convert/Buddhist brat Buddhists...were mighty white.
As I wrote earlier, when I lived in New York I did meditate at zendos that no doubt were affiliated with the teachers who attended that conference, but I lived in New York. I also visited Shaolin-si in Flushing, as well as many Chinese temples. Similarly when I moved to the Pacific Northwest I visited many temples that don't get space in Tricycle or Lion's Roar; from Pure Land to Shingon to Vietnamese to Chinese Pure Land. Moreover, the teacher with whom I trained then was virtually unknown in the United States, so while I saw the above thesis/antithesis of white Western Buddhism, it kind of passed me by. Or to steal a phrase from a right wing pundit, I was in Western American Buddhism but not of it, at least in the sense that I joined one camp at the exclusion of another camp. Or maybe I stood outside both camps.
Today, in retrospect, it seems the whole critique of white Western Buddhists as a stifling consensus has collapsed into a puddle of conspirituality. (See also here.) It seems many of the same folks who criticize "consensus Western Buddhism" also are anti-vaxx, and demonstrate gullibility in other areas of our political and economic system; e.g., one I know was a big fan of Ken Wilber; now he's a fan of Elon Musk.
But, all of these things are fundamentally illusory! Of course the phenomena I'm describing are phenomena, and one can agree or disagree with my apprehension and views on such phenomena.
But they describe divisions where divisions don't fundamentally exist. As I wrote previously with disputes such as these or divisions, we should try to remember to have the mind of a newborn baby with no sense of self apart from others, and to keep THAT MIND in engaging others.
This does not mean accepting others' delusions, or encouraging them in their delusions especially when those delusions would be harmful to beings. This goes for using "Buddhist" justifications for certain behaviors that are at their core casuisty. YES, Donald Trump has Buddha nature, but he's also an adjudicated felon, rapist, and con man who will be doing harm to this country and most of its people.
But NO, that doesn't give me license to engage in more division either. I have to remember to keep THAT MIND.
I once asked my teacher how we can maintain practice when disputes and disagreements inevitably arise. He said that a newborn baby has no sense of self apart from others, and to keep 𝑻𝑯𝑨𝑻 𝑴𝑰𝑵𝑫 in the midst of a dispute or disagreement is critical. I added, we are all on our deathbeds metaphorically speaking; it is good to treat people that way; he replied "Of course."
So in trying to communicate regarding this dispute... well 𝑰𝒕'𝒔 𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒅!!! And I understand that my own mind 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒔 "me" to be separate from those with whom I strongly disagree, but thankfully, with practice, I can endeavor to be with that 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒔 without being led around by it.
That 𝒅𝒐𝒆𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕 mean that we should deny help and comfort to those that are victims or threatened by violence. The Zen teachers giving guidance to those who are truly threatened by the recent election are acting out of adherence to the first precept. Adhering to the first precept, even if it means defending one's self and others to prevent greater violence is adhering to the first precept, if one can keep that "mind of a baby." Ignoring the cries of the world though, is not what Kannon does.
So while I wish for all beings to awaken, I understand that this must take place in what is a dangerous world, with many who are not awakened or are not awakened sufficiently. That applies to Trump, Putin, Xi, Modi, etc. but again, the first precept sometimes demands defense. But that defense must be done knowing full well that those who are potential opponents are not separate from us.
I applaud the many Buddhist teachers who have offered guidance at this time (e.g. here). I remember when Covid struck Harada-roshi's guidance, was like anything else, to deepen our practice, and to put fears, distractions, stress, etc. into the dantian (丹田). My practice did not stagnate during Covid, although there were work situations that intervened at the end that wound up taking so much of my time that I did not sit enough.
Things are better now. Harada-roshi's guidance for Covid also applies to the current political situation.
deals with how Russell Brand's content (and espoused political leanings) changed as a function of the number of hits he got on social media. Of course, recently, with reports of sexual assault surrounding him, Brand has gone full tilt born again Christian. But clearly he was monitoring how his content changes garnered increased social media clicks and therefore advertising money flowing to him.
I was reminded of this given the evolution of one "Zen teacher" in particular, who likes to have an edgy online presence himself. Well, he's gone from edgy to rather transphobic, to being red-pilled these days or so it seems. So I can't help but wonder if that teacher is riding the algorithm for fun and profit in the manner of Russell Brand.
If that is the case, in my view that's as bad or perhaps even worse than another Zen teacher's appropriation (and copyrighting???) of "Big Mind" a while back.
