the symbolic and the literal....

last night between zazen sessions, Sensei felt he had something important to share with us about light only just now being cast upon a particular aspect of his Chomon experience. the religious life, he told us, has two aspects - that which we may term an "inner" and "outer". this inner aspect may be felt as peace, or peaceful awareness, and without its core foundation we can not say we are truly living such a life. there are those, he went on to explain, who in attempting to give expression to such an inner aspect, insist on the truth of their words to the exclusion of all else. they are so focussed on this outer aspect, which may be seen as the expressive tendency, that they mistake it for and subsequently lose sight altogether of what remains the most fundamental and vital point - this peaceful awareness.
that is why figures such as Daisetz Suzuki and Kitaro Nishida always trod tentatively in seeking to give expression to this inner aspect and were often deeply ashamed or embarassed by their own words. they viewed them as only "wordly things" and after having bourne this outer aspect through, quickly moved away from and back into the fundamental peaceful awareness.

recently i've been leisurely making my way through Without Buddha I Could Not Be a Christian which Kyoshin kindly lent me. and i was struck, upon hearing these words of Sensei's, how central a struggle this idea of giving expression to the inexpressible has been to Knitter as a commited (no doubt some would argue otherwise!) Christian. struck, but not surprised as after all, "in the beginning was the word" and later, so we are told, the word was made flesh. what really interests me in reading Knitter is his concern not per se with a desire to express, but with an excess of expression -

"[...]the crux of my difficulties has been not in a lack of meaning but an excess of meaning; not in the possibility of meaning but in the determination of meaning. The image that comes to mind is of a beautiful tropical bird - in a cage. Able to soar, it's not allowed to.

We kill religious language when we don't allow it to soar. "

this tension between the desire to (perhaps even the necessity to) express and the dangers thereof i think always threatens to snap when we fail to realise that insofar as we attempt to express the inexpressible it is bound toward symbolic language. this language taken at a purely literal level, is equatable to (pardon the well-worn phrase) mistaking the finger for the moon. the danger that we dwell forever in the dogmatic orthodoxical wandering grounds instead of diving deeper into the experiental pools has then a greater threat of narrowing this outer aspect to an exclusive "my way only" mode of expression -

"Symbolic language is both precious and dangerous. Therefore it must be used carefully. Symbols are words we utilise to open ourselves to something that is essentially beyond words. Symbols are images that connect us with a reality that can never be contained in any one image. This means, as is often said but often forgotten, that while symbols should always be taken seriously, we need to be wary of taking them them literally. If we take them literally, we run the risk of so inflating them that we turn them into idols"

 to end this posting on a "to be continued", i was also reminded listening to Sensei talk, of that popular quote from the Dao De Jing - "those who know, speak not; those who speak know not". and i realised for the first time why such an absolute phrase, which so delighted me when i was younger, now seems to fall short of something crucial. at some stage i'll write about what i feel this something is.

namu amida butsu
 

the motivational condition for religious awakening...

as an after-thought to the previous posting -

the other people in a person's life are the motivational condition for an individual's religious awakening. Consequently they are those who have done a great deal for that individual's spiritual welfare. As a matter of course, one comes to understand just how grateful one should be to others. 

         - Great Living, Kemmyo Taira Sato

unfathomable depths

one of the many pitfalls of any given path is that of complacency. this might manifest in such a readily acknowledgeable form as "put it off until tomorrow" syndrome or it may linger beneath the surface in a subtler manner.

a few nights ago, i was discussing with my Dharma mother our respective Chomon experiences. two significant steps foward during introspection are the awareness of how much suffering (knowing or unknowingly) we put those who love us through and the infinite compassion and support we have received from them in spite of such. the key thing is - although such awareness is the turning point to our taking refuge in Amida, we also know that what we are seeing is the mere tip of the iceberg - our blind passions are so deep, and the compassion so infinite that we can never fathom their depths. realising such is an extremely humbling thought.

talking through all this, she then told me that when she says the nembutsu it is not only for the compassion she is aware of having received but for all those infinite, endless examples of love and support which lie under the surface waters of our obscured by blind passions awareness. the ones we never know, never realise, never could know.

during otsutome the following morning it felt as if with each nembutsu the doors had opened wider and with deep shame i offered each syllable in gratitude, not only for all i can recall of what has been done for me, but all the infinite, endless, unfathomable depths of compassion i have received from Other.

namu amida butsu

Pure Land as Sangha

I was given a wonderful opportunity to meet some erudite priests from the Shinshu Otani-ha (Higashi Honganji) branch of Jodo Shinshu during my recent stay in Japan. I had been invited to an event to begin the preparations for this year's commemoration of the 750th Memorial for Shinran Shonin, and very kindly several of them spent some time with me afterwards. I was quite inspired by their energy and enthusiasm to communicate Shin Buddhism through a sincere appraisal of the life of Shinran Shonin. The reason I  mention this in the context of this post is that I was pointed in the direction of some of the Otani-ha English language websites of which one contains some essays by Dr Nobuo Haneda. I have long struggled with Dr Haneda's writing but having recently re-encountered essays by Manshi Kiyozawa, Haya Akegarasu and Sogo Ryojin and found a new appreciation of their sometimes challenging way of presenting Shin Buddhism, I have begun reading anew Dr Haneda's collection of essays called Dharma Breeze. 

