Do Buddhists proselytize?

In one of his writings, the Dalai Lama suggests everyone should pursue the religion of their homeland to find happiness and fulfillment, and hope to be reincarnated a Buddhist in the next life. How do other Buddhists of the Soto Zen tradition address disagreement with other faiths, religions and practices? Are we to be conspicuous with our philosophy or is it something that is kept personal and private? This question is not with regard to approval or acceptance by society or others, but more a curiosity regarding Buddhist proselytizing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr.Lou

In one of his writings, the Dalai Lama suggests everyone should pursue the religion of their homeland to find happiness and fulfillment, and hope to be reincarnated a Buddhist in the next life. How do other Buddhists of the Soto Zen tradition address disagreement with other faiths, religions and practices? Are we to be conspicuous with our philosophy or is it something that is kept personal and private? This question is not with regard to approval or acceptance by society or others, but more a curiosity regarding Buddhist proselytizing.

---

Hi Lou,

Of course, these things vary from group to group, but I usually say something like this about our Sangha ...

Many roads up the mountain-non-mountain, many beliefs and religions suited to different people. May each find their own road. We do not argue or disagree with people of other religions and philosophical systems (even with people of other flavors of Buddhisms ... such as the Dalai Lama!) ... even as we may disagree. Agreeing to disagree.

Zen Practice can even be harmoniously united with other beliefs and aspects of life ... Christianity, Judaism, Atheism, Agnosticism, about anything at all-ism ... just like it lets us be liberal or conservative, male or female, single or married, tall or short, no matter ... if handled with a Wise mind (perhaps the only beliefs it does not fit with would be something like Nazism or any other violent, angry belief system).

I have sometimes expressed opinions that have brought some angry reactions by certain other Buddhists (well, as "angry" as Buddhists get anyway!). I believe that, through the centuries, there has been much "hocus pocus", superstition and exaggeration often tangled up with this wondrous Path. However, I ALWAYS say too that one man's "silly story and abracadabra" is another person's "Sacred Story and Holy Mantra" ... and many good paths up the non-mountain-mountain ... may each find her own (and avoid the ones which lead off the cliff!) :shock:

Quote:

---

It may be shocking for a Buddhist priest to say so, as shocking as hearing a Catholic priest say he "doesn't believe in Jesus". But it's true nonetheless. I am a Buddhist priest who thinks "Buddha" is largely bunk and baloney.

At least, I think there's a lot of "bull" to how Buddha is typically portrayed. I think many of the utterly fantastic Mahayana Sutra stories of Buddhas are ridiculous ... hyper-exaggerated ... just unbelievable! (meaning that they cannot be literally believed any more than children's fairy tales). The imagery is incredibly beautiful ... but the tale just incredible nonsense, purely the product of human imagination. I think the image of a "Perfect Buddha" ... either in this world or some Buddha Land ... as a flawless being beyond all human weakness, conflict and ignorance ... is a fable, a religious myth. I think most of the old miracle filled stories are well meaning fictions, sometimes holy lies, and the golden statues and paintings of Buddhas are but depictions of exaggerated dreams.

---

(though don't miss the "on the other hand" conclusion of the essay ... people sometimes miss that part ... ) ...

Quote:

---

I know Buddha for a fact! ...

Buddha is Real

---

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3673

I am working on a book on such theme now.

Anyway, I don't believe in proselytizing Buddhism either, or even Soto Zen Buddhism or our little Sangha. I do believe in making the Teachings known, and our resources known, to anyone with whom it may resonate ... letting them know it is here and that they may want to give it a try. However, we do not chase people in ... and we do not chase after people if they go.

That is my personal view.

Gassho, Jundo

Thank you Jundo for those clarifying words and I appreciate the link to the previous thread as well. As I pursue my studies of Buddhism, I find a lot of my Christian tendencies tend to rise up as frameworks to my understanding of religion. The "Great Commision" is something that I came to believe but never fully embodied because of my own doubts. However, as I grow in my studies of this tradition I more redilly seem to embody that natural eagerness to run out and share what I've learned so others can be happy like me. In many ways, I feel like a character in the allegory of the cave that learns they were just shadows. After reading your reply, I am reminded of Brad Warner's statement that "nothing is sacred" and therefore our philosophy is not "the good news" needing to be eagerly shared but instead it is...actually I have no idea what it is, yet.

Being new to Buddhism and Treeleaf, I apologize if my questions are too rudimentary or previously covered. I do try to review the existing forums for answers first, but I did not happen upon the one you referenced above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr.Lou

Being new to Buddhism and Treeleaf, I apologize if my questions are too rudimentary or previously covered.

---

Hey Lou,

Not at all. As a matter of fact, when people ask basic questions ... like how to sit, what is this or that ... it is a chance to offer a refresher to everyone on the "basics".

Always keep Beginner's Mind.

Gassho, J

Although it's probably possible to proselytize some versions of Buddhism, I don't see how you would proselytize Zen. There is no damnation (except ignorance) and no salvation (except understanding - sometimes slowly dawning, often coming-and-going). It offers no permanent rest that you do not initiate yourself.

I do sometimes argue with people of other faiths, but mostly just because it's interesting to talk to someone else who cares about these things.

Chet

Whenever someone proselytizes to me, I don't really know how to respond to it well. I have trouble describing my practice to anyone asking about it from a biased perspective. To me, practice is something learned inside without words, though we use words to point to it. When I hear myself trying to describe my practice out loud, it doesn't sound right, and I don't want to lead anyone astray or appear to be biased myself.

mr.Lou, when you ask how one should respond to such a situation, or if a Buddhist of our path should try and proselytize, I would say just go with your gut in the moment. That's all I can do.

When I made this post, I did purposely use the word "proselytize" because I think it is a word unfairly viewed with a negative connotation. To me, it simply refers to the sharing of ideas. No one is born knowing Buddhism or anything really. Proselytizing is really just about sharing, and I don't necessarily see that it should be avoided. I can see that Buddhists may not necessarily go on missions with the exclusive aim at converting others to Buddhism, but I disagree with Chet's statement that Zen cannot be proselytized.

Zen promises as much "salvation" as any other religion. All religions, including Zen, offer their form of Truth. It is what "saves" any religion's followers from "destruction." What details one associates with those terms is what sets each religion apart. I think we have to be cautious when separating Zen from other religions, because I see at the base level Zen is providing for humans' internal needs just as other religions are. It is still a ritualized practice that requires adherence to a structure.

By the way, when Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door, I simply tell them that I am a Buddhist. They ask which tradition, but the conversation then proceeds to pleasantries and that is pretty much it. It does not have to be a negative incident to interact with those of other philosophies, and I do not think it should ever be avoided or feared.

I also do not think it should be avoided or feared... but I avoid and fear it. :oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amelia

I also do not think it should be avoided or feared... but I avoid and fear it. :oops:

---

Don't we all? :)

Doesn't Buddhism and zen specifically proselytize itself in a way, though often poorly? How many people know what they know about zen through D.T. Suzuki or Eugen Herrigel, from movies and television, or from the martial arts? How many were drawn in by promises of enlightenment, mystical powers of the mind, the end of illusion, or the cessation of suffering?

I had a long journey through many different faiths, and when I identified as any of them, my take was I'll go my way and you go yours, I don't know if Buddhists proselytize or not, but I know that I don't, as a Christian the great commission bothered me because I understood that other peoples paths are there own and no matter how hard I beat people over the head with the bible, it would never change their mind, only they could change their minds. That's just like, my opinion though man :D

Gassho,

Jeff

I don’t. Think buddhism has saved me. There is a lot about life I don't like. But whether I like it or not I continue to practice. Is that religion, I think not. But thinking doesn't. Really matter when the rubber hits the road.

I don't really understand the concept of "saving." What does it mean? I understand it from the Christian point of view. It has a very concrete meaning. Unambiguous, and perhaps its too big a task to ask anyone to say something unambiguous about zen, but when "I vow to save all sentient beings," there is no one in need of saving, and no need to save them, so what gives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doogie

... but when "I vow to save all sentient beings," there is no one in need of saving, and no need to save them, so what gives?