On the other hand, he might not be riding the algorithm. Then again, he does have the demographic/financial issues that the "Big Mind" guy would inevitably have as he gets older, but I don't know either way. I was just struck by the juxtaposition of Brand's trajectory, as outlined in that video, and the Zen teacher I'm discussing here. It could all be unconscious - that's what The Algorithm is designed for - increasing user engagement without them being consciously aware that it's being done. And that he recently put out a video bemoaning his financial state, well, that's a data point. Regardless, while Buddhists I know would meet a red-pilled guy with equanimity, it doesn't by any stretch mean that it's desirable to be red-pilled - it is not the way it's currently as used a sly reference to The Matrix. Rather, it's being used in the manner of... wait for it if you haven't heard this... being red-pilled towards, uh, reactionary monarchism as promulgated by a tech bro friend of Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, one Curtis Yarvin, writing under a pseudonym. Yes, even if you're a cis guy, things are going to get very, very weird; the weird have not only turned pro, they're tech billionaires. As far as the desirability of being red-pilled is concerned, maybe you can ask some descendants of the Romanovs or the Korean royal family; to sum up the history of monarchy with yet another movie reference, monarchy is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get. MIS (Managing Information Systemes) departments are similar if you've ever had to interact with them. I was lucky in my last job that the MIS folks were top-notch, once they accepted that we weren't going to be a Windows-only office. But I've had some folks... well... one was actually a criminal, criming the office. So it is with enlightened tech-bro despots too. But I digress.
Recently the Zen teacher's been trashing other Zen teachers who have the temerity to offer consolation and compassion to those who are deeply upset by the recent election. In doing so I was struck by his utter lack of self-awareness; that his critiques of others actually apply more to himself than anyone else. That is, as I know it, there is no separation amongst beings, and his trashing of course, is making an illusory separation.
Since he's only about 60, I suggest strongly that, if he wants to be taken seriously as a Zen teacher, that he, you know, deepen his training, because what he is writing and saying is, in my view, at odds with "dying on the cushion," even as one goes about one's daily life tasks, chores, and rest.
I haven't, as you may have noticed, named him, but if you've been around the Buddhist blogosphere or social media world for a while, you probably know who he is. I haven't named him because there is more important work to be done, and that work is to deepen the endeavor to abide unmoved mentally and emotionally in these times, to continue to work with the breath throughout the day, putting all into the dantian (丹田). That is really being edgy, I think, though it isn't clickbait, and won't bring in oodles of ad dollars. And in that practice, there is actually no separation between me and that teacher. In that practice, there's simply no need for a social media food fight; on social media I've already said my piece anyway. And that piece in a nutshell is what I've written here: He should get a Zen teacher.
And we should all deepen the practice.
PS: That teacher - and Brand - also remind me of the termconspirituality. If you're not familiar with the term, by all means do click the link. Yes, folks, it's possible to be a Zen Buddhist without going down the rabbit hole. I shouldn't have to write that, but these days, you never can be too cautious.
A few years ago, my Zen teacher went back to Japan mostly because he was asked to be the teacher of another temple in Honshu, in addition to the one he leads in Honno in Chiba, Ryobo Zen An.
At that time, I told him I needed to deepen my practice, and I am deeply grateful to him that he referred me to Tahoma Zen Monastery. Since then, I have done 4 sesshins there; I'd previously done a weekend retreat there.
I have stories to tell.
I have monetary obligations to help out the monastery.
But most of all, the experience of 4 sesshins has really helped me ...uh.... re-orient my mind.
I understand why John Daido Loori talked about why he couldn't do 無 when he was driving. Though there's something like it you can do while driving. AND, though he's discredited because of his sexual offenses, I absolutely understand why Eido Shimano, when asked how to practice 無, said (I'm paraphrasing) that one should practice 無 as though one were Jesus on the cross when he said, "My god my god why have you forsaken me!"
There's stuff I don't agree spot on with some things some folk adhere to, and that's OK.
It's a sangha. There will be people who rub you the right and wrong way. And we're all here for the same goal: To help all beings transcend suffering.
There's odd stuff about this; it took me 4 sesshins to figure out that when folks like Sozui Shubert wrote things like "Die on the cushion," she meant it, and not only that, facing "death" is the only way to start to resolve the Great Matter of Life and death.
I am SO deeply grateful to everyone I have met at these sesshins, and hope to do many more. It's really helped not only me, but all to whom I have interactions.
A friend, with whom I'd been drifting away from, over 20 years, seems to have become enamored with "Q-anon culture." It's not worth recounting here what that connotes, what they say will happen, who the villains are, the sex trafficking Clintons, Bill Gates and what-not. Suffice it to say there's a few seeds of truth (Epstein, child sex-trafficking) buried somewhere in a chiliocosm of bullshit, said bullshit including a complete discounting of any report or story coming from major mainstream media.
