Love and Zen

[Hans]

Hello fellow Treeleafers,

I just wanted to share a few impressions, feelings and thoughts about a topic that I feel has deserved too little attention (to my limited knowledge) in the wider Zen discourse. This is not meant as an attempt to promote any kind of teaching etc., it really is just sharing a few impressions.

Although there is no such thing as a set Western mind, or Asian mind (no matter what some imperialists might have wanted us to believe), one notion that I feel is vital to the overall cultural makeup of who I am as a western European is the notion of love.

Now of course the term is much abused on a daily basis and can mean nothing and everything at the same time....we have erotic love, romantic love, or the kind of love called "agape". However, due to cultural and historical reasons, the Buddhist and Zen ancestors hardly ever mention it outside of the topic of attachment.

My gut tells me that in order for Zen to truly take root in the West, those following this path will have to integrate this cornerstone of our western cultural heritage, love, much more deeply into their Zen practise.

Even most western Zen teachers only mention love in passing, although it is apparent that their life actions too often follow the path that their inner love for someone or something creates.

Having recently read through Taigen Leighton's Zen Questions, this whole topic was highlighted again in the chapter on the Sufi poet Rumi (for whom love is a key concept).

However I twist and turn it, the compassion and unselfish joy described in the Sutras and Suttas seems to be related to , but isn't the equivalent of unselfish or even sacrificial love (to me).

If truth be told, this bugs me. It bugs me that some of the strongest experiences that shape my life again and again are not adressed adequately (as far as I can see/feel) by the tradition as it is practised today.

What are your thoughts on this?

My feeling is that those who identify as cultural westerners (or those with similar cultural feelings towards this mystery called love) should have to work on bridging that gap....but maybe I am completely wrong.


Gassho and thank you for your input,


Hans Chudo Mongen

[Nindo]

Hallo Hans,

it's true that there is not much talk about the topic of love, but I still don't see a gap. For me, love comes out of this practice quite naturally, when appreciation and gratitude arise. I've had periods during sesshin where I was overwhelmed with love for all the other participants and in tears. I'm just back from a long hiking trip in Austria and I felt so much love for plants, animals, stones, my breath. I've seen love even through anger at some occasions.
As you say, love "can mean nothing and everything", so I think the word would serve more as a hindrance .... but love is certainly in this practice, in many ways, at its very core - this is my experience.

I'm not going to touch on the meeting of romantic love and zen practice - maybe because 20 years into my relationship, love in this respect is still romance but also so much more, and one word just doesn't capture it. Of course the relationship is the real testing ground for any fuzzy lovely feelings that come up on the cushion.

I'll be interested what others have to say!

In love
Nindo

[Hans]

Hello,

thank you Nindo for your reply. I personally do not find a gap in my practise either, but I do feel there is a gap in terms of what gets mentioned time and again in this Zen tradition as it is unfolding today and what doesn't.

Gassho,

Hans Chudo Mongen

[Dosho]

Hans,

I always assumed the reason that love is not put into words in the sutras is because love really cannot be put into words! It is there, in all the words, but explained by none of them.

Gassho,
Dosho

[RichardH]

Hi Hans.

There is a wonderful Theravadin monk I know who's mother recently died. He has been a monk for maybe 40 years, and has been abbot of several monasteries. About ten years ago his elderly mother took ill and did not recover. My friend stepped down as abbot, returned to Canada, and moved in with his mother to nurse her.... she was very frail and could not take care of herself. He did this for ten years, which is tough for a Theravadin monk living by strict vinaya. His focus was nursing his mother, but he still gave talks from time to time, and lead the occasional weekend retreat. One time during a public talk, a lay person who was aware of his situation challenged him.. and told him he was (horrors) "attached" to his mother. This monk's response was angry.. "Ofcourse I'm attached to my mother.. SHE'S MY MOTHER!!". Now that is Theravada Buddhism, where sometimes you'll fine hard cases who just want to kiss this suffering world goodbye. But, I have found a pretty cold attitude among some Zen folk to... a kind of sublime sociopathy for an "illusory" world. It is not a stretch to imagine the Zen soldier hacking his way through Nanking. So.. yes, if I understand you correctly, I agree, more loving commitment... less selfish preoccupation with cool non-attachment, and the dissolving of every human value in emptiness to that end.