As we have recently been discussing our thoughts on the nature of the Pure Land both here and at Echoes of the Name I was interested to read Dr Haneda's essay entitled 'What is the Pure Land' which gave me much needed pause for thought in the light of this ongoing dialogue. At the heart of this essay Dr Haneda equates the Pure Land with the Sangha stating "I believe the Pure Land is a symbol of the Sangha". Initially to be honest I found this to be a rather shocking assertion however with some thought it has now given me a new and lively sense of the Pure Land as lived reality in the context of our encounters with others. The passage which really caught me was this in which Dr Haneda recounts the words of Rev Rijin Yusuda:

"People say various things about birth in the Pure Land. But could there be any greater 'birth in the Pure Land' than the fact that we are now sitting and learning sitting and learning the Dharma together? This place where we are listening to the Dharma together is the Pure Land. Our being allowed to be part of this place, of this Sangha, is 'birth in the Pure Land.'
Do you think that you can have anything greater than this in your life—the fact that you are listening to the Dharma as a member of the Sangha? Some people may speak about the wonderful things to be obtained in the Pure Land after death, but those things are nothing but projections of human greed. The fact that we are privileged to be part of the Sangha is our liberation, our "birth in the Pure Land.'"

 Dr Haneda goes on to write:

Now I have said that the Pure Land is a symbol of the Sangha—a place where a teacher and his students are wholeheartedly seeking the Dharma. In short, it is a place where we can have true friends.

What could be a greater vision of the Pure Land than that?

experiencing true encounter...

"Taya life is a way of living daily life in which one experiences true encounter."

- Fragrant Light No.257

well, it's a matter of days now until i move down to London and enter into taya life. no doubt it may well be a prevelent theme in my postings here over the coming months. a Dharma friend recently asked me to tell him a little bit about its significance and i replied that the best i felt i could do was to share this essay, "The Meaning of Taya" by Rev. Kemmyo Taira Sato with him.

it's funny really that in talking with Kyoshin recently (whose latest postings over on Echoes about his temple stay in Japan you should read asap), i realised i am only just coming to understand how profoundly important a part encounter plays within the Shinshu tradition. to illustrate from Rev. Sato's essay -

"In personal encounter, two people become united at a deeper level than before, through their confrontation or facing one another. Through confrontation both people become themselves. In other words, through encounter one discovers oneself in a deeper dimension by letting the other person be himself / herself just as he / she is. Ideally one might thus achieve complete self-development. The two people are two and one at the same time."

as you may know, this idea of acceptance, of  "letting the other person be himself / herself just as he / she is" is something which i've been struggling with of late and will no doubt come up against during my time there. although in any other circumstance i would feel daunted at this thought, amongst good Dharma friends and in the light of the Tathagata, i am confident a space in which to move forward positively will reveal itself.

namu amida butsu

the value of interfaith...

oh boy, Egypt. it looks like things are close to tipping point over there and i hold the people in my thoughts. there's already plenty of excellent analysis out there and i don't feel i could really add anything worthwhile to it. there is one thing which caught my eye though. i think it's safe to say that all of Blathering Nonsense's contributors hold the matter of interfaith dialogue very close to their hearts. so naturally, i find the coming together of muslims and christians during this revolution moving and inspiring. there are many things we can be learning from the people of Egypt right now and one of the most important is that, beyond the differences of religious identity and belief, underneath we all share the same potential for compassion, love, support and respect to one another. here's what the people have to say (full article can be read here) -

"During the fiercest clashes on January 28, I found a guy about my age guarding my back, who I later found out was a Christian," Yahia Roumi, a 24- year-old protester from Cairo, told IPS. "Now we're best friends; we never go to the demonstrations without one another."

"In Tahrir, I've met many young Muslim activists - even some from the Muslim Brotherhood," Boutros, who preferred not to give his last name, told IPS. "They explained how Islam commands Muslims to protect Christians and Christian places of worship. I learned from them that the Muslims don't have any beliefs that threaten our rights or should frighten us as Copts."

"I'm protecting these churches as if they were mosques, because, according to Islam, we should respect Christian places of worship," Rageb told IPS. "As an Egyptian Muslim, I have no reason to hate Christians. We've always been neighbours here, and our relations are excellent."

and perhaps most tellingly -

"The regime is responsible for the sectarian problems suffered by Copts," Kamel was quoted as saying. "Proof of this is that no church was attacked during the unprecedented absence of security (following the police withdrawal)."

"This corrupt government was behind 90 percent of the problems between Egypt's Christian and Muslim communities, which had coexisted in harmony for hundreds of years," agreed Rageb.