How people got that way, what in their psyche or genetics pre-disposes them to cosmic credulousness is also not particularly relevant to the topic of this post. Suffice it to say that it is certainly one by-product of Steve Bannon and other right wing propagandists' strategy to "Flood the Zone with Shit." Its political import is that by gaslighting people to think of vast conspiracies, it's easier to get them to behave how you want, it excludes and erases things which may challenge rightist political initiatives, and even causes left reactions that exclude and erase that which can challenge the right.
This has been going on for quite a while of course in one form or another; going back to the Red Scares, or Masonic or anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Too, there have been, you know, actual conspiracies. But the questions I'm trying to pose here is are as above. If you are thinking about a conspiracy of something, or some political thing or other, why? Does it serve a purpose being in your head?
As of this writing, Ruth Bader Gisnburg has recently passed away, and of course there will be a titanic and greatly political struggle taking place in election season to name here successor. And it's altogether fitting and proper that we should contribute to that discourse, just as it's been altogether fitting and proper to bear witness to the fact that Black lives matter. We do have voices and feet and hands and brains and existences that does make it our responsibility to contribute to political discourse to improve the conditions of all beings.
Also as of this writing, September 19th, 2020, we in the Pacific Northwest emerged only yesterday from a week of very unhealthy to world's worst hazardous air conditions because of the confluence of forest fires and a temperature inversion. That, combined with Covid-19, combined with the normal flood of shit in a political season, made it all the more absurd when my friend started texting me links from sites so lacking in credibility that the most credible one came from Fox "News," an organization that has literally gone to court to protect their "right" to lie to their audience. Aside from the complete obliviousness to what I was actually experiencing (said Q-anon adherent lives in New York), what struck me was how divorced from reality my friend had become. Mentally he was in the same place as a jihadi, a Scientologist, or a member of the Weather Underground (although the latter at least had real enemies and legitimate animuses. In short, my friend had drunk the Kool-Aid®.
Q-anon adherence is just one way though in which one's mind can be hijacked in the service of others. Capitalism has lots of other ways of doing this as well. "Ideal love a new purchase" is a line in a Gang of Four song. Our day jobs are in many cases the leasing out of attention and time to that which we wouldn't lease out if we didn't need the money. Then there are those hours we while away in front of the TV, or in compulsive activities, or other ways in which we waste time and attention. Most of the latter activities are ways of titrating reality because reality is found to be extremely painful.
Who owns what you think is true? The Q-anon people claim they "do research," yet reject fact-checking that which is inconsistent with their premise that the "mainstream media" cannot be trusted. The mainstream media should always be questioned as their choice of facts and narratives often does serve a political purpose, acknowledged or not. But when one is trying to debunk a story from them with Turkish government propaganda, propaganda from the present Turkish government, one will fail.
"I'm not a philosopher, I'm a plumber" my Physics 101 professor said in response to a question about the nature of charge and matter I posed many years ago. I'm an applied scientist too, a kind of plumber, and while the nature of reality is something that has taken up a lot of mental space in Mahayana Buddhism, I've got to get from point A to point B. So in a certain sense the ultimate nature of TRUTH is not as important as getting from point A to point B with grace, wisdom, compassion and generosity. Both because the phenomena alluded to in Q-anon conspiracies do not comport with reality and because the recounting of the alluded-to phenomena is not done with grace, wisdom, compassion and generosity the movement cannot be given any kind of credence from anyone honestly "doing their own research."
Who owns what is in your head?
Any serious practitioner of Zen knows the answer to that one.
“Who is looting whom? Grabbing off the TV set? He doesn't really want the TV set. He's saying screw you. It's just judgment, by the way, on the value of the TV set. He doesn't want it. He wants to let you know he's there. The question I'm trying to raise is a very serious question. The mass media-television and all the major news agencies-endlessly use that word "looter." On television you always see black hands reaching in, you know. And so the American public concludes that these savages are trying to steal everything from us, And no one has seriously tried to get where the trouble is. After all, you're accusing a captive population who has been robbed of everything of looting. I think it's obscene.”
- James Baldwin, 1968
Not much has changed. Police are still murdering African Americans and other PoC, not to mention people who are in mental distress. Invariably when these things happen the media - whether conservative or liberal - responds without actually trying to understand _why_ people respond this way. The conservatives and fascists agitate for violence against PoC in the uprising, and the liberals moralistically demand an end to the property damage and always put off until tomorrow any redress of grievances. Just as it has done in this very case.
The comparison has been made in recent days to the fascists and their hangers-on in cosplay, who, with weapons displayed, were protesting shelter in place orders. The cosplayers are people who feel entitled to do what they want when they want to regardless of consequences to others. On the other hand, the people in the uprising just want to be free from senseless violence inflicted on them by the state.
Property is not human. People are not property.