---

There are no sentient belngs in need of saving ... yet sentient beings are in need of saving, and it is the task of Bodhisattvas like us to save them! (Zen is not seeing things as an "either A or B" proposition ... and so often in a Buddha's Eye, A is precisely B!). Sentient Beings are suffering, precisely because sentient beings things there is a self in need. At the Heart of saving sentient beings is teaching them that "there are no sentient belngs in need of saving", the Wisdom of this Beautiful Path. No self, and so no suffering! :shock:

But the saving does not end there ...

At the same time, folks need saving in other ways ... food, shelter, companionship, a shoulder to lean on too. There may be "no sentient belngs in need of saving", but some folks are hungry and lonely tonight.

"Saving" is a very loaded word for some because of "Judeo-Christian baggage" that they carry around with them (and should put down ... cause often it is baggage of their own packing!) ... so one can substitute a word such as "help, aid, rescue" or the like if one wishes. It is our Bodhisattva Vow then to "Aid All Sentient Beings!" through both material goods like food and medicine, a friendly ear and helping hand ... and by making these Teachings available.

However, as I said ... we do not force anyone to listen, even as we "put them out there" and make these Teachings and Practices available. It is a Buddhist view that folks will hear when they are ready, not a moment before ... either in this lifetime or some other. So, we make the Teachings available and accessible ... but we do not hound anyone to buy into them.

I usually suggest to our Sangha members that they do not try to persuade anyone of the "Rightness of Zen Buddhism" or the like. On the other hand, if someone asks ... just speak about what this Way is in one's own life, and answer their questions as best one can. Do not force or lure anyone to a Zen sitting ... but, on the other hand, bring them if they express an interest.

Also, do not try to convince friends or relatives about Buddhist Practice. Instead, I suggest you just be with them as a good, caring, gentle friend or relative ... son or daughter, parent ... and they will get the point. In fact, if they see a change in you from before ... if they see that you have, in fact, become a more caring, gentle, whole, content person than who they knew before ...

... they will get the message more than anything that can be said in words.

Gassho, J

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jundo

I do believe in making the Teachings known, and our resources known, to anyone with whom it may resonate ... letting them know it is here and that they may want to give it a try. However, we do not chase people in ... and we do not chase after people if they go.

That is my personal view.

Gassho, Jundo

---

I thought this was so well put. I'm like mrlou and with a Christian background find that the more I learn, the more I have this feeling of spreading the 'good word' if you will. I find some conflict sometimes that as time goes on I feel more compassionate and thus feel more of a need to act and pass on help to those who are suffering. But as you say, 'with whom it may resonate'. Key words there as you don't want to be the crazy lady at the grocery store who keeps talking about the Buddha and such.
Well, I'm not so sure I want to be that crazy lady, just yet. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jundo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doogie

... but when "I vow to save all sentient beings," there is no one in need of saving, and no need to save them, so what gives?

---

There are no sentient belngs in need of saving ... yet sentient beings are in need of saving, and it is the task of Bodhisattvas like us to save them! (Zen is not seeing things as an "either A or B" proposition ... and so often in a Buddha's Eye, A is precisely B!). Sentient Beings are suffering, precisely because sentient beings things there is a self in need. At the Heart of saving sentient beings is teaching them that "there are no sentient belngs in need of saving", the Wisdom of this Beautiful Path. No self, and so no suffering! :shock:

But the saving does not end there ...

At the same time, folks need saving in other ways ... food, shelter, companionship, a shoulder to lean on too. There may be "no sentient belngs in need of saving", but some folks are hungry and lonely tonight.

"Saving" is a very loaded word for some because of "Judeo-Christian baggage" that they carry around with them (and should put down ... cause often it is baggage of their own packing!) ... so one can substitute a word such as "help, aid, rescue" or the like if one wishes. It is our Bodhisattva Vow then to "Aid All Sentient Beings!" through both material goods like food and medicine, a friendly ear and helping hand ... and by making these Teachings available.

...

Also, do not try to convince friends or relatives about Buddhist Practice. Instead, I suggest you just be with them as a good, caring, gentle friend or relative ... son or daughter, parent ... and they will get the point. In fact, if they see a change in you from before ... if they see that you have, in fact, become a more caring, gentle, whole, content person than who they knew before ...

... they will get the message more than anything that can be said in words.

Gassho, J

---

Thanks, Jundo. I still struggle with the word "save" (all that Christian stuff from my youth); this clarifies the matter.

_/_

Wow... I so love the conversations I read here, and learn so much from them

Deep respect to all,

Lisa

Thank you, Jundo. I understand what you mean. And yes, "save" is a loaded word. It comes with a lot of baggage, and not just because of the Christian connotation. It doesn't feel like the right word to me (setting aside no right and no wrong). It feels like a word we're stuck with, doing the best we can with it. Like fishing with pliers. You can't save someone from hunger, or save them from drug addiction, or from themselves, from their clinging to a self, or from suffering. You can give them food, shelter, teachings, comfort, love, friendship, and support. But who has ever been saved, and what have they ever been saved from? Everyone dies, and no one escapes suffering (except through death.) it can be minimized, delayed, or even transformed into medicine, but not eradicated. And yes, I understand, we strive even though it's an impossible task. But strive to what? To save someone suggests the saver is in a less precarious or superior position. But isn't that an illusion'? No one's farther along the path, since the path doesn't lead anywhere, and no one but the dead is out of danger. No one knows any more than another because there is nothing to know, and anyone who thinks they do know something for sure is crazy. No, I'm not sure I can in good conscience vow to save all sentient beings, but I can vow to help all beings the best I can (at least until I can come up with a better word for it.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doogie

...But who has ever been saved, and what have they ever been saved from? Everyone dies, and no one escapes suffering (except through death.) it can be minimized, delayed, or even transformed into medicine, but not eradicated....

---

Oh, well, fortunately we don't believe in "death" either. Or "birth" for that matter. I mean, since there are no sentient beings, who exactly is there to be born and die?!

Is the river born or become dead as the ripples rise and fall on its surface? We may see the ripples come and go, but miss the river's flowing flowing flowing.

I mean, when you are asleep and have a dream at night ... where does the dream "go" when the alarm clock rings and you awaken? 8)

Gassho, J

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jundo

I mean, when you are asleep and have a dream at night ... where does the dream "go" when the alarm clock rings and you awaken? 8)

---

How do we know that the dream isn't reality and reality the dream?

(and yes, I ask in all seriousness, not as a study in duality)

Lisa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZenHarmony

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jundo

I mean, when you are asleep and have a dream at night ... where does the dream "go" when the alarm clock rings and you awaken? 8)

---

How do we know that the dream isn't reality and reality the dream?

(and yes, I ask in all seriousness, not as a study in duality)

Lisa

---

Hi Lisa,

I sometimes say that, for Dogen, the separate things, people and events of the world are so unreal when viewed as Emptiness, that they all come back the other way ... thus rebounding each as Real as Real can be, each a precious jewel in its own way. Master Dogen spoke of Muchu Setsumu, a 'dream within a dream' ... a dream so dreamy, but not merely just dreamy ... a dream of life, but our lives nonetheless and the place for living and awakening. All is a dream perhaps ... but just our very lives here and now, a dream that is just plain wonderfully dreamy (even when sometimes oh so scary)! A kind of fiction, but a story being written now ... largely by how we write it in our Wisdom or Greed, Anger and Ignorance. Dream On, Oh Dreamer!

It is a waking dream at night and in broad daylight, eyes closed or wide open.

Gassho, J

Quote:

---

How do we know that the dream isn't reality and reality the dream?

(and yes, I ask in all seriousness, not as a study in duality)

Lisa

---

For the Mahayana Buddhists of the Tibetan tradition- or as far as the Lama that I had the occasion to converse with at a monastery in the Himalayas -states this question was really the source of their entire study. For them, enlightenment is achieved when true acceptance of realizing that they, and all humanity,are all simply a dream and the product of the Dreamer, Brahman, is the key to freeing one's self from the curse of existence (samsara) as is taught by Guru Rinpoché. Milaripa, according to their tradition, is the only person to have ever achieved enlightenment in a single lifetime and was thus liberated from existence at the conclusion of his first incarnation. It is definitely a question that appears in many Buddhist traditions.

For me, such a question only inspires me to ponder: Aren't dreams and reality simply two sides of the same coin we call consciousness, and therefore ultimately the same thing under different names?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr.Lou

For me, such a question only inspires me to ponder: Aren't dreams and reality simply two sides of the same coin we call consciousness, and therefore ultimately the same thing under different names?