Boutros said: "This uprising won't only bring freedom to Egypt; it will also do much to dispel sectarian tension - of which the ruling regime was the only beneficiary."

namu amida butsu

Bullshit...

last week, whilst browsing the mighty internets i came across the following joke - What's the difference between a Buddhist and a non-Buddhist? A Buddhist knows there is none. a brief smile, but then i got to thinking about it a little bit more and something began to bug me. of course, jokes aren't meant to be taken seriously but i saw no good reason why that should stop me so let's plunge forward...

first off, i'm not sure how true it really is. we'd like to be able to say "i know there's no difference between you and me" but speaking for myself here, i bloody love the label of "Buddhist". i don't approach it as some kind of evangelical trip (at least, god, i hope i don't but then maybe some of my friends might say otherwise) but i make no qualms about hiding the fact. in a sense there's nothing wrong with that - anything which plays a big part in who we are in life  then we'd naturally want to share with those close to us. but "Buddhist" can be just another identity we construct for ourselves, one of several we take out of the bag depending on the occassion. so what's supposed to guide us towards some truth instead becomes another cloak of misdirection. and boy, i sure do love my Buddhist identity! it's much more appealing than shedding all these illusory constructs and standing naked and ugly.

the second thing which got me is how contradictory such a joke is in its tone of smarmy elitism - "oh poor unenlightened fools, they think there is a difference whereas i, uber-compassionate bodhisattva wonderman know there is none". let's be clear about this, as Buddhists we're not smarter, not more loving or compassionate, not wiser, not less attached, not more immune to fucking up on numerous occassions. to think so is bullshit. even the things i'd be tempted to pin a difference on - awareness of impermanence, awareness of suffering, perhaps some insight into the cause of suffering - aren't certainties. what is certain is that there are non-Buddhists out there who - gasp! - are far more Buddhist than me. about all i can say with any confidence then, is that just like anyone else i don't want to suffer but as a Buddhist i believe the Buddha taught a way to free oneself from such and on the rare occassions i'm on the ball, i try to be mindful of and implement his teachings.

all this ties in with the issue of honesty, which has somewhat been on my mind of late. the problem with prior reflections is that i'd been bemoaning a lack of honesty in our encounters with ourselves on the Dharma path and subsequently somewhat unintentionally constructed this ideal of the ubermensch to aspire to and become. when we get down to it though, each person comes to the Dharma with their own history, their own problems and their own hang-ups. in bemoaning that someone may struggle to confront themselves "as they are", i'm really just expecting them to live up to the nonsensical ideal i've foisted upon myself. worse, i'm ignoring the real value that can lie in the struggle. far better to quit all the bullshit, welcoming and accepting others for who they are just as i have been myself. Amida's Vow is non-descriminating.

namu amida butsu 

Absoluut Dharma...

The essence of ethics is to love one another. However, since there is no absolute standard for good and bad, all ethical acts are relative. Usually, though, when one makes an effort to achieve some goal, one tends to consider one's efforts as being absolute, rather than relative. when this psychological tendency manifests itself in a self-centered way, our ethical consciousness becomes a source of strife between people that can lead to the death and destruction of others, which is quite contrary to our original intent as ethical beings. 

- Rev. Kemmyo Taira Sato

most, if not all of the time we tend to discriminate between things as either being A or B, good or bad, true or false etc. and then we proceed to form opinions and make judgements based upon these absolutes we ascribe to them. Buddhadharma aims to cuts through this dualistic mode of thinking which leads us to seperate ourselves from others and place our own needs above all else. In Shantideva's Bodhicaryavatara we read - Since I and other beings both / In wanting happiness, are equal and alike / What difference is there to distinguish us / That I should strive to have my bliss alone? As there is no independently existing self, to cherish an I above Other is to seek to preserve that which has no substance in the first place.

all well and good and yes it certainly sounds worth realising. the problem as i've experienced it personally though, is that so often we seem to fall under the absurd sway of thinking that we don't carry this dualistic tendency with us on to the Dharma path. let's be honest - how often have each of us argued an understanding or aspect of Dharma from this absolute standpoint? do a quick google search and you'll find all manner of sectarian in-fighting within Buddhism, despite your cosy notion of it being all shangri-la windchimes and levitating yogis living in peace and harmony. ego is strongly rooted and habituated through years and years of practice, so much so that Buddhism will be used as just so much more grist for the mill with which to booster it. i'm Buddhist, you're not. i'm Zen, you're Nichiren. i follow Guru X, you follow Guru Y.

it's not that i believe all we need is a nice big group-hug of syncretism - of course there are differences in teaching, in interpretation, in practice and between tradition. and it is important to acknowledge them. just as it is important to acknowledge that they all share a unified purpose. but ultimately, Buddhadharma is the extinguishing of dualities. and lets not kid ourselves we're on the other shore yet before we've even set foot on the raft. a little bit of honesty, no matter how painful and ugly, can go a long way.

namu amida butsu

            

A Prayer to Be Reborn in Sukhavati

Jon asked me recently if I'd guest-write for this blog, an offer I gladly accepted. We have spoken often about Dharma and explored commonalities in one another's traditions. I think this dialogue is immensely important.

Anyway, for my first post as a (somewhat daunted!) guest I thought I'd begin with a matter central to both Jodo Shinsu and Vajrayana: the primal vow of Amitabha and his Pureland of Great Bliss, Sukhavati (Tib: Dewachen).

Amitabha is especially significant within Tibetan Buddhism as the strength of his promise extends the hope of rebirth in his Pureland to all who have the sincere aspiration to be reborn in Dewachen, even those who lack the capacity or motivation for consistent meditative discipline.

