Monday, September 29, 2014

Bring Nothing to Practice - Dharma talks

The Things We Bring to Practice

Spiritual practice can often become an extension of our ego, in which we transfer all of those bad habits from our everyday lives into our spiritual ones. If we are impatient, then we have impatient practice that expects quick results. If we are angry or irritable, then perhaps our practice becomes a temporary salve for our tempers or an opportunity to get irate at others, maybe because they are less "sophisticated" than us. Either way, this can become a major pitfall in our practice. In this talk, Doshim explores ways to spot this tendency and stop it mid-sentence.

Introduction and sound engineering by Tom Inzan Gartland.


_____________________________________________________________________________

I Got Nothin'

This is the only honest thing a spiritual teacher can tell you--they have nothing to give you, no magic spells or chants that is going to transform them. But it is the simplicity of this statement, "I got nothin'" that can act as a spiritual catalyst for us to realize that we have nothing too! And this is good news. Because when we have nothing, we have nothing to lose. With nothing to lose, we don't need anything. That is freedom.

Introduction and sound engineering by Tom Inzan Gartland.

Sunday, September 28, 2014

The Other Origination

In Mahayana Buddhism, there is much talk about dependent origination--the fact that everything depends upon other conditions, and thus they are all interconnected--but very little mention of its less-common counterpart, nature origination.

According to this teaching, while everything is interconnected and relies upon everything else to exist, the more fundamental fact is that nothing exists independent of the Nature (li in Chinese). Some might call it Mind, Dharmakaya, Buddha Nature, Dharmadhatu, or the Absolute. Nature origination was most fully developed by Chan Master Zongmi, also the last Huayen Patriarch. Although living only two generations after Huayen's seminal Patriarch, Fazang, Zongmi completely reinterpreted the Huayen system.

Rather than Fazang's emphasis on the interdependence of phenomena on one another, Zongmi took Huayen in a new direction. For him, all phenomena, while empty of self-existence as orthodox Buddhism taught, were in fact empty in a deeper way--empty of separation from the Nature. Stated more directly, all phenomena have the Absolute as their true nature; nothing is separate from it.

Nature origination never caught on the way that its counterpart, dependent origination did; although it did gain popularity through the championing of Chinul, the famous Korean monk and founder of the Chogye order, still extant today. Huang Po's One Mind reflects a similar line of thought. One reason that it probably never gained a foothold is that nature origination sounds too similar to a transcendental Self for most Buddhist's tastes.

I'm writing about nature origination to illustrate the tremendous variety of teachings within Buddhism. It is not an exaggeration to say that there is no central tenet of Buddhism; each school and sect values certain teachings over others. Throughout its 2,500 years, Buddhism has developed a rich array of doctrines and practices, some of which blatantly contradict one another. I think that it is self-deceptive to pretend that Buddhist doctrine is always internally consistent or that it follows a singular line of development.

That is simply not the case.

Nature origination, like any development in Buddhism (including the earliest Buddhist teachings like the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path), reflects its native cultural, social, and historical context. Nothing is a-historical; to assume that something is can be a grave mistake.

This means that dependent origination and its popularity in modern Western culture are just as context-bound. Environmental consciousness is popular nowadays, and so is interdependent thinking. Give it twenty years and the political conversation may have moved onto other topics. Who knows?

The lesson is this: we are always inside of a culture, occupying a particular space in history. We should not take environmental science's validation of interdependence as an absolute rubber stamp because even that certification will change.

The current Western trend to value discourse and egalitarianism has invisibly validated interdependence. 

All teachings are empty, meaning they cannot fully encapsulate the complexity that is reality. For that reason, we must be cautious and never forget that because we are inside this culture, we just accept its values and pronouncements as truth, without acknowledging that the reason these teachings speak so persuasively to us is because of where we stand in history.

Nature origination may seem like a foreign, ill-concocted deviation of the "true" Buddhadharma (i.e., dependent origination). But that view suffers from a common myopia, the belief that there is one "true" ...anything. Ironically, we needn't look any further than dependent origination itself, with its constant reminder that all teachings are empty and provisional, before we empty dependent origination itself.