You would think the abolition of slavery would have decided those last 2 sentences once and for all, but it’s clear that conservatives, fascists and liberals haven’t made the obvious conclusion.
Now, as a friend observed with the Covid-19 pandemic, people fall back into familiar patterns of thinking in response to traumatic events such as we've experienced this year. So yes, on the right, it's "Release the hounds, Smithers" - pretty much literally. On the liberal side it's "I condemn the violence." And yes, you can attribute the above to the "woke" side of things, but I don't like that characterization; like Suzuki Roshi's belief in Nothing, I think it's vitally important to not only see the property damage within the confluence (I think that's a better word than "context") of state sanctioned gangs of thugs called police. And I think it's important to have science inform public policy in terms of policing, just as it should be in public health.
But to say, frankly, some of the stuff that one teacher has written, well, watch for sanctimony.
I haven't blogged here in a while, and I'm thinking it's a good idea to start up again. I'd been not blogging so much because there was so many other things to do.
But I think I should say something about recent conditions.
I have been deepening my practice a great deal, but you know what?
It is frustrating certainly not to go to the gym, go to restaurants, etc. I feel as though I am in a bomb shelter and it's nuclear fallout if I go out in public so much. I've put a positive spin on this for a quite a while, but frankly, going into the 3rd month of this (as of next week), it is a bit fraying.
And I know that's there for a reason. It's there because a lot of people have it way worse than I do.
And I can fall back on the practice. But beyond that, it IS deeper than ever.
Recently Brad Warner wrote some stuff on Twitter which I found, personally, somewhat irresponsible - basically stating that people should in general, not discuss the coronavirus pandemic.
I responded rather strongly to you on Twitter about your position re: the coronavirus, and reading your post on your blog I can understand your position, based on your own mental predisposition & baggage therein.
But please note it's far, far, far from universal. Those of us, such as myself, who have science backgrounds (especially historical science backgrounds) can cut through the media and political bullshit, and in fact it's incumbent on us to speak out, to inform, to analyze, engage, and most of all, to help. So while it might be the right thing for you, with your mental predisposition, I'd rephrase what you'd written earlier.
And frankly speaking, it's not out of the realm of impossible that we might have statewide quarantines coming. I have in-laws in China that have been subject to their draconian quarantine measures, and they're getting by. It's something to live with, to accept the circumstances such as they are. The point is, even in such circumstances, to be unmoved mentally and just do what needs to be done.
The environment in which we live at present is like a really good Damascus Japanese knife made via the methods of samurai swords. You have to pay attention to it or you'll hurt yourself. So it is with a pandemic. We don't want a pandemic, but what we want or don't want won't change circumstances, so we have to accept it.
As such, it's an opportunity to deepen one's practice, in somewhat the same manner as the mud at Tahoma Sogenji in February. We have to be mindful of the mud, mindful of the sharp knives, and mindful of the possible presence of pathogens.
I write this a lot on various forums, social media, etc.
And I'm going to expand a little on it today, based on, yes, another Brad Warner blog post. But I mean the "target" of this post to be a little bigger than Ven. Warner, because I think there's too much "spiritual" quackery in the world generally, and because this "spirituality" is pretty deeply infested in American Buddhist communities in particular. As for "spiritual" quackery in the world, I was going to write "America," then I realized, no, it's in Europe too, I've seen it first hand. Then I realized it's in Russia, with some pretty strange crackpotty Christian sects. And it's in Japan of course. South Korea? Land of Sung Myung Moon? And which took to a proliferation of Christian sects as a duck to water? And Africa?...
You get the point. "Spirituality" is a whole lot bigger than Western Buddhists' take on it. It's bigger than the 12 Step movement's take on it. And so, you may ask, what would I, a practicing Zen Buddhist of about 25+ years now, have against "spirituality"? Uh... well, let's go to the dictionary, at least that which comes from Google:
spir·it·u·al·i·ty
noun
the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
"the shift in priorities allows us to embrace our spirituality in a more profound way"
So, first off, as a Buddhist of the Mahayana variety, there's no notion of human spirit or soul separate from form, feeling, thought, volition and consciousness. So "spirituality" as defined by Google connotes a false dichotomy, and as I point out, it's really in essence theological kitsch, as Milan Kundera would call it, and as others have. I sure as hell am not the first person to point out the relationship of "spirituality" to kitsch; google around and you'll see.
Now this isn't a matter of philosophy or semantics, but instead goes to the very marrow of what is in Zen practice - to practice is to be really present, amidst the shit, amidst the pain and suffering amidst the loss, and not at all being separated from the shit, the pain and suffering, loss, and what have you. It's all here, right now.