What other significance does Amitabha have for Tibetans and Vajrayana practitioners?

Amitabha is a Dharmakaya Buddha. His Sambogakaya aspect is the Great Bodhisattva, Avalokiteshwara (Tib: Chenrezig) who is the Patron of Tibet, and whose emanations are believed to include His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

Amitabha's Nirmanakaya aspect is Guru Padmasambhava (Guru Rinpoche), renowned as the second Buddha of our age, the Mahasiddha and pandita who first brought the Holy Dharma from India to the Land of Snows. He is revered by all Vajrayana lineages, but emphasised more in some than in others.

The lineage in which I practice has an especially close historical connection to Guru Rinpoche as the patriarchs of the Khon family lineage, which is also known as the Sakya school, include his direct disciple, Nagendrarakshita. Some practices transmitted by the Sakya school to this day were received directly from Guru Rinpoche and passed down through the Sakya family in an unbroken continuum, so for us there is a very strong personal link to Amitabha through his Nirmanakaya manifestation.

Readers of this blog will clearly know more about Amitabha than me, being an ignorant monk from the Tibetan tradition, so I won't elaborate further. What I will do instead is share something that's at the heart of many Vajrayana practitioners' practice: the prayer to be reborn in Dewachen. This prayer, with a beautiful, joyful melody, usually concludes Chenrezig pujas, though is found elsewhere.

Emough from me! Namo Amitabha Buddha.

Eh Ma Ho! (What wonder!)
In the center is the marvelous Buddha Amitabha of Boundless Light,
On the right side is the Lord of Great Compassion (Chenrezig)
And on the left is Vajrapani, the Lord of Powerful Means.
All are surrounded by limitless Buddhas and Bodhisattvas.
Immeasurable peace and happiness is the blissful pureland of Dewachen.
As all beings pass from samsara,
May we be born there without taking samsaric rebirth.
May we have the blessing of meeting Amitabha face to face.
By the power and blessings of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas
of the ten directions,
May we attain this aspiration without hindrance.

Tadyatha Pantsa Driya Awa Bodhanaya Svaha

on a wing and a prayer...

prayer's a rather problematic topic for me, one that nonetheless seems insistent on raising its awkward little head and butting into my thoughts. it's a word that can be multifaceted in interpretation and meaning but i hazard a guess that the most immediate or apparant image which springs to mind is asking for something from some bearded guy way up in the sky.

this example is aka petitionary. it doesn't have to be a bearded guy of course, it can just as well be a blue-faced dude or a green lady springing from a lotus but the point is we're requesting something for ourselves, be it material or otherwise. and i have a huge problem with it.

another example, related to the first is when we ask on someone else's behalf (aka intercessory). this is slightly less problematic for me but only slightly (and something i grappled with last year)

then it seems that we come to prayer as introspective and contemplative. here i feel on more solid ground because the thing which causes all the problems for me - the act of petition - appears largely absent in this space.

in fact, if petitionary can be viewed as an attempt at establishing control over a given situation, then contemplative is perhaps happier to rest in and make peace with the helplessness of the self....maybe i'm (inevitably) bringing my own bias to the table but at the very least i feel it is more a manner of listening than, as with the former, of attempting to make oneself heard.

one thing is certain, that prayer seems to feature in one way or another in all religions, be they folk or organised. and both petitionary and contemplative/devotional strands appear common. Buddhism isn't the exception either. and as regards the petitionary angle it oftens seems to have the added dimension of voicing aspiration, eg. the Patrul Rinpoche quote i began my last post with (although, this aspect certainly needn't be exclusive to Buddhism, eg. - "Lord, help me to love my enemies"). Actually, that quote is interesting for me to consider as here we have an admission of our wretchedness coupled with an extremely selfless request.

nonetheless though, however selfless such a petition may be, i can't shake the feeling that petition by its nature is founded on the assumption that we know what is best for ourselves (and for others). and in the instant of our voicing we establish an expectation not only of answer, but means by which such request is answered.

in light of all these concerns i have, i'd be most interested in hearing how friends in other traditions, particularly ones in which prayer forms a central part of practice (and not necessarily limited to the scope of Buddhist either - the more the merrier) view the matter - do you ever share the same doubts and concerns? do you view prayer in a different light to those i've mentioned? what form does prayer take for you (as i'm well aware there are many more than the few examples i provide)? need prayer even require a recipient?

in expectation of responses, i'll round up with a quote from that Great American Soul Thoreau, whose words on the matter paticularly resonate with me and appear to open up new vistas - your daily life should be your prayer.

namu amida butsu

tbh

I know all the details of karma, but I do not really believe in it.
I have heard a lot of Dharma, but never put it into practice.
Bless me and evil-doers like me
That our minds may mingle with the Dharma
 - Patrul Rinpoche

this is going to be one of those "Jon thinks he has something halfway worth hearing to say " type posts, so don't say you weren't warned. over the past few days the issue of honesty has been on my mind, in particular as regards Dharma.