Gassho, kojip.

[Heisoku]

My tuppence worth on this topic is what we mean by 'love' in the west? Is it compassion, loyalty to one person, a subservience to an emotion? And what is 'love' called in Asia? Compassion, acceptance, harmony?
Perhaps the roots of (western) love are the same as in Asia but have been lost in translation in the sutras? Or is it that more attention has been paid to the roots of suffering that the liberation of 'love' has been overlooked? Just some questions...... I too am reading Taigen's book! Maybe this is an area to explore in more depth, after all there is certainly as much 'love' visible in the east as in the west!!!

[Jinyo]

Hello fellow Treeleafers,

I just wanted to share a few impressions, feelings and thoughts about a topic that I feel has deserved too little attention (to my limited knowledge) in the wider Zen discourse. This is not meant as an attempt to promote any kind of teaching etc., it really is just sharing a few impressions.

Although there is no such thing as a set Western mind, or Asian mind (no matter what some imperialists might have wanted us to believe), one notion that I feel is vital to the overall cultural makeup of who I am as a western European is the notion of love.

Now of course the term is much abused on a daily basis and can mean nothing and everything at the same time....we have erotic love, romantic love, or the kind of love called "agape". However, due to cultural and historical reasons, the Buddhist and Zen ancestors hardly ever mention it outside of the topic of attachment.

My gut tells me that in order for Zen to truly take root in the West, those following this path will have to integrate this cornerstone of our western cultural heritage, love, much more deeply into their Zen practise.

Even most western Zen teachers only mention love in passing, although it is apparent that their life actions too often follow the path that their inner love for someone or something creates.

Having recently read through Taigen Leighton's Zen Questions, this whole topic was highlighted again in the chapter on the Sufi poet Rumi (for whom love is a key concept).

However I twist and turn it, the compassion and unselfish joy described in the Sutras and Suttas seems to be related to , but isn't the equivalent of unselfish or even sacrificial love (to me).

If truth be told, this bugs me. It bugs me that some of the strongest experiences that shape my life again and again are not adressed adequately (as far as I can see/feel) by the tradition as it is practised today.

What are your thoughts on this?

My feeling is that those who identify as cultural westerners (or those with similar cultural feelings towards this mystery called love) should have to work on bridging that gap....but maybe I am completely wrong.


Gassho and thank you for your input,


Hans Chudo Mongen

Hans - would you be able to say a little bit more. I'm new to any indepth study of Zen but I haven't yet come across anything that particularly jars with a western understanding of love. I tend to agree with Nindo's thoughts but I'm wondering if I'm missing something in what you write. Can you give some concrete examples of how you would like to re-express things?

An interesting topic,

Gassho

Willow

[Rich]

There are so many ways to express love and I think they all involve some caring compassionate action even if it is just listening attentively. LOVE is such a loaded word maybe that's why western zen teachers have shied away from it.

fav love quotes
Joan Baez - Love is just a four letter word.
tina Turner - What's love got to with it, what's love but a second hand emotion.
Beatles - All you need is love.
Beethoven - I can live only wholly with you or not at all

And the #1 fav is The Beatles - And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make

[Hans]

Hello,

thank you for all your input. Obviously defining love would take aeons...which is why I am intentionally using it here in the broades sense of the meaning, though I am excluding superficial and egotistic ideas about it.

Having said that - basically most Zen practitioners I know a little bit better on a personal level do a lot of things out of love, whether this means marrying someone, choosing one job over another one etc..... yet when I look at the spoken or written expressions of most people engaging in Zen practise, I see wonderful re-formulations of old school style nature poetry or references to the ancestors of our lineage, but I don't seem to have read/heard/seen a lot that explicitly mentions the kind of love that I assume is nevertheless being felt by many.