In emptiness, everything is subject to erasure. So don't get too comfortable.

 

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Practically Nothing



I stumbled on a really cool book last week, Practically Nothing: Transforming Your Practice of Centering Prayer Through the Wisdom of Mystical Nothingness by LJ Milone, a pastoral minister in a Catholic parish. Interestingly, the book was published in May 2014, just three weeks before I published my similarly themed book, God is Nothingness.

Our books are virtually identical, except where I draw upon Eastern traditions like Zen, Taoism, and Advaita Vedanta, Milone borrows from Christian mysticism. This makes perfect sense, since the Absolute should transcend culture and tradition.

Both of our books are based on apophatic practices, the refusal to speak of the Absolute in any positive terms, instead relying upon negative terminology such as the Heart Sutra's "no eyes, no ears, no tongue..." in order to convey a glimpse of the Absolute. Milone references Meister Eckhart, St. John of the Cross, pseudo-Dionysius the Aeropagite, all of whom speak of God in the ultimate apophatic term, Nothingness. (St. John calls it "Nada" and Eckhart "Nichts.")

The similarity between our books is very encouraging; it reaffirms my personal experience of the Void and makes me wonder even more why there is so little literature about the Absolute as Nothingness. For this reason, I have developed a new blog called Absolute Nothingness, dedicated exclusively to exploring the Void.

The blog address is www.absolutenothingness.wordpress.com. Check it out if you get a chance and are interested. I will continue to post Buddhist articles here on Original Mind. And by all means, pick up a copy of Milone's Practically Nothing

Sunday, September 21, 2014

The Precepts - Dharma talk

The Precepts act as a lantern in the darkness of our confusing lives, illuminating the path of Buddhahood. They serve as beacons for proper conduct. At the heart of the Precepts rests the guiding principle, "Do no harm." In this talk, I discuss the significance and practicality of living a life committed to embodying Buddhist ideals.

Introduction and sound engineering by Tom Inzan Gartland.

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Can I get a Witness?

No, because there are none. There is no Witness. In Buddhism, everything is understood to be interdependent and empty of its own existence. The spiritual Witness (with a capital 'W') is commonly defined as an eternal, unchanging entity of sorts that simply witnesses the changing world around it. In a sense, it is immortal consciousness that precedes and transcends the body.

Buddhism allows no such thing, at least most forms of Buddhism don't. Consciousness is a function of the body. No body, no consciousness. In this sense, consciousness is a verb, the result of a massively complex matrix of circumstances. It has different shades and qualities, depending upon conditions. For instance, if someone is drunk or distracted, their attention will be scattered; their awareness cloudy or dulled. Remove one of these conditions--the sun, say--and they all topple.

It is important to remember that consciousness is not privileged, nor is it the chief feature in the universe, as some traditions avouch (as in, the universe is consciousness). This is all from a Buddhist perspective, of course, and a particular one at that; for not all Buddhists schools categorically agree about the nature of the mind/Mind.

Sometimes Buddhist teachers will instruct students to "abide as the witness." Here, the witness is a skill, a capacity to be cultivated, not a thing. Again used as a verb, we witness events occurring; the goal of which is to develop distance from the events or emotions in order to grant us freedom. For example, as long as we identify with anger as ours, we will be ruled by it. Once we can view anger objectively, without identifying with it as us or ours, then we can choose how to respond to the emotion.