---

Hi Lou

I think in Buddhism it's not that we seek liberation from existence it's that we seek liberation from rebirth or rather liberation from dukkha.

I would say that dreams and reality are indeed the sides of one coin, however this coin can't be named. All the words and ideas revolve around "it" and try to describe that which can't be named. What do you call it when you're sitting deeply in zazen when there's nothing to name and nobody to name it? Reality or dream, both and neither?

The thing is everyone wants to find a way out of sickness, old age, and death and there is no way out - you have to do it. So its a slippery slope to tell someone to study Buddhism and meditate and everything will be just fine. If asked, Maybe you could say something like 'I practice zen meditation and it helps me understand myself and deal with life' or 'Studying Buddhism and practicing sitting meditation has helped me get thru some difficult times'
but if you don't walk the walk it won't matter what you say, even a child can see right thru you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr.Lou

This question is not with regard to approval or acceptance by society or others, but more a curiosity regarding Buddhist proselytizing.

---

I don't see a problem with wanting to share something precious like the Dharma. Though I wouldn't sell it door to door. :wink:

Honestly, until you become dissatisfied or unsuccessful to a certain degree with 'false' or 'impermanent' means of the attainment of happiness, or until you cannot repress the ego's horror at death, illness, and old age - Zen will have little appeal to you. I think you have to fall 'out of love' a little with pleasure and goal-striving. Otherwise Zen, even if explained passing adequate, will appear as strange.

Repeatedly people at work ask me what the purpose of meditation is. When I tell them, 'When meditating correctly, there is no purpose.' they give me a very odd look and ask why, then, I do it. I usually answer that it's the only time in life where there is absolutely no purpose. I then note that there are many positive effects of zazen, but those effects are not the purpose of zazen. Zazen is the purpose of zazen - it is a surrender of sorts - except that when done correctly, there is nothing to surrender and nothing to which to surrender.

How does one proselytize that to a consumerist population for whom the founding conceptions of spirituality lie in a 'heaven/damnation' Judeo-Christian viewpoint? It would be very difficult.

Chet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by disastermouse

Repeatedly people at work ask me what the purpose of meditation is. When I tell them, 'When meditating correctly, there is no purpose.' they give me a very odd look and ask why, then, I do it. I usually answer that it's the only time in life where there is absolutely no purpose. I then note that there are many positive effects of zazen, but those effects are not the purpose of zazen. Zazen is the purpose of zazen - it is a surrender of sorts - except that when done correctly, there is nothing to surrender and nothing to which to surrender.

How does one proselytize that to a consumerist population for whom the founding conceptions of spirituality lie in a 'heaven/damnation' Judeo-Christian viewpoint? It would be very difficult.

Chet

---

What is the difference that you see between answering the questions of your co-workers and proselytizing? Aren't both simply the sharing of your knowledge of your religious practice with others?

Reading the comments on talking to coworkers about Buddhism reminds me of something that happened to me at work a few years ago. A previous employee, who was a devout Christian, was having a conversation with another employee about Christianity and Buddhism. Well, we have an open workspace so we hear everyone. During this discussion, my Christian friend blurts out real loud, "I don't like Buddhists because the Bible says they are atheists!" :shock: I thought this was totally funny because he had no idea I was a Buddhist and we were already friends. Over time, he learned about my Buddhist path and lightened up his views. Otherwise how could we be friends if he clung to his perceptions that Buddhists are bad? :D

Gassho,
Ekai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr.Lou

What is the difference that you see between answering the questions of your co-workers and proselytizing? Aren't both simply the sharing of your knowledge of your religious practice with others?

---

The difference is that I can offer very little reason to become Buddhist to people who think there is something to achieve and someone to achieve it. Zen is inherently self-selective.

Chet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by disastermouse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr.Lou

What is the difference that you see between answering the questions of your co-workers and proselytizing? Aren't both simply the sharing of your knowledge of your religious practice with others?

---

The difference is that I can offer very little reason to become Buddhist to people who think there is something to achieve and someone to achieve it. Zen is inherently self-selective.

Chet

---

There is where I usually step in to remind folks that saying "there is nothing to achieve" does not mean "there is nothing to achieve."

Just because there is "not a thing about you in need of change, and anyway, no 'you' to change" does not mean that there are not many things about you you had best change.

"No purpose" is a very great purpose, and so we practice diligently.

Now, back to your discussion.

Gassho, J

Working for two Christian seminaries I get drawn into religious discussions and while I don't end up proselytizing Buddhism (Well there was the one time but it was asked to) I do end up proselytizing Shikantaza.

There are a lot of people here who "sit in meditation and wait for the lord to lead them" and they all complain about the same stuff we do (mostly how do you shut your mind up).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jundo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by disastermouse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr.Lou

What is the difference that you see between answering the questions of your co-workers and proselytizing? Aren't both simply the sharing of your knowledge of your religious practice with others?

---

The difference is that I can offer very little reason to become Buddhist to people who think there is something to achieve and someone to achieve it. Zen is inherently self-selective.

Chet

---

There is where I usually step in to remind folks that saying "there is nothing to achieve" does not mean "there is nothing to achieve."

Just because there is "not a thing about you in need of change, and anyway, no 'you' to change" does not mean that there are not many things about you you had best change.

"No purpose" is a very great purpose, and so we practice diligently.

Now, back to your discussion.

Gassho, J

---

But it's the other part that is both harder to understand and rather difficult to 'sell'.

Chet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by disastermouse

Repeatedly people at work ask me what the purpose of meditation is. When I tell them, 'When meditating correctly, there is no purpose.' they give me a very odd look and ask why, then, I do it. I usually answer that it's the only time in life where there is absolutely no purpose. I then note that there are many positive effects of zazen, but those effects are not the purpose of zazen. Zazen is the purpose of zazen - it is a surrender of sorts - except that when done correctly, there is nothing to surrender and nothing to which to surrender.

---

This can't be the whole answer. Surely it's only part of the answer. Perhaps there is no purpose in zazen as zazen itself is purposeless or goalless, but we are human beings with drives and desires, and some purpose drives everyone to the cushion. Everyone. Maybe it's peace of mind, help dealing with tragedy (past, present, or future), stress reduction, to find something missing from our lives, or even to get closer to God, but something brings people to zen and drives them to sit.

Shikantaza, mindfulness meditation, and other forms, are often used as pills, prescriptions for certain 'ailments of the mind, body, and spirit', but really they're placebos. Empty. People take them for a purpose even though they have no purpose.

Dropping the self in mindfulness or in shikantaza for a few minutes each day can be therapeutic. It can make standing in the line at the DMV easier, or help one deal with obnoxious co-workers. I wonder, does it matter if someone sits for those purposes if those purposes make them sit (as long as they can drop those purposes once their ass hits the cushion)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by disastermouse

I can offer very little reason to become Buddhist to people who think there is something to achieve and someone to achieve it. Zen is inherently self-selective.

---

Yet there is also something to achieve and someone to achieve it. I don't think we should spend all our time sitting on only one side of the coin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by disastermouse

But it's the other part that is both harder to understand and rather difficult to 'sell'.

Chet

---

Actually, I think both ways are difficult to explain. And in fact, from what I understand of many of friends who are non-Buddhists, people kind of think Buddhism is just a set of beliefs one adopts. A kind of 'inner-peace-man' attitude one simply has. As if one suddenly says, "I'm a buddhist" and they're done. The "nothing to achieve thing," when people ask me, I don't even bring it up. It's so far beyond how some usually think about living. Also, I don't bring it up for this reason: while we understand (to some degree and, at least for me, poorly) that there is nothing to achieve, this is also hard work. And I don't mean that being a Buddhist or Zen Buddhist or whatever is unpleasant; to me, it's the most wonderful thing: I mean that it takes courage and effort even though these things eventually get dropped; it takes a serious (and foolish) person who really cares to look at oneself; it takes sitting every day, twice a day, even more; eating silently some days; fully listening to another with no thought of oneself; immersing oneself in what's happening; letting go. It's often easy for outsiders to look at this practice as some wishy washy hippy crap, which it just isn't: it takes dedication and serious love, and awareness, all the time, all the time, now, now, now. Everything is practice, everything is teaching; this is what is difficult for some people to understand, I think, because it simply means giving up a lot of b.s. (and I say that with plenty of b.s. to give up myself).