The slight concern I have is that a lot of us (or let's just talk about me then) are still acting in very contrived ways in which to express their living Zen...and maybe all I wanted to point to is my gut feeling that at some point we in the West will have to be more independent in our expression of our own life reality, instead of conjuring up rice paddies and mist covered mountain cliffs.

This is not a call to arms, an argument or anything really...just me sharing a gut feeling.


Gassho and thanks once more for your thoughtful responses,

Hans Chudo Mongen

[JustBen]

I think I get what you're saying, Hans. I also have trouble reconciling love--as I understand it--with Buddhist ideals of non-attachment. Whether this is a lack of understanding or a lack of enlightenment on my part, I suppose only time and practice will tell.

As for the presumably-contrived behavior of some teachers and practitioners, I don't know what to think. Could it be that it's not contrived for them, but would be for us? The adaptation of Buddhism for the West is still in its infancy, I think.

[galen]

Hi Hans,

Personally, living about as far west as you can get here in the States, and from my studies in metaphysical and so-called mystical concepts and teachings, to me love seems rather trite, esp romantic love. While I embrace it, can and do fall into these type of relationships, the word love seems small, as a word, in the much larger picture of universal love of all there Is. I know where you are coming from and know your feelings for this one on one personal love or romantic love. I just don’t see the dilemma about Zen having to cover it or get into it, just do it. It has been said from some of the Zen concepts and writings I have read, that words such as love are just ideas, and as you point to early, ‘the notion’ or just a notion, they are human constructs. I do not feel the Oneness concept misses even romantic love or that it needs a discussion. I tend to lean more to the two Zen-women on this thread and their perception. It just seems that this Zen thing is so much bigger and universal, then to get caught up in something that seems more about drama.

Does not the concept of Oneness, cover all aspects of this love from a Zen perspective? This romantic love often seems to be about dramatic and more shallow ideas. Of course it is awesome to fall head over heels, and the romance leading up to and through that type of relationship, but from my perspective it just seems so small, esp in the West. Love is the small mind and ego, which we are all sitting in and communicating right now, and Zen is also about that, but much more in the processing to the big Mind picture. It just does not seem to me that its a subject, even in these modern times, from a very ancient school and teaching, necessary as a subject. But that is just me, and do not feel there is a need for any intellectualizing or conceptualizing it in Zen. Leave that up to the love birds, even those Zen lovers, with their emotions, ideas and 'notions'.

Thank you for your bring forth such a great discussion topic, esp with you being a Priest in training and your supposed discomfort with this in Zen. I just don’t see a problem with it in a Zen Way.


_/\_

galen

[Myoshin]

Mmm, I have a kind of problem with love indead featuring my practise. Some questions arise like "what' love"? (being with someone), would it be easier with a buddhist to live with? what do i have to wait for love? It's like looking for or aspiring in this way like the will to go forward like in the Dharma, a quest even though we don't need to search, there's still this will.
I'm scared sometimes not make difference with non attachement to someone and a lack of love for someone. I mean love here in the sense of love relationship.

That's what I can say if I share my "private" life to you.

Good post Hans, it fits well with what I'm living of wondering

Gassho all

Yang Hsin

[Graceleejenkins]

I know what you mean, Hans. There is loving-kindness, compassion, the oneness of the loved and lover,and the realization that we all want to be happy and avoid suffering, but the teachings just don’t quite seem to cover everything that the West often loads into the concept of love, do they? It is kind of hard to express. Maybe it’s the Judeo-Christian tradition that makes us miss a certain kind of emphasis: “wither thou goest, I go,”, “He so loved the world. . ., ” “hope, faith and charity, but the greatest of these is love,” and St. Francis of Assisi with his love of animals and “grant that I may not seek to be loved, as to love. ”

I don’t know, but on a gut level, I understand your point. Everyday life, it doesn't really affect me. I still love my husband madly, and I still learn from Zen, but I do know what you mean. If I had the genius to express it, I would. Gassho, Grace.