Secondly, "spirituality" as is commonly conceived is really at its heart a religious position, and yet many people are reluctant to embrace the idea of religiousness and religious positions, but are just OK with embracing "spirituality." This is especially true in 12 Step groups, which are, for all intents and purposes, religious groups, but refuse to identify themselves as such.
I think we should call ducks ducks, if we're speaking English. Maybe I'm funny that way, but a duck is a duck, it's not a "bird, but not a duck."
Now, if you can accept the above, at least as I see it, a whole bunch of corollaries and conclusions fall into place with a big SNAP!
Guru shmuru. Really, they may have taken different paths in life and have had different circumstances, but that "spiritual" teacher isn't any different than you on a fundamental basis.
Brad Warner is not a Perfect Master and he didn't have to write a book about it, but OK.
All religions have dirt. You can't have a religion without the dirt. Or, as Leonard Cohen put it, "There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
That's why practice amidst the shit of daily life is so critical. 'Cause that's the only place it happens.
Chogyam Trungpa died of alcohol misuse but that didn't invalidate at least some of what he said.
Everyone is a hypocrite. Some are dishonest though.
I could go on, but I do wish "spirituality" as a word to describe religious practice and orientation were dropped, just the same as I wish no wait staff would ever use the word "perfect" in response to a mean I'm ordering. Maybe I should write a book of aphorisms based on this, William Blake style.
He's avoided social media, so I thought I'd weigh in on a few of his recent posts....
On transgender-ness, I think there's more science around this than Ven. Warner gives credit.
I do wish Ven. Warner would really look at his own politicization of Buddhism more deeply than bash "progressive" Buddhist teachers. I cannot really compare a teacher's visit to Yasukuni Shrine with supporting a regime that is harming so many people such as our present one.
Also, he really ought to study history more...
And yet when I look at the overall history of Buddhism, I see it as generally apolitical. For example, in Dogen’s voluminous writings I can only recall a couple of very tangential references to anything one might call “political.” He had some financial support from certain of the samurai and every once in a while he refers to them, but that’s about it.
Well, actually, I could think of more than a few reasons why Dogen didn't write much political stuff. Like, for example, because of who he was, as Ven. Warner points out, he was not really in a position to state things that would be critical of the shogun. For example. But generally apolitical? Give me a break. Not just Tibet. Check out the history of the Mongols, and the role Chan and other Buddhists played in the Yuan Dynasty.
All of that said, I mildly agree with his larger point, that Buddhism should in general be welcoming of political differences. Where he and I disagree is that there is a point where the political difference becomes an obligation to speak out because of concern for others. In general, I find Ven. Warner blissfully unaware of the fact that there are many who are indeed suffering in the US and the world because of the political situation.
At my recent sesshin I was asked to wear the top of a samue, as per the rest of attendees. I should have brought one that I own, but didn't think of it when I packed. It did make a difference in my practice in that it helped underscore the gravity of the task at hand.
I'm a little surprised at Ven. Warner's remark that his teacher didn't do chanting 'cause the thought there was too much of it in Japan. In my experience that Western trained teachers don't do chanting nearly as well, as effectively, as the Rinzai Japanese teachers I've known. I'm sure he's saying true things there, but still...
He's right; the robes are a costume, but then is there any difference between "playing" a Zen priest and being a Zen priest?
Again, at my recent sesshin, I made reference - very obliquely - to the ubiquity of mud at Tahoma-san. Harada-roshi was not wearing particularly fancy robes, and his not particularly fancy robes were not immune to the mud. I think that was kind of the best "answer" to the point of Warner's post here.
It's an interesting confluence of things these days; I'm reading more about the anti-12 Step movement on line, and the more I read, the more I'm appalled. I'm appalled not simply because 12 Step treatment for compulsive behaviors is so prevalent in the US and so ineffective, but also because the adherents of 12 Step groups - which are legally and in every other way religions - tend not to look on other religions as on a par with their 12 Step practices.
You can see this by looking, for example, how Buddhism is occasionally represented on a site like thefix.com, or my current bête noire, one Ms. "InkyMama," who claims to be a "Buddhist" "meditation teacher" who is "currently working on a forthcoming collection of meditations on the 12 Steps, the 4 Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path." Despite her claims of being a "teacher," I haven't been able to verify that she has any credentials from anywhere to teach whatsoever.
Some of her bilge has already been published on thefix.com as so-called "guided meditations;" and basically her schtick is basically pulling out some aspect of Buddhism; and some aspect of 12 Step religions, and making an absurd claim that there's correspondence between these two different aspects of two different religions. Now maybe in some varieties of Buddhism guided meditations have a place; but in the Zen school, it's almost entirely unheard of in my experience, at least, in terms of more authentic teaching, and Brad Warner explains why. Although I've cheerfully upbraided Ven. Warner on some of his political meanderings and his super reliance on Dōgen, his commitment to authentic practice seems very strong. I'll still continue cheerfully upbraiding though when the situation seems to warrant it.