In any case, when people ask me, I tell them that this path takes hard work. I think it important to convey this. Then I say: but beautiful hard work, which, over time, becomes easeful work, then not-work, then just flowing (some days). The hard work is to get a glimpse of the flowing, I think; to learn to flow into it.

Gassho,
Alan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doogie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by disastermouse

Repeatedly people at work ask me what the purpose of meditation is. When I tell them, 'When meditating correctly, there is no purpose.' they give me a very odd look and ask why, then, I do it. I usually answer that it's the only time in life where there is absolutely no purpose. I then note that there are many positive effects of zazen, but those effects are not the purpose of zazen. Zazen is the purpose of zazen - it is a surrender of sorts - except that when done correctly, there is nothing to surrender and nothing to which to surrender.

---

This can't be the whole answer. Surely it's only part of the answer. Perhaps there is no purpose in zazen as zazen itself is purposeless or goalless, but we are human beings with drives and desires, and some purpose drives everyone to the cushion. Everyone. Maybe it's peace of mind, help dealing with tragedy (past, present, or future), stress reduction, to find something missing from our lives, or even to get closer to God, but something brings people to zen and drives them to sit.

Shikantaza, mindfulness meditation, and other forms, are often used as pills, prescriptions for certain 'ailments of the mind, body, and spirit', but really they're placebos. Empty. People take them for a purpose even though they have no purpose.

Dropping the self in mindfulness or in shikantaza for a few minutes each day can be therapeutic. It can make standing in the line at the DMV easier, or help one deal with obnoxious co-workers. I wonder, does it matter if someone sits for those purposes if those purposes make them sit (as long as they can drop those purposes once their ass hits the cushion)?

---

You sound like my coworkers. Why is it so difficult to believe? Comparing shikantaza to a placebo is precisely wrong, IMHO - as you do not do shikantaza for a particular purpose. In fact, that there is no reason is the reason.

Before I sit zazen, I have a goal - which is to sit on the cushion. Only that! I have no ideas of what should take place once I sit and place my hands in the mudra. Once I am sitting on the cushion, there is no goal. People love to argue with me about this, but then again - there are so many people I meet who seem disappointed with their practice - they feel as though they're missing something. I've heard this many times by many people.

If I'm wrong, I would rather be wrong and not disappointed with my practice than correct and striving for something for which you cannot strive.

And yet, still I do it, and sometimes it seems very difficult. It's very odd. Suzuki used to say it was the sort of effort that leaves no trace - an effortless effort or an effort that burns itself up. My main point is to stress that I don't sit zazen to clear my mind, or to de-stress, or to achieve health, or any of those things - although sitting zazen does often 'clear the mind', make me less stressful, and likely improves health.

Chet

It seems like there are two very different-but related- questions that are being conflated in this discussion:

- Why do we practice?

- What is the goal/purpose of zazen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by disastermouse

You sound like my coworkers. Why is it so difficult to believe? Comparing shikantaza to a placebo is precisely wrong, IMHO - as you do not do shikantaza for a particular purpose. In fact, that there is no reason is the reason.

---

And this sounds like dualistic thinking, IMHO. But setting that aside, no one has ever done anything for no reason. It's impossible. Our brains aren't wired that way. Even choosing to do something completely by random must have some complicated reasoning and motivation behind it, even though that reasoning and those motivations might be subconscious.

Just as there is no such thing as a selfless act--one always derives something from every act of kindness (even if one suffers in the act), there is no such thing as an unmotivated action. There must, by the fact that we're human beings and not androids be some desire behind our practices (at least there must've been something in the beginning).

(I suppose it could be argued that sitting shikantaza is the one selfless act as one is dropping self in the (non)act, but that's a rather complex metaphysical debate beyond my cognitive abilities.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaishin

It seems like there are two very different-but related- questions that are being conflated in this discussion:

- Why do we practice?

- What is the goal/purpose of zazen?

---

I think so. It seems to me, and I may be wrong, but even though one sits with no goal (that is, one drops all goals, desires, and seeking--even the seeker--on the cushion,) that doesn't mean one doesn't have goals or desires. We can't polish a tile into a mirror, but that doesn't mean don't stop trying to polish the tile into a mirror, even though the tile is already a perfect mirror. Did I get that right? Hmm, too much thinking for one day. Going to walk the dog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaishin

It seems like there are two very different-but related- questions that are being conflated in this discussion:

- Why do we practice?

- What is the goal/purpose of zazen?

---

Zazen is practice. Why do we zazen? What is the goal/purpose of practice?

I don't think these questions are being conflated; they're both just being answered as best we can. I think you've just asked them and separated them clearly for us, so thanks. We're all trying to describe (or some of us are) how we talk about this stuff to other people. And those two questions come up. Why do you do this? And what is the point of it? Some are answering one, some are answering the other, some aren't answering, some are explaining what the questions are. If you separated these two questions for a non-buddhist and said, the answer to the first is "I practice to be a better person" (or something), and the answer to the second is "No goal," then the person you were trying to explain this to would probably go: "uh, what? You just said there was a goal. To be better."

Anyway, those questions aren't two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan.r

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaishin

It seems like there are two very different-but related- questions that are being conflated in this discussion:

- Why do we practice?

- What is the goal/purpose of zazen?

---

Zazen is practice. Why do we zazen? What is the goal/purpose of practice?

I don't think these questions are being conflated; they're both just being answered as best we can. I think you've just asked them and separated them clearly for us, so thanks. We're all trying to describe (or some of us are) how we talk about this stuff to other people. And those two questions come up. Why do you do this? And what is the point of it? Some are answering one, some are answering the other, some aren't answering, some are explaining what the questions are. If you separated these two questions for a non-buddhist and said, the answer to the first is "I practice to be a better person" (or something), and the answer to the second is "No goal," then the person you were trying to explain this to would probably go: "uh, what? You just said there was a goal. To be better."

Anyway, those questions aren't two.

---

Excellent summary has been penned by Alan, Doogie and Kaishin in these above posts, and it definitely clarifies what my original question was. Thank you for taking the time to do so.

As a new comer to the Soto Zen tradition, I believe I still have a bit of a unique perspective because much of it still seems very foreign to me. I get excited about new discoveries and I want to share them with people I know by talking about it, but then I realize that I cannot clearly explain it and so then I withdraw from the conversation. I think this happens a lot and it contributes to the overall mystique of Zen.

However, that mystique also, IMHO, does a disservice to the practitioners of this tradition. When you ask a "zealot" what they believe they can very succinctly explain it to you. Agree or disagree, you have no problem understanding exactly who they are, what they believe and where they stand. When you ask a person of casual surface religious affiliation, they tend to give a party-line definition with all kinds of caveats. Through my experience, what the world seems to recognize most about Zen is the Koans and the ascetic practices of some traditions. I understand that most of us here do not feel the need to run out and convert everyone we meet to Buddhism, but I worry that by not being more prolific and ready with explanations for those not of the Soto tradition that we inadvertently weaken our religion and its propensity to continue in its credible form.

Since we do not claim to have some sort of divinity supporting the continued existence of our religion, then doesn't it default to us to be good stewards of the tradition as well as good practitioners?

My take on it is this: how badly does a person want to find out about Buddhism? You know how I became a Buddhist in the Philippines, a country where approximately 90% of the population are Christian, a smaller percentage are Muslim, and an even smaller percentage (I think) are Buddhists, pagans, agnostics and atheists combined? Through the Internet. Nobody proselytized Buddhism to me - I went out looking for it. Dissatisfied with my Catholic upbringing, I looked into other traditions. Nobody came to me and proselytized Wicca, Taoism, Zen, etc. - I went out of my way to look into them. My point is I was a seeker. And seekers do not wait for other people to proselytize to them about their religion - they go out and seek. And the reason they do this - well, maybe I should say the reason I did it was dissatisfaction. For me, if a person is satisfied with whatever religion he has - truly satisfied - then great. More power to him. If that person is not, then he will go out of his way and look around. Based on my own experience, that's the person who will be really open to learning about Buddhism.