The process looks something like this:
1. At first students identify with emotions or thoughts, believing that there is some concrete self who is experiencing them. It's like Pin the Tail on the Donkey, where experiences are things that happen to us, in the same way as the tail is pinned like an add-on to the donkey. There is me inside my head feeling sadness happening to me.
2. When students begin to simply observe without identification or ownership, they develop distance and see that the thoughts are not theirs. If the thoughts were theirs, they could control them. Emotions happen in the same way as the weather does; they are responses to conditions--impersonal, and largely beyond our control. Freedom grows from this recognition.
This stage, of course, is extremely dualistic, in that the emotions are separate from the observer. Witnessing actually creates the false sense of an observer, a necessary step as I will soon discuss.
3. After some time, we come to realize that witnessing is simply a provisional practice that creates separation. There is no mind separate from its contents, in the same way as there is no film outside or behind the images and light projecting the film onto the screen. 
In Buddhism, at least most forms of it, there is no screen at all. There is only the images. There is no weather outside of the wind and rain; weather is actually just an abstract catch-all concept used to denote these collective processes. There is no thing called weather. Similarly, there is no thing called a witness. It's simply shorthand for the occurrence we call mental experience.

The significance is that there is no observer, witness or Witnessm for these are all dualistic. There is no mind or consciousness separate from its contents. Just as there are no thoughts without a mind (rocks don't think), there is no thinker without thoughts. There is no seer without eyes, etc.

In a metaphorical sense, if we were to disconnect our senses, as one does with an electrical circuit breaker, there would be no mind, as well as no primordial consciousness or primal awareness lurking in the background.

Body, mind, senses, and the world are all intimately connected. The witness is a stage in an unfolding process of self-realization, self-inquiry, and self-cultivation that eventually results in a wider sense of self-identification until we can eventually become whatever circumstances need us to be. When my kids need me, I'm Dad; when my hot water heaters bursts, I'm a home owner. The less we identify exclusively with these roles--or stated in more positive terms, the more fluidly we can shift from one to the other--the freer we are.

The paradox, as we see from the above process, is that in order to develop a wider sense of self, we must first engage a more narrow one. We act as a witness in order to transcend the witness; for ultimately, in the truest and freest sense, there is no observer. When I am functioning at my peak as a writer or teaching my best in the classroom, there is absolutely no sense of an 'I' or doer. There is just writing or teaching.

The story writes itself; the teachings teach themselves. No I is necessary.




Wednesday, September 10, 2014

The Dharma is Not a Product



The Dharma is not a product and students are not customers. I am very fortunate to teach in a location that does not charge rent because that means the Original Mind Zen Sangha does not need a substantial income. Therefore, we do not not to shop for students.

Bodhisattvas dedicate their lives to helping others awaken, but what does that necessarily entail? To what lengths should Dharma teachers go to in order to appeal to students?

In the American spiritual marketplace, Zen--with its rigorous meditation practice, bare-bones liturgy, and stoic character--is not the shiniest gem. Other traditions are far more attractive.

I enjoy leading a small sangha, for it frees us from the obligation of large expenses. We don't have a mortgage, rent, or even heating bills. And that's a blessing.

Still, there is the unstated pressure to grow, to bring in more members. But how much of that is the Bodhisattva vow, and how much is just ego? (My intuition says that the moment someone utters the question, "Why aren't more people coming?", ego has appeared.)

Do we really need a bright temple in order to draw in crowds, or exciting Dharma talks to impress students? When does change or accommodation (upaya or skillful means) become just plain old compromise? Should Zen sanghas be trying to encourage people to join?

These are important questions I find myself facing as the Original Mind Zen Sangha approaches its third year. I am very wary of any approaches that intentionally try to appeal to, entice, or attract students. If someone asks how to meditate or is curious about Buddhism, then by all means answer their questions. Give them literature. Point them to resources or invite them to attend a meditation class. We can even offer seminars at the library or yoga center. Advertise with paper pamphlets--make the Dharma available.

But marketing Zen sounds simply counter intuitive (or even hypocritical) to me. I don't think that Zen teachers should be in the Zen business. Period. That approach tends to reduce people to students, and students to human advantages or mere resources.

Thoughts or comments?

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Sweep the Tent - Dharma Talk



Every action we perform is an expression of the Absolute, all we need to do is realize that. Even the most unlikely activities, like brushing our teeth or getting gasoline, acts that ordinarily serve as transitions or means to ends, can transform into religious activities. Zen practice is about becoming intimate with everything that we do.

Introduction and sound engineering by Tom Inzan Gartland.