I've debunked her stuff chapter and verse elsewhere, but suffice to say here, anyone who's serious about Buddhist practice and has been in contact with 12 Step spiritual religious practices will eventually realize:
We Buddhists don't really have a "higher power."
We don't really have "character defects;" in fact the opposite is more true.
There's no "we" who are "powerless."
Buddhism can't really be warped into a 12 Step religious framework.
I could go on, but as I wrote elsewhere, maybe her cultural appropriation of Buddhism is good in the way that maybe Frederick Lenz's cultural appropriation might have been good in that it will spur people on to look for the real thing. I hope so, because there is so much misinformation about Buddhism in 12 Step circles, and a growing realization that even Refuge Recovery is tainted with 12 Step - inherited Christian moralism and dualism.
Also though the confluence of this 12 Step distortion of Buddhism happened, it's not the only place where religious principles alien to Buddhism rub elbows with Buddhism. I'm not going to delve into whether Roman Catholic priests should study or teach Zen - although I wouldn't be a student of such a teacher, preferring the original flavor to the Western appropriation. But I would like to go back to the issue of Adam Tebbe, which I think hasn't gotten nearly the shrift it merited.
Adam Tebbe was for a few years heavily associated with a kind of American Sōtō Zen Buddhism qua Tricycle qua TMZ. There were, for a while a few teachers with whom he was associated, and indeed they blogged on his site. Jundo Cohen gives him credit for propagating information about predatory teachers, although I think what Tebbe was really doing was becoming absorbed in the scandal, that is scandal blogging, as opposed to ferreting out new information, i.e., journalism. I think it's sad that Tebbe was more or less unconciously aided and abetted by a couple of teachers here and there who I think didn't see a couple of warning signs which were more or less evident to anyone who questioned why the main focus of a site purporting to be an encyclopedic resource for "Zen" was so focused on what to me was scandal blogging. Adam Tebbe was - probably still is - a hurting person, and somewhere along the way, if his "testimony" is accurate - he seems to have had a psychotic break, or at least the language he's using to describe his experience is not inconsistent with having such a break.
How do we respond to such a person? Right now the response of most of the on-line Buddhist media and what's left of the Buddhist blogosphere has been mostly silence. When the subject has come up, the response has tended toward "I hope he finds peace in his path," and though I've said this too, I would also add that I'd wish he'd stop denigrating Buddhism in his pushing of Christianity, especially since it comes across with a certain "Raymond Shaw is the kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life" quality to it. I do think though it's incumbent on the Buddhist blogosphere - and especially those teachers that were formerly close to Tebbe - to make some kind of statement, to pay some attention to the fact that this happened, as I titled an earlier blog post on this subject.
Two or three years ago I was having a beer with my teacher (yes, this happens), and the subject of Eido Shimano came up. We both agreed that from our standpoints it was impossible to explain Shimano's predatory behavior; my teacher opined that Shimano must have been really mentally troubled.
So it is - and ironically so - with Tebbe. I can't explain or know what he went through, the pain and troubles he's had that would have related to a psychotic break. I can't explain why at this stage of his life, he has to deprecate the Dharma, but I will certainly remonstrate against that.
But one thing I have learned deeper since the time I've spoken with my teacher. We're not kidding around at all, it's not just a pep talk, to say that we're inherently Buddhas, inherently capable of transcending suffering. I don't know why some folks suffer profoundly in ways I can't understand, but I can attest that suffering can be transcended, and you don't need another religious or "spiritual" path to do that. And this fact that we are inherently Buddhas has profound implications about how other religions are in relation to Buddhism. It's not something to be erased, papered over, swept under the rug or otherwise ignored.
I hadn't thought much about severely disturbed people and the practice of Zen, but Adam Tebbe clearly had problems beyond what he thought his practice could address. But it seems we should have a protocol for such things.
I can't begrudge those who, after practicing Zen Buddhism for a while decide on another path; as others have put it before, they're practicing whether they know it or not. What does concern me, though is that Mr. Tebbe is still deeply, deeply hurting, and it's unconscionable for there to be somewhere "Christian" people and clergy looking to "benefit" in some way from Mr. Tebbe's troubles.
I put the word "benefit" in quotes because while one might feel they have "won one for the Kingdom" or "been able to reach more souls" or whatever, of course, this is more about their own perceived gain, their own "getting something."
I'm sure he's been told this already, but for Mr. Tebbe and those who are with him, I wish them peace.