This has influenced my attitude on proselytizing: if people want to learn, they will come and they will find us. Maybe they will not find Treeleaf. Maybe they will find some other sangha. Maybe it won't even be a Soto sangha. Maybe it will be Rinzai, maybe it will not even be Zen. Maybe it will be Pureland or Soka Gakkai or whatever. I don't care. I'm not worried about the tradition being weakened. The knowledge is out there and it is available to anyone who really wants to learn. Heck, that this sangha is existing is enough assurance for me that the tradition isn't weakening. If they come here, they are welcome. If somebody asks me about Zen, about Buddhism, I'll answer as best as I can. Meanwhile, I practice. That's about all the proselytizing I do.

Thanks pinoy. Very clear and agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pinoybuddhist

For me, if a person is satisfied with whatever religion he has - truly satisfied - then great. More power to him. If that person is not, then he will go out of his way and look around. Based on my own experience, that's the person who will be really open to learning about Buddhism.

---

Looking back on what I've just posted, this struck me just now as very much rigid, either-or thinking. :oops: But the thing is, I don't see the value of sharing beyond a certain point. As I have said, the teachings are out there for anyone with a computer and Internet connection to access. So if somebody asks me about Zen and Buddhism, I'll answer and if he wants to know more, I'll direct that person to the Internet. Probably to Treeleaf if he's really interested. I can also invite that person to sit with me. If he's really interested and we both can find the time. That is the "certain point" beyond which I do not go. Going beyond that feels like I'm selling Zen.

I think that maybe, as Westerners, we may be too attached to the law of the excluded middle. Logic concludes that something either is or is not but cannot be both.

(This thinking is influenced by recent reading.)

But does reality (as lived, not as expressed) truly exist in this way?

A skilled zen teacher, upon seeing a student striving for that which can't be attained could emphasize the goalless-ness of Zen. The same teacher may see a student who is too complacent, who is missing something, and emphasize the effort side of the practice. Neither need be wrong, although BOTH could.

IMHO

Chet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pinoybuddhist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pinoybuddhist

For me, if a person is satisfied with whatever religion he has - truly satisfied - then great. More power to him. If that person is not, then he will go out of his way and look around. Based on my own experience, that's the person who will be really open to learning about Buddhism.

---

Looking back on what I've just posted, this struck me just now as very much rigid, either-or thinking. :oops: But the thing is, I don't see the value of sharing beyond a certain point. As I have said, the teachings are out there for anyone with a computer and Internet connection to access. So if somebody asks me about Zen and Buddhism, I'll answer and if he wants to know more, I'll direct that person to the Internet. Probably to Treeleaf if he's really interested. I can also invite that person to sit with me. If he's really interested and we both can find the time. That is the "certain point" beyond which I do not go. Going beyond that feels like I'm selling Zen.

---

It is interesting how this reflects a paradox inherent in much of what I have seen of Zen.

In one breath to say that I have compassion for all beings and then to follow it with but I am only willing to share to a certain point seems to be contradictory. What is compassion if it is not the willingness to share everything with everyone.

The internet is convoluted and contrasting. Answers conflict in wildly rampant ways throughout the entire web and even within individual websites. Telling someone that if they want to know more then they should go to the web is like saying if you're hungry just go to the ocean. Sure, the answers are there just as the ocean holds food, but if you do not already possess the knowledge to understand and discern what you find then the search will be lost.

Zen, in many ways, already has a reputation for being unapproachable and intimidating. Then to couple that with the lack of a willingness to be encouraging to the curious and it begins to make Zen Buddhists look selfish as the product of their own contrived elitism. And ultimately, isn't elitism the reason so many quickly dismiss the doctrines of Christians and Muslims; because they have followers that are stoic, elitist and unwilling to show compassion toward those that do not share their beliefs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr.Lou

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pinoybuddhist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pinoybuddhist

For me, if a person is satisfied with whatever religion he has - truly satisfied - then great. More power to him. If that person is not, then he will go out of his way and look around. Based on my own experience, that's the person who will be really open to learning about Buddhism.

---

Looking back on what I've just posted, this struck me just now as very much rigid, either-or thinking. :oops: But the thing is, I don't see the value of sharing beyond a certain point. As I have said, the teachings are out there for anyone with a computer and Internet connection to access. So if somebody asks me about Zen and Buddhism, I'll answer and if he wants to know more, I'll direct that person to the Internet. Probably to Treeleaf if he's really interested. I can also invite that person to sit with me. If he's really interested and we both can find the time. That is the "certain point" beyond which I do not go. Going beyond that feels like I'm selling Zen.

---

It is interesting how this reflects a paradox inherent in much of what I have seen of Zen.

In one breath to say that I have compassion for all beings and then to follow it with but I am only willing to share to a certain point seems to be contradictory. What is compassion if it is not the willingness to share everything with everyone. ?

---

There are multiple points upon which we should expand regarding Zen and why its practitioners may be reluctant to over-share. I don't think it's a matter of miserliness or a lack of concern about countless beings. Haven't we all been in a position where someone has 'over-shared' their opinion - especially their religious views - to the point of making us very, very uncomfortable and possibly even less likely to consider those opinions?

Let me advance a typical example of how a conversation between myself and a typical western, un-initiated peer frequently goes (as I am very forthcoming about being Buddhist - most everyone at work knows I'm a Buddhist).

(IP = Interested Party. M = Me)

(IP): "So, you're Buddhist? So Buddha is your God?"
(M): "No. Personally, I don't believe in God. Zen Buddhism itself, especially as practiced in the West, is generally unconcerned by questions of God's existence."
(IP): "So then how do you think all of this was created?"
(M): "I have no idea."
(IP): "Doesn't that bother you?"
(M): "Not as much as I once thought it would."
(IP): "So then what does a Buddhist believe?
(M): "Hmm..where to start? I would say that Buddhism the way that I practice it is less about beliefs than it is about putting down beliefs, at least temporarily. However, there are the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path (I then expound the Truths and as much of the 8FP as I can remember.)
(IP): "Do you pray?"
(M): "I sit zazen. It's meditation."
(IP): "So you try to clear your mind?"
(M): "No, not really. Trying to clear your mind will either cause your mind to go running around like crazy trying to clear itself or at best will only result in an exercise of concentration. It's looser than that....but not as loose as daydreaming. I sit with everything as it is and when I notice myself getting hooked into a line of thought or planning, I simply let go and find myself right where I am. This actually happens a lot. It's more about noticing it without getting upset by it. It's just what's happening."
(IP): "But you get better at it, right?"
(M): "You can't really think of it as trying to get 'better' - the mind is very good at finding very compelling reasons for you to not be with things as they are. Many times, you are both right where you are and also there is a thought conversation going on but it doesn't dominate the space of your mind."
(IP): "I don't understand that at all."
(M): "I barely understand it myself and I feel like I'm not doing a very good job of explaining it."
(IP): "If you don't get peace of mind or salvation from it, why do you do it?"
(M): "Because it's the only thing that makes sense."
(IP): "You're a very strange person."
(M): "I know."


The above conversation is both about as honest and skillful as I can be (fully admitting that I may very well misunderstand our practice and therefore do not explain it well), but it doesn't really make Buddhism seem appealing until you get to the point where 'It's the only thing that makes sense' - not to your logical 'a is not b' mind, but to your whole being as a person. No one can get you there, and honestly, once you do get there, you're well and truly fucked as far as anything else goes.

IMHO.

Chet

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to accept this whole "no purpose" thing. I've spent some time in the past couple of months reading suttas from the Pali canon. It's clear that the Buddha was, according to one metaphor, a "doctor" offering a "cure" for suffering. I think everyone here came to Zen (or whichever form to Buddhism they first discovered) because they understood the first noble truth, the one about suffering (or dukkha). So saying there's no purpose seems a bit disingenuous.

As one goes on, one can say that sitting has no purpose, but deep down I think we all know that is not really true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kirkmc

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to accept this whole "no purpose" thing. I've spent some time in the past couple of months reading suttas from the Pali canon. It's clear that the Buddha was, according to one metaphor, a "doctor" offering a "cure" for suffering. I think everyone here came to Zen (or whichever form to Buddhism they first discovered) because they understood the first noble truth, the one about suffering (or dukkha). So saying there's no purpose seems a bit disingenuous.

As one goes on, one can say that sitting has no purpose, but deep down I think we all know that is not really true.

---

I disagree, but I'll bite.