i think a lot of us spend most of our lives trying to get as far away from honesty as possible, because it can be pretty brutal and ugly. that "the norm" within society is intensely self-serving, materialistic, alienating and damaging isn't necessarily what we'd like to square up to and address. so we use distractions - buy more, spend more, drink more, take more. anything to take our minds off all the reminders of that annoying first noble truth. we know these distractions ultimately don't work, but if we ALL TELL EACH OTHER REALLY LOUDLY THAT THEY DO AND THEY'RE FANTASTIC well then, it must be true right?

more than likely, we don't like the honesty of who we really are either. at least, when it comes to our faults. in fact, we're so scared of facing up to them that most of the time we'll wear various masks to keep them well hid when in company. and of course, we all have our Buddhadharma masks. i know i do - mine's the painfully sincere, oh-so-humbler-than-thou one. i also wear the "this guy knows what he's talking about when it comes to Dharma" one rather unsuccessfully it has to be said, but at least i manage to convince myself even if no-one else buys it.

it's tragic really that we persist in chasing our own imagined chimerical ideals of what we feel a Buddhist should be in order to feel comfortable enough to call ourselves one. we learn of bodhicitta and the wish to liberate all sentient beings, then rather than begin by confronting our own utter lack of compassion, instead try to convince ourselves how even people like Hitler we would want to liberate because hey, we're just so naturally bodhisattvic like that (and after all, trying to convince ourselves is so much easier than all the effort actually arousing some genuine compassion would require). or perhaps we hear somewhere that we are already Buddhas and so immediately feel a smug glow of self-satisfaction and pat ourselves on the back ("i always knew, deep down") rather than turn to address the obscurations that hinder such a realisation in the first place.

here's the thing - actually, it's perfectly natural to be fucked up you know. in fact, it's pretty unavoidable - it's called being a sentient being.  sure, we don't want to stay selfish, or uncompassionate, or ignorant, or greedy. but in order to begin work on that then we need to drop all the fake, holier-than-thou posturing bullshit, be honest with ourselves and actually face up to the often unpleasant truths.

namu amida butsu.

new year's resolution....

Whenever I catch sight of others,
By thinking, "It is through them,
That I will reach awakening,"
I'll look with sincerity and love.

- Shantideva

namu amida butsu

a parting gift...

there's some big changes coming my way in 2011 so it may be a slow start of the blog front. in the meantime, i'd like to thank you all for reading and chipping in. paticular thanks to Kyoshin, whose contributions to the Tibetan-Shinshu dialogue have added a vital, new voice which BN was missing. be sure to head over to the excellent Echoes of the Name for more.

also, i should point you towards my Dharma friend Jishin's Pure Land Breezes, a beautiful space for verse and reflection. finally, worth reading too is the squawking of Kunga D over at the Vajra Parrot.

i've nothing particularly to add other than to share something i've been enjoying over the past few weeks (call it a gift if you like). it was born out of an intense period of self-imposed silence, more of which i might write about in the new year. for now though, it's best just to let it do the talking -

namu amida butsu.

"where Buddha speaks to Buddha..."

just to add to the the prior discussion of muryoju, i came across this quote from Kanamatsu's Naturalness which seemed pertinent -

 Amida's revelation is not to be sought after by our own efforts; it comes upon us by itself, of it's own accord. Amida is always in us and with us, but by means of our human understanding we posit him outside us, against us, as opposing us, and exercise our intellectual power to the utmost to take hold of him. The revelation, however, would take place only when this human power has been really exhausted, has given up all its selfishness, when we have come back to our simplicity.

namu amida butsu

Muryoju (a reply of sorts)...

last week my good friend Kunga D wrote a piece over at his blog, Why are we amazed? myself being an admitted hopeless romantic, prone to burying my head in books of haiku, dreaming of misty-mountain revelations and deep sunyatic realisations awoken by the smell of falling plum blossom, i must admit the frankness of his squawking at first ruffled me. however, once i'd straightened out those feathers and had time to ponder his words with hopefully a bit of clarity i found myself thinking about two aspects of the Jodo Shinshu path.

the first is a word we all encounter in one form or another pretty early on when studying/practising the Pure Land schools. In Japanese it is rendered "Muryoju" - Eternal Life. bear with me here, as it might appear i'm running off in completely the opposite direction of what my friend is saying (really, i'm not lol). Amida Buddha has many names or titles if you like, all referring to his different aspects, but perhaps the two most well known are Amitabha - Infinite Light and Amitayus - Eternal Life. the former is symbolic of wisdom (light breaking through the darkness of ignorance) whereas the latter of compassion (so long as there are sentient beings unawoken to the vow he will be here, leading them to his Pure Land).
the reason i picked up on the latter aspect - muryoju - is in remembering an account mine and Kyoshin's sensei told our samgha one time. he had received a piece of calligraphy from the late DT Suzuki (of whom, he was his last student) to take back to his Dharma mother at the temple. it bore simply the character for Muryoju. realising he could not take it back without an explanation, he returned to Suzuki-sensei, asking what the character meant - "Sensei, regarding the calligraphy you did for Ekai-san, what does this 'Eternal Life' mean." He replied, "Well, see that cat moving over there and the daffodils blooming in the garden? All of it is Eternal Life. Yes, everything's the working of Eternal Life."  http://bit.ly/fH4KrJ

the second thing i picked up on was the 'gyo' part of the Kyogyoshinsho, which most people are familiar with as meaning 'practice'. however, in a translation just short of complete before his death, Suzuki chose to translate this term instead as 'living' believing it closer to Shinran Shonin's intent. Great Practice becomes Great Living, placing it firmly in the midst of our lives, and thus resolving the tendency we often have to seperate the two.