I would like to do a series of posts on the above topic. There's several reasons why:
From a Buddhist perspective, the whole idea of the 12 Steps themselves are incompatible with Buddhism.
If one has a compulsive behavior syndrome, it's simply cruel and ineffective to apply 12 Step religious constraints as a "treatment" for the syndrome. And I use the word "syndrome" instead of "disorder" because in a lot of cases the use of the word "disorder" is not only stigmatizing, but incorrect: if one's brain is structured to work a certain way, and it's working that way, and if it conveys certain benefits to its owner being structured that way, it's really not correct to imply that the structure is "wrong."
In fact, if one knows the history of 12 Step groups, and understands 12 Step doctrine, it's cruel to apply that doctrine to pretty much anything.
To the extent that compulsive behavior syndromes are injurious to the subject with the syndrome, there's more effective techniques, and these techniques actually are inherited, or appropriated, from Buddhist practice.
The eagle never lost so much time as when he submitted to learn from the crow, wrote William Blake.
I shall be writing more on this topic. Maybe I'll write a book, too.
I mentioned a while back that I had lots of new ideas. Of late I have had some family difficulties and am working through them. They have brought new opportunities for "practice" as well.
"Practice" is in quotes because a) I think the word's a bit overused in American Buddhist circles, and b) I can't think of a better word at the moment.
I just came over hear because I thought to myself, "Where can I go for something...uplifting... from a Buddhist perspective?
And I couldn't think of many places.
Of late, Brad Warner's blog has become reactionary, especially in response to White American Convert Buddhist liberalism. So it goes. James Ford's blog - and a few others - still burns brightly with the glow of White American Convert Buddhist liberalism. Sweeping Zen doesn't have much new content now that Eido Shimano and Joshu Sasaki have passed away.
There just aren't the blogs around that there were even 10 years ago. I'll have to check again, but it seems that good American Buddhist writing is hard to find.
And that's because I submit the mission of "Buddhist" blogs was somewhat ill-begotten back when blogging was the rage.
And that probably has to do with the fact that we are our own best bullshit artists. The level of bullshittery with which we engage ourselves is truly breathtaking. At least, speaking for me. I can convince myself that I should want or need all kinds of stuff.
Some of it has to do with recent experiences I can't fully talk about yet, some has to do with the deepening of practice that resulted from those experiences.
I can't wait to get some time to put it all down, and be as candid as circumstances allow.
I'm a little taken aback when I see stuff in the marketplace like books entitled "Why Buddhism Is True." It's written by a guy named Robert Wright.
It seems to be a philosophy/science book. From the link above (NY Times Book review) it seems to say that dissatisfaction - dukkha is programmed into us via natural selection. Moreover,
Wright’s book is provocative, informative and, in many respects, deeply rewarding. A good example is Wright’s description of his first full entry into the realm of mindfulness. Arriving at this new mental state generated in him an intense emotive response and a memorable feeling that Wright evokes with suggestive but spare prose. It rings true. This scene lets the reader glimpse the power of mindful meditation and be intrigued, even seduced, by the transformative potential of the practice.
I haven't read the book, I don't know the reviewer, but when I see things like "new mental states" "generated" etc. I am concerned as I say in my day job.
Again, I'm not sure about the whole thing; if this was in my library I might take it out. I must admit that 30 years ago Thich Nhat Hanh's "Miracle of Mindfulness" was very helpful to me. So (obviously) the mindfulness stuff is important - and indeed, I would venture a necessary preceding stop to effecting meaningful change in one's life.
But there's something off here; it's not that I don't think Buddhism "is true," although I'm not sure what that means in a sense. There's a lot to Buddhism, and among those things I would posit, especially after spending some time on Twitter, that there's not only chiliocosms full of Buddhas, but also vastly ignorant, hurting people. Buddhism is a hell of a lot more than meditation, and it sure as hell is not a commodity.
I think, if the NY Times reviewer captured it correctly, the last paragraph of his review damns the book:
I would venture that in most meditative states some subjectivity remains, as representative of the biological interests of the individual. As far as I can imagine, the complete disappearance of a subjective view would result in a “view from nowhere.” But whose view would that be, then? And if not ours, how would we come to know let alone seek such a view, such an emptiness? Mindful meditation is no stranger to the world of paradox. Is there anything stranger than discovering the pleasures of not feeling?
To steal from Richard Feynman, if you can't write an introductory book on Buddhism without a proper and readily grasped notion of emptiness, you have failed at the task of writing an introductory book on Buddhism. So it's either Mr. Wright or the author of the review.
This post is largely, but not entirely a response to the confluence of a few tweets, one a nice tweet by Brad Warner, which can be found around here, but also this thread. What I'd like to express in this post is:
There's massive amounts of ignorance in the universe; it is an unfathomable amount of ignorance.