What are the purposes of sitting?

Chet

Um, it's the first step toward the elimination of suffering?

See the four noble truths, and the noble eightfold path. (Admittedly not the centerpiece of Zen, but still the roots of Buddhism.)

Hi Kirkmc,

Here’s my take on it, but it’s just the take of another practitioner on the journey, a trainee unsui, no more.

The ‘no purpose’ of zazen happily exists side by side with the fact that it has a purpose. It exists simultaneously. In other words, it is beyond dualism. This is unsatisfying to our normal, rational approach, which we move beyond in zazen as we encounter reality, which itself is non-duel.

This often appears as the ‘trick’ or ‘joke’ of zen: you achieve something by giving up the desire to achieve it (the end of suffering). And zen tradition revels in this apparent contradiction, often with great humour.

But in reality, it has nothing to do with reasoning or intellectual understanding. It is directly apprehended in the present moment of dropping off body and mind. And how in that state can we hope to achieve something in some posited better future? Certainly the desire to achieve the end of suffering in the future cannot mean the state is dwelt h in or inhabited. In other words, we have to let this final desire go.

Well, that’s my take on this matter at this moment. Who can explain the mystery? I can’t.

Gassho,
Myozan

PS: We appear to have the two great plates of the Mahayana and the Theravada rubbing up against each other here.

You cannot? Yet, you somehow did!

Gassho


Taigu

Myozan,

An excellent explanation. I certainly understand what you say, and you say it well. Nevertheless, letting "this final desire go" is something that we do with motivation to do so; I don't think it can just happen as a result of someone sitting with no initial motivation. And even if it does happen, one cannot intellectually forget the initial intention. I think that if one reaches such a state, it is with full awareness of that intention, but that intention just no longer matters.

My point was simply to stress that the whole "no purpose" thing can be deceptive.

Quote:

---

PS: We appear to have the two great plates of the Mahayana and the Theravada rubbing up against each other here.

---

Yes, I've been going back to the source in my personal quest for understanding. If one accepts that Mahayana is built on the foundations of Therevada (actually, on the foundations of the Pali canon), then I think it can be very valuable to know what the bedrock of Buddhist thought is.

Gassho, Myozan.

Chet

Myozan s sentence coins it :

Quote:

---

This often appears as the ‘trick’ or ‘joke’ of zen: you achieve something by giving up the desire to achieve it (the end of suffering). And zen tradition revels in this apparent contradiction, often with great humour.

---

This is it. The very pearl. What Dogen and all the other guys are talking about.
No intention and there it is. But...making non intention, carving non intention, dreaming non intention won t do...you-me-everybody has to drop the dropping itself, surrender the surrendering, cut the crap and crap the cut, until crap and cut are not two.

Entering the one river two bulls merge.

Can you even remember their names?


Gassho


Golden week Taigu

Hi kirkmc,

You bet it can be forgotten... I mean, have you ever had the experience of planing to do something so much desired so much expected and ending up ina complete different place? Well, that is DHARMA.

Much love and deep bows

Chet, thank you for your presence here.


Gassho


T.

Hi all,
As for the differences among Buddhist traditions a joke I read recently:

Quote:

---

How many Buddhists does it take to change a light bulb?

Theravada: "There's nothing about light bulbs in Pali Canon."
Tibetan: "Two. One gives the initiation one changes the light bulb."
Pure Land: "None. Buddha Amitabha will do it for anyone who asks him."
Rindzai: "Keep this koan in your teeth even if you sleep, eat or break light bulbs with your staff."
Soto: "Why change the light bulbs? When we sit zazen we shine throughout the whole universe in 10 directions."

---

Hello,

thanks to all of you for your insightful questions and thanks to Myozan in particular for that last gem.

To this Unsui, the non-goal-seeking "drive" that still gets many of us to sit regularly has a lot to do with the inherent tendency of our awakened nature to realise itself.

Bodaishin.

Like a bent bow, straightening itself after an arrow was loosened.

Dropping body and mind, letting the arrow of dualistic thought and emotions fly, we naturally pursue our path towards further awakening. There is a dynamic there, no doubt (in my mind at least), and we might wonder at our-selves, why we are doing it. We are like the bow in between being crooked and straight. Yet even the fully bent bow is nothing but the bow.

Totally and radically allowing Bodaishin to take us where we never left, now that is what I call a wild ride. Bullseye every moment of the way.

Gassho,

Hans Chudo Mongen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hans

...tendency of our awakened nature to realise itself.

Bodaishin.

Like a bent bow, straightening itself after an arrow was loosened.

Dropping body and mind, letting the arrow of dualistic thought and emotions fly, we naturally pursue our path towards further awakening. There is a dynamic there, no doubt (in my mind at least), and we might wonder at our-selves, why we are doing it. We are like the bow in between being crooked and straight. Yet even the fully bent bow is nothing but the bow.

Totally and radically allowing Bodaishin to take us where we never left...
Gassho,
Hans Chudo Mongen

---

This was an excellent clarifying statement, and that is part of the explanation I will now have at the ready when someone asks me why I sit Zazen. It comes to the same effect as trying to describe a goalless practice but more perfectly captures the inherent beauty and fluidity in the Zen tradition.

As a side note, is the Gakudo Yojin Shu the definite source to learn about Bodaishin or is there a thread on here that also touches on this subject?

Do not have any ready explanation to give, ( we are not into frozen and ready made stuff here) please,
And bodaisin is found anywhere not just in old dusty texts.

Gassho, Mr. Lou, something you might learn doing, it is fun, meaningful, free, thoughtless, pointless... Just perfectly imperfect.


T.

Hi Hans,

Could you please clarify somehow what you mean by Further awakening?

Thank you.

Gassho


T.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taigu

And bodaishin is found anywhere not just in old dusty texts.

---

Thank you fo this Taigu.

Gassho,

Hans Chudo Mongen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myozan Kodo

Hi Kirkmc,

Here’s my take on it, but it’s just the take of another practitioner on the journey, a trainee unsui, no more.

The ‘no purpose’ of zazen happily exists side by side with the fact that it has a purpose. It exists simultaneously. In other words, it is beyond dualism. This is unsatisfying to our normal, rational approach, which we move beyond in zazen as we encounter reality, which itself is non-duel.

This often appears as the ‘trick’ or ‘joke’ of zen: you achieve something by giving up the desire to achieve it (the end of suffering). And zen tradition revels in this apparent contradiction, often with great humour.

But in reality, it has nothing to do with reasoning or intellectual understanding. It is directly apprehended in the present moment of dropping off body and mind. And how in that state can we hope to achieve something in some posited better future? Certainly the desire to achieve the end of suffering in the future cannot mean the state is dwelt h in or inhabited. In other words, we have to let this final desire go.

Well, that’s my take on this matter at this moment. Who can explain the mystery? I can’t.

Gassho,
Myozan

---

Yeah. Good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taigu

Hi Hans,

Could you please clarify somehow what you mean by Further awakening?

Thank you.

Gassho


T.

---

Hello Taigu,

I mean further in the sense that it is a continuous process. Every moment of practise fresh and moist from the mother of wisdom's ever pregnant womb. Although there is a deepening of one's practise throughout the years, this process isn't going anywhere....other than where we started. Always new, always the same.

But these are just my two Unsui cents...so please add a pinch of salt to my fox spittle.


Gassho,

Hans Chudo Mongen

Hi all,

There has been much well written in this thread and I can only add that whenever I question the reason for sitting, I know that I sit because I do not seek enlightenment. The only way enlightenment can be achieved is by not seeking it. Do I want to be enlightened? Sure, why not? But if I sit for a hundred years and do not achieve it, will that be a disappointment? No! Because the sitting was "the point", not enlightenment. I agree with Kirk that we all arrive here because we hope to cure what ails us, but those who stay and go deep into this practice are those that accept sitting for sitting's sake. Words are often difficult to find and I still struggle to define just what it is that I'm doing...and when I get to that point I take the one piece of advice I have found useful from Mr. Warner...I sit down and shut up.

It is only by sitting and seeking nothing from it that I have gained so much.