following this musing then, i can acknowledge the danger Kunga mentions in sublimating or spiritualising everything that is meaningful. a common trap i've fallen into many a time is chasing after intense feelings of joy experienced on the path, believing that somehow if i can't get back to them then i'm missing out on the Vow. of course, this thinking fails to realise the Amitabha - light penetrates all corners - and also, while busy chasing, so distracted as to look past "everything's the working of Eternal Life."
that everything is the working, means not only those times we experience great joy but also those times we seem to be picking our way through the darkness. we'd like to seperate the two and place the former in the realm of Amida and the latter in the realm of suffering because to a self-orientated mind, the alternative seems perverse. but to do so is to deny the compassion which is itself muryoju. when we receive an awareness of this working, then our whole being is re-orientated and the dichotomy we might place between practice and living is nulled.

namu amida butsu

no easy answers...

not so long ago an article appeared in The Guardian regarding the 2000 foetuses found in a Bangkok Temple. the article told of how the discovery had prompted a push toward political reform regarding Thailand's abortion laws which was subsequently being hindered by prominent figures in the Thai Sangha who held considerable political (and public) sway.

my initial response upon reading the article was i couldn't help but feel in this instant a dogmatic and rigid adherence to orthodoxy was blindsiding the chance for compassionate expression of orthopraxy. discussing the matter with Kyoshin however, he quite rightly pointed out the situation is in all liklihood more complex than such a response would imply. the influence religion holds over politics, the deep cultural imprint of abortion as taboo held by many throughout the various stratas of society and many other issues all play their part. and certainly, it is all too easy for me to offer a skewered analysis bearing little real understanding of the situation as of course i am an outsider to such cultural perspectives and values.

it does nonetheless throw up certain murky questions for me. i'm strongly against forms of theocracy but neither do i believe one's religion should remain cut off or seperated from one's politics. how much influence should one bear upon the other then? i guess ultimately it's when either threatens to inhibit an individual's freedom that i feel uncomfortable - eg. yes, i believe the taking of a life is wrong and that abortion falls under this category but neither do i believe in forcing adherence to such a belief. and what if by denying the means to legal, safe abortion more than just the one life is being put at risk?

the reality of it is that prohibition's quite clearly not acting as an effective deterrent and in  many cases, placing more lives at risk than need be. wouldn't education be a worthier, more compassionate attempt (perhaps though, this is naive of me)?

i don't want to accuse senior figures of the Thai Sangha of somehow lacking compassion, which, given the extreme liklihood that their levels of attainment are way, way vaster than mine would be grossly arrogant, disrespectful and just plain wrong of me to say. at the same time though, i can't get alongside their stance on this issue.

the other question then i guess, concerns when orthodoxy clashes with orthopraxy. the fact that abortion is considered by many to be such a taboo is due to the direct influence that Buddhism holds for the majority of Thai society. and it is the perfectly valid and correct stance in terms of orthodoxy.

.....and yet. how do we move forward when what is written and accepted as the authentic stance on a given matter threatens to clash with what we feel as being right, and even maybe hinder cultivation of compassion? it's a valid and important question imo but one offering no easy answers.

namu amida butsu

some thoughts on jiriki...

Self-power is the effort to attain birth, whether by invoking the names of Buddhas other than Amida and practicing good acts other than the nembutsu, in accordance with your particular circumstances and opportunities; or by endeavoring to make yourself worthy through mending the confusion in your acts, words, and thoughts, confident of your own powers and guided by your own calculation.
- Lamp for the Latter Ages 2


what is jiriki really? this is something which has been bugging me for quite some time now. usually when jiriki, or self-power is referred to it's through the lens of practice. entrusting to Amida means the whole-sale abandoning of practice and instead placing firm faith in and reliance upon all the merit generated by Dharmakara towards the establishment of a Pure Land for all sentient beings. nothing doing, it's all been done.

the problem i have with this approach is i can't help but feel it places emphasis on the wrong point. we should ask ourselves why Shinran Shonin encouraged an abandoning of practice - ultimately, what it boils down to is not the external form of practice itself per se, but the intent behind such an act. entrusting isn't really about abandoning practice, it's about abandoning reliance on the ego-ridden self to bring about enlightenment. whether your practice is zazen, ngondro or riding a unicycle backwards through Times Square singing yankee doodle dandy really shouldn't matter, what should is the letting go of a goal-orientated fixation.

the thing is, i see people getting into all kinds of knots and tangles, beating themselves up because of the way jiriki is approached. someone who wants to add recitation of the Heart Sutra to their daily otsutome shouldn't feel that it doing so they're somehow a failing nembutsu-sha. personally, at the beginning of my path i had a close affiliation to and affection for Arya Tara and i still enjoy reciting the 21 Praises now and then. the temple i attend offers meditation classes. are we somehow failing because we're doing something other than chanting the nembutsu and reciting the traditional liturgy? of course not!