As I wrote somewhere way back when, regular Buddhist practice results in something, "awakening-wise" something like the way death is mentioned in the movie Beetlejuice:
Just because you're highly experienced at whatever doesn't mean you don't have an obligation to learn more, do more etc. In such ugly times as these, not only is beauty true protest, but insouciance can be fatal. The same applies for anyone who's ever had any kind of realization in practice.
Just because you're highly sensitive to marginalized groups - because you may be in a marginalized group - doesn't mean you're not influenced by a massive amount of ignorance, especially since it tends to be the case with all of us.
I don't consider myself woke, especially since I respect what a lot of folks are doing to realize their struggle in life is far more treacherous than mine. I won't opine on anyone's awakened state or lack thereof. What I do know is privileged folks need to be more cognizant of marginalized folks regardless of what they do or know now, and people who are more aware of the issues and struggles of marginalized folks need to cultivate awareness, wisdom, compassion, and generosity. Everybody anywhere along the continua ought to try to excel in both ways.
So those are the points I wanted to cover in this post, and if I leave anything out here, well, consider it covered in my bullet points. But I want to elaborate a little here and there at least:
I found it interesting because the thread I found on Twitter dealt with two people of Chinese ancestry talking about whether a Westerners using Japanese disseminated stuff was cultural appropriation or not. Yes, Virginia, they were Chinese-splaining proper behavior of Japanese towards Japanese culture. I didn't know whether or not it was appropriate to White-splain Japanese culture to them, but they had unwittingly stepped on an inter-East Asian fault line (they're probably still unwitting, maybe not if they read this). That fault line of course is that if group X comprises subgroups A, B, and C, and A is the vast majority of those people in X, people in B and C don't expect or desire that A is going to be the spokes-group for them.
I regularly work with East Asians, and there's certain protocols that are observed, because people need to get along with people in their work, and because there's laws, they're good laws, and they should be observed. It is a tribute to the massive ignorance in the universe that laws that make people do the right thing for their business need to exist, but such laws do need to exist. I try not to speak for any subgroups of people in which I work because of the law and because we have work to do. Would that this would be the case in society at large, but it's not that way, even amongst those that favor social justice.
Back to Brad Warner. Of late Brad Warner took a lot of heat (some of it from me) for his post here, which unfortunately sets of a false equivalence/comparison between alt-right buzzwords and the buzzwords of what some deride as SJWs. I don't like the term SJWs, because it reduces all people who hold certain positions to a caricature. (Such positions include some of my positions, e.g., "Black Lives Matter" was a clever way to call attention to the fact that Black lives weren't being treated like White lives; it was a kind of koan: How are Black lives different than non-Black lives? That some liberals like Hilary would say "All lives matter" was precisely the point of Black Lives Matter. ) I also don't like the term "allies" either and that whole nomenclature that goes along with some of what those who (often mis)use critical theory use in advancing yes, justice and equality. That was what Brad was decrying - the reduction of everything to shibboleths. But, as I replied here and there to him, on one side, there's people trying to fight for people getting screwed by prejudice and bigotry, and on the other side there's racists and bigots who might be little guys screwed and exploited by others, but still racists.
The social justice folks, being human, are as capable of ignorance, violence, and hatred as anyone else, and, as Brad might point out, some of the people feeding into and exploiting bigotry and racism might make a mean apple pie and make you feel welcome in their home. Maybe. But the current objectives of one group is not the moral equivalent of the other. It just isn't, regardless of who's in anyone's family. And you know what? A million billion social and cultural faux pas by a myriad number of social justice folk is not the same thing as a white person complaining that they are socially sanctioned for calling minority groups with derogatory names! There are however exact analogues for other groups in the world because racism and bigotry are pretty widespread in the world.
There was something in one of Shunryu Suzuki's Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, that pointed to one's own self, one's own practice, one's own awareness as the locus of where any meaningful action should be initiated. "Culture grows out of you," I think he wrote (and I don't know where my copy of the book is, so I'll rely on my memory here.) Culture and you and/or culture and I are not separate. Cultural dissemination and cultural appropriation can't be completely separate either; and when something is disseminated the disseminated thing may not be bound to the social structures in which the thing existed prior to dissemination. Bill may have to be killed because he used the skills disseminated to him for evil ends. Or not.
Culture, social action, and any such related things can be used for good or bad ends; we have to have some degree of ethical principles to use them towards good ends, and we have to be aware of them to use them effectively towards good ends.
So it's not enough to be "woke," you have to work towards being awake. And what good is being awake if it's not helping yourself and others? To the agree that we're awake, we're awake but we became awakened/died each in our own way, each with our own baggage. We still have an obligation to deal with the baggage.