Gassho,
Dosho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dosho

Hi all,

There has been much well written in this thread and I can only add that whenever I question the reason for sitting, I know that I sit because I do not seek enlightenment. The only way enlightenment can be achieved is by not seeking it. Do I want to be enlightened? Sure, why not? But if I sit for a hundred years and do not achieve it, will that be a disappointment? No! Because the sitting was "the point", not enlightenment. I agree with Kirk that we all arrive here because we hope to cure what ails us, but those who stay and go deep into this practice are those that accept sitting for sitting's sake. Words are often difficult to find and I still struggle to define just what it is that I'm doing...and when I get to that point I take the one piece of advice I have found useful from Mr. Warner...I sit down and shut up.

It is only by sitting and seeking nothing from it that I have gained so much.

Gassho,
Dosho

---

I really appreciated this post, and it seems to me to articulate the same spirit with which I now approach Zen and zazen. When I first began sitting regularly (almost 20 years ago), I sat only because I remembered a sense of profound sanity from sitting before. Nothing special, but very special indeed. I wasn't trying to cure or fix anything, but I remembered that I'd once seen that self-and-other were not always as I'd assumed they were. After a time, gaining ideas began to creep into my practice, making me totally neurotic. Then I broke away from daily zazen for a few years.

Now I sit zazen without any idea of insight or gain - but I only do that because I've already experienced that sitting with a gaining idea takes away from the profound sanity of zazen in this moment.

Chet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by disastermouse

Let me advance a typical example of how a conversation between myself and a typical western, un-initiated peer frequently goes (as I am very forthcoming about being Buddhist - most everyone at work knows I'm a Buddhist).

(IP = Interested Party. M = Me)

(IP): "So, you're Buddhist? So Buddha is your God?"
(M): "No. Personally, I don't believe in God. Zen Buddhism itself, especially as practiced in the West, is generally unconcerned by questions of God's existence."
(IP): "So then how do you think all of this was created?"
(M): "I have no idea."
(IP): "Doesn't that bother you?"
(M): "Not as much as I once thought it would."
(IP): "So then what does a Buddhist believe?
(M): "Hmm..where to start? I would say that Buddhism the way that I practice it is less about beliefs than it is about putting down beliefs, at least temporarily. However, there are the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path (I then expound the Truths and as much of the 8FP as I can remember.)
(IP): "Do you pray?"
(M): "I sit zazen. It's meditation."
(IP): "So you try to clear your mind?"
(M): "No, not really. Trying to clear your mind will either cause your mind to go running around like crazy trying to clear itself or at best will only result in an exercise of concentration. It's looser than that....but not as loose as daydreaming. I sit with everything as it is and when I notice myself getting hooked into a line of thought or planning, I simply let go and find myself right where I am. This actually happens a lot. It's more about noticing it without getting upset by it. It's just what's happening."
(IP): "But you get better at it, right?"
(M): "You can't really think of it as trying to get 'better' - the mind is very good at finding very compelling reasons for you to not be with things as they are. Many times, you are both right where you are and also there is a thought conversation going on but it doesn't dominate the space of your mind."
(IP): "I don't understand that at all."
(M): "I barely understand it myself and I feel like I'm not doing a very good job of explaining it."
(IP): "If you don't get peace of mind or salvation from it, why do you do it?"
(M): "Because it's the only thing that makes sense."
(IP): "You're a very strange person."
(M): "I know."


The above conversation is both about as honest and skillful as I can be (fully admitting that I may very well misunderstand our practice and therefore do not explain it well), but it doesn't really make Buddhism seem appealing until you get to the point where 'It's the only thing that makes sense' - not to your logical 'a is not b' mind, but to your whole being as a person. No one can get you there, and honestly, once you do get there, you're well and truly fucked as far as anything else goes.

IMHO.

Chet

---

Thank you for sharing Chet. I have also experienced this kind of conversation hence my reluctance to over-share.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr.Lou

It is interesting how this reflects a paradox inherent in much of what I have seen of Zen.

In one breath to say that I have compassion for all beings and then to follow it with but I am only willing to share to a certain point seems to be contradictory. What is compassion if it is not the willingness to share everything with everyone.

The internet is convoluted and contrasting. Answers conflict in wildly rampant ways throughout the entire web and even within individual websites. Telling someone that if they want to know more then they should go to the web is like saying if you're hungry just go to the ocean. Sure, the answers are there just as the ocean holds food, but if you do not already possess the knowledge to understand and discern what you find then the search will be lost.

Zen, in many ways, already has a reputation for being unapproachable and intimidating. Then to couple that with the lack of a willingness to be encouraging to the curious and it begins to make Zen Buddhists look selfish as the product of their own contrived elitism. And ultimately, isn't elitism the reason so many quickly dismiss the doctrines of Christians and Muslims; because they have followers that are stoic, elitist and unwilling to show compassion toward those that do not share their beliefs?

---

I don't mind sharing with everyone. But does everyone want me to share?

Point One: Have you ever been on the receiving end of an enthusiastic sharing by a religious person who's "oh so compassionate and loving" that he just has to share the GOOD NEWS with you whether you like it or not? :shock: Our practice balances compassion with wisdom. It is not enough to have good intentions. Those intentions need to be skillful as well. Our compassionate and enthusiastic religious guy has good intentions, but just how skillful is it, how wise is it to just share everything with everyone regardless of their views and whether or not they truly want to hear you out? I know people who have been unwillingly sucked into listening to a religious person as he proselytized the Good News to them - they were not interested and they were just too polite to say "no". Is that effective sharing? I don't see the wisdom in proselytizing the Dharma with someone unless there is a sincere inquiry made by that person. And it is not out of elitism but out of respect for that other person's religion or lack thereof that I don't just approach and share.

Point Two: But even if somebody were truly interested in what I have to say, I don't necessarily have the ability to explain things well. Also, trying to explain Buddhism - which as a religion has an entirely different structure from the Abrahamic religions' - to a Christian or someone who grew up in a predominantly Christian society is difficult because of the differences in structures. For example, I have been asked about Zen at a party in front of several other people. These were people who already had preconceived notions of Zen (one of them thought of it as a design style - she's an architect) and Buddhism. Add to that the belief-structure of Christianity that acts as a filter to whatever words I would say to them. Another time my former colleague asked me about reincarnation and karma and I struggled to explain to her that karma is not punishment from God. She was struggling to understand too - she had trouble understanding the idea that maybe there is no God who will dole out karma as punishment to the wicked.

The point is it's hard enough for me to explain Zen and deal with all these belief systems - for me to really share, someone has to be really interested. But even if someone is really interested I am not necessarily able to explain very well. My conversation with my colleague was an example of this. She really wanted to know, but I struggled to explain it to her well. And I walked away from that conversation wishing I said this and that... hell I could have pointed her to Treeleaf! Except at that time I didn't know Treeleaf existed. But I wish now that I told her to look in the Internet. Yes I know it's big. I didn't mean (and I apologize if it sounded like it) that I would tell someone to just dive into the great big digital ocean of information without so much as a list of links to informative and helpful websites.

Thank you so much Hans. By the way, it was really great to talk to you last time.

Gassho

T.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pinoybuddhist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by disastermouse

Let me advance a typical example ... I didn't mean (and I apologize if it sounded like it) that I would tell someone to just dive into the great big digital ocean of information without so much as a list of links to informative and helpful websites.

---

---

Both Chet and PinoyBuddhist have shared very thorough expressions of their personal feelings on the matter of sharing their understanding of Buddhism with other non-Buddhist. I appreciate you both taking the time to write such detailed responses. I have two follow up questions to what you have both said:

1. Why do you hold yourselves so accountable for the actions, or rather potential actions, of others when they are completely beyond your control? We can neither control no predict how others will perceive things and it robs each of us of our individuality and the uniqueness of every encounter when we make blanket assumptions about people.

Which leads me to my second point

2. Both your statements confess that neither of you believes you posses the tact to share your beliefs with others in a non-overwhelming or threatening way, such as the way you have experienced from other religion's representatives. I agree we should not run around and beat people over the head with our beliefs, but an apprehension to share our beliefs is the other extreme. Is there not a middle way that we can follow between the extremes of fanaticism and abstinence? After all, aren't we purveyors and seekers of Truth?

Mr. Lou!

I am profoundly happy that you are asking the questions you are asking. Without these questions, my attentions would never have been drawn to these things. I have on occassion seen close family suffer and have only wished that I could impart, in some small way, some sense of what I've found in the Buddhist path.