i'm wary of saying that all the various traditions are essentially the same as Jodo Shinshu, certainly there are valid differences to be acknowledged and appreciated but here's the thing, i'll say it quietly - actually, i don't think there is such a thing as jiriki as far as genuine Dharma practice goes. because the act we all do, each and every school, going for refuge - isn't that the ultimate abandonment of reliance on our own efforts, a renunciation of ours and the worlds petty hang-ups, desires and attachments and instead an entrusting to something greater?

focussing on practice to encapsulate the teaching of tariki over jiriki just doesn't make sense to me. for sure, ego is a tricky thing and will arise time and time again even as we tell ourselves we are resting in the midst of effortless action. but regardless of whether we have anything concrete we can label as practice or not, the calculating mind will not let up. and looking back to the quote we came in on, doesn't it appear that intention rather than practice in itself is what's emphasised (effort to attain birth)?



initially i thought this feeling contrary to orthodox opinion, but in searching for references to clarify the 'orthodox' now i'm not so sure...perhaps a further clarification addressing the matter directly can be taken from the seven forms of deep entrusting provided in fascicle two of Gotuku's Notes, Shinran clarifies the fifth - To entrust oneself to the Buddha's words alone and rely decidedly on the practice [of the nembutsu] - with three kinds of guidance -

 Practicers "abandon what the Buddha brings them to abandon."
Practicers "practice what the Buddha brings them to practice."
Practicers "leave what the Buddha brings them to leave.

rather than worry about whether practice somehow disqualifies us from the Pure Land, wouldn't it make more sense to reflect deeply on this?

namu amida butsu

it is Dharma / it is non-Dharma

idly leafing through The Taoist Experience, Livia Kohn's comprehensive compedium of Taoist texts, i was struck by a verse from the Qinjing jing (Scripture of Purity and Tranquility) -

Use emptiness to observe emptiness,
And see there is no emptiness.
When even emptiness is no more,
There is no more non-being either.

what caught my attention was the similarity with Nagarjuna's comments on 'the emptiness of emptiness' in Chapter XXIV of the Mulamadhyamakakarika (Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way), primarily to combat the adoption of sunyata as view (the whole purport of Nagarjuna's opus is diametrically opposed to such, being as it is concerned with the extinguishing of views), and thus somehow inherent essence of phenomena.

i'm certainly not brave or clever enough to launch into a discussion on either text, instead what interested me was the idea of exchange and cross-pollination between various spiritual traditions and Buddhism that this similarity presents.

in the history of most monotheistic religions "might is right" always seems to have paved the way for their development outside their country of origin. indeed, early histories can often be read as blood-bespattered accounts of the usurping of old and heathen, idolotrous ways. Buddhism on the other hand, seems to have displayed the curious tendency to absorb the existent beliefs and customs of other traditions into its own lore and canon wherever it has taken root.
some Buddhists argue that this process is a bad thing, that it muddies and distorts the true intention of the Buddha's teaching and introduces concepts which are often flat out contradictory and incompatible with the doctrines of anatman, co-dependent arising etc. i think there may well be in some cases some truth in this pov (eg. ancestor worship as syncretic practice in early Chinese Buddhism's history and still prevelent to some extent today) but by and large such an attitude has us chasing after a false chimera of 'Pure Buddhism' which taken to the worst conclusion can erupt in sectarian dispute.

ultimately such blending and adaptability, be it the absorption of the Shinto kami into the Bodhisattva canon, the adoption of Bon Gods and Demons as Vajra Dharma Protectors or the transformation prevelent in Goddess Tara's course from the Hindu to the Buddhist tradition are all things to be admired and appreciated.  it certainly beats the hell out of running after their worshippers weilding a flaming sword, yelling "repent or be damned!" and i like to take it as as upaya, a skillfull means less obnoxious than heavy-fisted evangelising and more welcoming than raving threats of hellfire.

while the above examples i give are concerned only with pantheon i guess the more difficult issue is the one of adopting/adapting and exchanging practice (we've been here before). for example whilst the Qinjing jing quote may well appear to fit neatly alongside Nagarjuna's expounding of 'the emptiness of emptiness', and i'm presuming the word was adopted by the Taoists from the Buddhist tradition, i can't say i know there's no varience in meaning of the terminology between the two (i might be able to return to that matter with more confidence at a later date, then again i might not). and if a varience does indeed exist then wouldn't it by rights effect the very value and purport of a given practice once uprooted and transplanted?

i guess in terms of the Dharma, for each step we put forward we should pause to remind ourselves of the following -

If it counteracts negative emotions it is Dharma. If it doesn't, it is non-Dharma.
If it doesn't fit with wordly ways it is Dharma. If it does, it is non-Dharma.
If it fits with the scriptures and your instructions it is Dharma. If it doesn't
fit, it is non-Dharma.
If it leaves a positive imprint it is Dharma. If it leaves a negative imprint it
is non-Dharma

- Patrul Rinpoche, Words of My Perfect Teacher

- perhaps then we can proceed with some level of confidence.

namu amida butsu

But, what can you do about your suffering?