Remember, please, that even the Buddha himself is said to have almost forsaken teaching the Dharma at all. It's only because he remembered his former companions and others who had very little 'dust' to clear from their eyes that he taught at all. How much more humble must we all be as mere students of the Dharma?

Gassho

Chet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by disastermouse

Mr. Lou!
Remember, please, that even the Buddha himself is said to have almost forsaken teaching the Dharma at all. It's only because he remembered his former companions and others who had very little 'dust' to clear from their eyes that he taught at all. How much more humble must we all be as mere students of the Dharma?

Gassho

Chet

---

Yes, I agree that it is easier to measure intention and action from afar as I am doing, but I do it so that I can grow closer to the Sangha through shared discussions of interest.

Your anecdote above reminds me of how even Lao Tzu did not wish to discuss his beliefs, and where would we be if he too had not been urged to write down his thoughts before vanishing. Thanks for seeing my intention in these words and sharing your opinions. It is most enlightening :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr.Lou

Both Chet and PinoyBuddhist have shared very thorough expressions of their personal feelings on the matter of sharing their understanding of Buddhism with other non-Buddhist. I appreciate you both taking the time to write such detailed responses. I have two follow up questions to what you have both said:

1. Why do you hold yourselves so accountable for the actions, or rather potential actions, of others when they are completely beyond your control? We can neither control no predict how others will perceive things and it robs each of us of our individuality and the uniqueness of every encounter when we make blanket assumptions about people.

Which leads me to my second point

2. Both your statements confess that neither of you believes you posses the tact to share your beliefs with others in a non-overwhelming or threatening way, such as the way you have experienced from other religion's representatives. I agree we should not run around and beat people over the head with our beliefs, but an apprehension to share our beliefs is the other extreme. Is there not a middle way that we can follow between the extremes of fanaticism and abstinence? After all, aren't we purveyors and seekers of Truth?

---

I'll say it again here: it is a matter of respect for that other person's own path that I do not just "share". I operate on the basic assumption that whatever path someone is on, that is their path. It is not for me to say that it is not. If their path is Jesus, I will not say why don't you try the Buddha's path? If they do not come to me and ask about Buddhism, that is their path. If they come to me, then that is their path. Only then will I share what little I know. For those who are not interested enough to ask, it is enough for them to know that I am a Buddhist.

I know you have a Christian background. So do I. I do not, and have never liked, being proselytized to. At least not in the manner that some Christian sects do. I suppose it works for some people. Not for me. And yes, I get that it is a blanket assumption, but I cannot help but feel a wall come up when people try to share their religion with me. Maybe it's my life experiences getting in the way. Having spent all my life in a predominantly Christian country, having had my share of Masses, Catholic retreats, Bible studies with Born Again Christians, prayer rallies, and just listening to proselytizers sell their beliefs on me and implying that THEIR WAY alone is THE WAY, etc. - these have all undoubtedly left me jaded. And it's not just me but my close friends and a lot of the people I interact with on a daily basis (who are all Christian, btw): there's this jadedness towards proselytizers despite the fact that they have such similar or even exactly the same beliefs. That's why I have this general policy of not pushing the Dharma on people unless they ask for it. Of course this is a general policy. It helps guide me as to when and when not to share.

Remember: Buddha was said to have taught many kinds of people - not just those who followed him but even those who had their own religions. And he was said to have taught these people in accordance with their particular path. How he did it I have no idea. But he probably had to listen very well to what these people were asking him before opening his mouth.

I do share, but it's on an individual case-by-case basis. What and how I share depends on the person I'm sharing to. My best friend for instance, is one very jaded person when it comes to religion. As far as she's concerned, she has heard it all: how her life would be so much better if she just had a closer relationship with Jesus, if only she would just read the Bible everyday, go to Mass, pray, etc. So I tread carefully here. I am careful not to "sell" the Dharma to her. By that, I mean I don't tell her "well you know your life will be much better if you simply have the right view, right intention, right..." Usually I wait for her to ask a question or say how she feels or how she sees the world. Then I tell her what I think, which is pretty much based on the Dharma. You see here? I don't talk about Buddhism even though what I do tell her is Buddhism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr.Lou

1. Why do you hold yourselves so accountable for the actions, or rather potential actions, of others when they are completely beyond your control? We can neither control no predict how others will perceive things and it robs each of us of our individuality and the uniqueness of every encounter when we make blanket assumptions about people.

---

I don't try to control that which is beyond my control; I try to control what is not beyond my control. I can't control how others receive my words; I can however control my words. Right Speech, remember? Just because I cannot control how others receive the Dharma doesn't mean I shouldn't care. How well someone understands me is beyond my control - nevertheless, I do have to put some effort to make him understand otherwise why bother talking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr.Lou

2. Both your statements confess that neither of you believes you posses the tact to share your beliefs with others in a non-overwhelming or threatening way, such as the way you have experienced from other religion's representatives. I agree we should not run around and beat people over the head with our beliefs, but an apprehension to share our beliefs is the other extreme. Is there not a middle way that we can follow between the extremes of fanaticism and abstinence? After all, aren't we purveyors and seekers of Truth?

---

I shared in my previous post an example of how I shared without really sharing the Dharma to my friend. That was an example peculiar to that particular relationship. How I share with others will differ. But these are on an individual basis. In general, I stick to my policy of don't speak unless asked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pinoybuddhist

...It is not for me to say that it is not...

---

I believe I have discovered the root of our misalignment. It seems that you equate proselytizing only with the verbal (e.g. Telling someone about my religion equates to a condemnation of the other person's beliefs) This is where our primary difference of opinion is.

Proselytizing is defined as:
-Convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
-Advocate or promote (a belief or course of action).

You will notice that nothing in these definitions says it is limited to words. I assert that all Buddhist should be proselytizing at all times if they are truly living examples of their beliefs. Without having to tell people, your actions should be conspicuously Buddhist. Your lifestyle should be conspicuously Buddhist. You shouldn't need to tell people with words that you think your beliefs have helped you to accept the Dukkha. You shouldn't have to tell people simply with words that you believe you have found Truth.

So yes, we are in agreement that you shouldn't go around condemning people with your words describing what your beliefs are. Instead, your actions should be very explicitly sharing and reflecting your beliefs to all those that you encounter. I believe we should be striving to proselytize everyday to everyone by embodying the change we want to see in the world (to paraphrase Mahatma Gandi).

Appearances are a poor way to expound the dharma or one's understanding for one simple reason: No one else knows where you started from!

My brother is more violent and more frequently moody than I am. His temper can be very ferocious. I am also very moody, and have quite a temper - but neither is as bad (although they started that way). Over time, I have become gradually less so. Since we can't do a controlled study of myself both with Buddhism and without, he is the closest approximation of who I would be without the teachings.

But when you see me, you may only see a strange man with a terrible personality, poor speech, moodiness and impulsivity who can neither maintain a long-term romantic relationship nor keep any but very close friends for long.

In short, you would see a very flawed man and certainly no exemplar of Buddhist teachings. And yet Buddhist practice has and continues to contribute to my ability to function in the world. But you would never see that - you'd only see my continued sub-par functioning and might conclude that the Buddha's teachings were worthless.

Appearances are problematic for these reasons.

Chet

Ah! Finally we're getting somewhere. :) Well mr. Lou, I agree with your post somewhat. This is after all the method I use to my toddler. No point in verbalizing the Dharma to him, although he is now able to recognize and do gassho before a Buddha image. I also proselytize in a similar manner to my wife - she knows I chant and sit zazen every morning after all.

That being said, I also get somewhat where Chet is coming from. And I just want to add one thing: when you say "conspicuously Buddhist", what does that look like? :shock: Apart from shaved heads and outfits and rituals, does it look any different from conspicuously Christian/Jew/Muslim/atheist/Wiccan/etc.? If you say it looks like being compassionate, loving, and wise - then it would look no different from any other path.

What's the saying, "it's better to be a Buddha than a Buddhist..."

In other words, your actions are more important than your words.

Let's not make this into an either-or thing: there is Right Action and there is Right Speech in the path, after all. Sometimes Right Speech is speechless; other times brief; and still other times long-winded. What's the right way to proselytize? It depends. Sometimes words, sometimes actions, sometimes both.

Thank you for starting this topic mr. Lou.:)

_/|_
Rafael