‎"The more we allow ourselves to be the servants of having, the more we shall let ourselves fall prey to the gnawing anxiety which having involves"

- Gabriel Marcel

every once in a while the feeling that i've gorged myself at the great dining table of materialism until my sides are fit to burst overtakes the desire and craving which, until this point, has driven me forward. i will stand in that modern cathedral - the retail outlet, money in my pocket, craving still present...and yet, i literally can not be bothered. a mixture of apathy and nausea to the whole process kicks in and i walk out, pockets empty, having failed my capitalist masters.
the real sickness though isn't the nausea i feel at those times towards the process. it's that i can actually afford to be stood in that store in the first place, and reach a stage where ultimately my apathy stems from over-consumption. the fact of it is that i simply don't know and never have known what it truly is to need something, to live hand-to-mouth worrying about how you're going to make it through the next day or even next hour.

we can dress it up as a modern problem by referring to it exclusively as consumerism and mention that society is precisely geared towards this mode of work,consumption, death, ad infinatum. certainly it's a valid point and one i could blather on about quite happily for hours (to no real avail, point or purpose other than liking the sound of my own voice) but of course we know the problem lies deeper than just product consumption. i think ultimately we're all just so busy running around looking to fill the empty gap in our lives - be it through products, drugs, sex, whatever - that we never pause and take stock to realise the ephemeral and fleeting nature of it all. we grasp and it's gone and we carry on blindly.

i think Marcel's quote nails it succinctly on the head - there's a gnawing anxiety, not only in the delusion that we don't have enough or that what we do have we must protect and defend (and herein lies the distinct disadvantage of private property - Proudhon knew all too well "property is theft"), but crucially in the deep down knowledge we like to mask and shout over that none of it actually ever succeeds in filling that gap.

if we're asking how to break free of such a servitude though, i think further comments from Kiyozawa hold sway paticularly for the nembutsu-sha -

"Demand not. Seek not. What discontentment can you possibly have? If you are discontent, isn't that a sign of distrust? Hasn't Heaven endowed you with all you need? Even if you feel that endowment falls short of your needs, can you find contentment in anything other than what Heaven has decreed? If you suffer from feelings of discontentment, you must further cultivate yourself  so that you may learn to be content with the Mandate of Heaven. It is base to demand from others. It is servile to seek in others. That is to despise the endowment of Heaven. Certainly, the Mandate of Heaven is unaffected by your ingratitude. But, what can you do about your suffering?"

- this opens up a whole other dimension because i believe Kiyozawa isn't just referring here to the material but also to the spiritual. it's not only in our wordly life that desire and attachment dominate as habitual tendencies, but are also carried over into our spiritual life (although i acknowledge the dichotomy between the two is an ill-founded one). attainments, progression, favour with the teacher, praise...all of these blind us to what Dharma can and does give us freely, beyond such petty chasings after. but that perhaps, is another topic for another post.

namu amida butsu

‎

the futility of jiriki

two weeks ago my Grandmother died and last thursday i found myself standing over her coffin with my mother, in the viewing room of the funeral parlour, hours before her funeral. i'd seen her a month prior to this, as she lay in a hospital bed, scared and confused, the life slowly draining away from her, quite visible to see by the change in her physical appearance.
in the last ten years or so of her life she had shown all the natural signs of old age - chiefly through her physical frailty and incapacity, yet she'd always displayed a sense of strong will and independence. seeing her vulnerability then, came as a shock. i guess my main feeling at that point was one of complete and utter helplessness, of which we'll come to in a minute.
stood over her corpse, i found myself questioning the value in dressing her up like that - a little make-up, a favourite turqoise dress, it somehow felt dishonest. however, i think it may have been some comfort to my mother, who more than any of us felt the pain of seeing her physical deteriation.

sat through the funeral i felt perhaps as if i could grieve for the first time. nonetheless, it set off all kinds of questions inside me, mainly concerning this issue of helplessness, some of which i'll try now to lay out...

i think these questions were amplified during the ceremony by a sense of disparity felt between my own religious tradition and that of my mothers' and sisters'. although the words spoken by the priest were very moving and resonated to an extent despite this disparity, i found myself with a nagging sense of what was left unsaid rather than what wasn't. my Grandmother wasn't particularly religious and therefore there's no need to state where she's headed for according to most Christian thought. similarly, where she might be headed according to Buddhist thought is no less comforting, the only difference (one of temporality), providing scant comfort.
and this is what causes the biggest feeling of helplessness inside me. for a long time now i've come to question not so much the efficiency of petitionary prayer (although that as well) but it's value and purport. the desire to petition a Buddha or God for my Grandmother's salvation or favourable rebirth - is it really a desire to find comfort through asserting some kind of imagined control over the situation for myself? If a Buddha is infinite in wisdom and compassion and i lack even small compassion and wisdom, then what makes me think i have a right to suggest to them a course of action to take? the very thought of such an act makes me uncomfortable as it feels like an actively willed denial of the way things are and will be.

none the less, i did find myself wanting to do precisely this petitioning after seeing her in hospital. and i still haven't and i don't think i will. all i can do is continue to thank her for giving me this last teaching on impermanence and the futility of jiriki, and say the nembutsu in gratitude for Amida's practice which ensures that one day we will meet again in the Pure Land.

namu amida butsu