[Stephanie]

I was just thinking about this topic a few days ago myself. I was musing on how I have encountered lamentations that the term "love" is so overly broad, describing everything from a high level of enthusiasm for a particular food to romantic eroticism to selfless spiritual love. I don't find this to be a problem. Actually, I find it to be a boon, and to point toward a deeper truth:, however subtly, I believe all of these different experiences to which we refer with the word "love" are connected. In my spiritual journey, every time I have become lost, whether lost in terms of feeling a lack of direction or enthusiasm or in terms of being overwhelmed by darkness, love has been what has revived me. Love is the one consistent guidepost I have found in navigating a life of practice. When you can trust no one and nothing else, you can trust where love guides you.

I especially find this guiding love in the context of relationships. And in my experience, love comes forth more clearly in non-romantic relationships than in romantic relationships. "Romance" seems to be predominated by more shallow drives and feelings, and to be very self-centered, full of desire and need. It is when the blush and thrill of romance is past or absent from a human connection that the more subtle and transformative phenomenon of love becomes apparent to me. I experience it most in the context of situations that require me to accept and/or forgive something another person I care about has done or is doing that I do not like, that I find personally uncomfortable or hurtful. In that moment when I get past what I want for me, and find it does not matter as much as caring about this other person and wanting them to be happy, I find something far more rewarding and mysterious--love. I am struck by the closeness of these concepts of love and forgiveness in the Christian tradition, and while Christian metaphysics do not speak to me, this expression of Christ's life as an act of love and forgiveness is a very powerful spiritual trope for me. And I think few, if any, have written on love in a spiritual context as powerfully and clearly as Rumi.

I also think of love in a scientific context. I have an avid interest in evolution and find contemplating evolution to be very spiritual and awe-inspiring, increasing my sense of connection to this world, its creatures and its history. And it is very striking to me that the more research that is done into the evolution of the human species, the more clear it becomes that we are what we are because of love: because of our strong social bonds (a common trait among mammals), because of our skill in cooperation, because of our altruism and sense of the importance of the group's survival being greater than an individual's survival. It is striking how scientists describe evidence that deeply ancient human ancestors cared for the crippled and elderly. And neuroscience is showing us that our very consciousness, the very way we experience the world, is rooted in the way we experience others and our place among them. We learn through the activity of mirror neurons that fire when we observe others. We experience the grief of loss with the same brain activity we do when we experience physical pain. I think if any clear "purpose" for our species can be gleaned from our history and our increasing scientific knowledge of who and what we are, it is the expression of love.

As for the absence of this topic in Zen teachings, I think there are likely many reasons. One is very much that the strong power of human-to-human attachment has always been viewed with a skeptical eye in the Buddhist tradition. I think there is a value in this; to see clearly, we must be able to see through the powerful feelings that arise out of our human relationships, even as we still feel them. And most of the traditional teachings we study in Zen were written by monastics, who undoubtedly experienced strong bonds of friendship and spiritual connection with one another, yet all the same saw the typical pattern of human love as problematic, an obstacle in developing a clear eye, to the extent that giving up "family life" was an important part of their path. I do find Buddhist teachings on the "brahma-viharas" to be very inspiring, and to capture how I experience love in its clearest and most potent form. And I think we are already seeing the topic of love become much more common in Zen writings as more and more lay practitioners are contributing significant writings. All the same, I don't think any tradition is perfect--and I certainly tend to look to other traditions when looking for inspiration and guidance on the topic of love.

Although one of my favorite love poems was written by John Daido Loori:

I love you.
This is loving the self,
loving loving,
being loved by loving,
being loved by the Way.
Isn't this the same as loving a mountain,
or a river, a bird or a tree;
loving a person, loving you, loving the self?
My love for you is you;
your love for me is me.
This is true not only for love
but for all activity.
This is true not only for sentient beings
but for the myriad dharmas.
I love you.

[galen]

I was just thinking about this topic a few days ago myself. I was musing on how I have encountered lamentations that the term "love" is so overly broad, describing everything from a high level of enthusiasm for a particular food to romantic eroticism to selfless spiritual love. I don't find this to be a problem. Actually, I find it to be a boon, and to point toward a deeper truth:, however subtly, I believe all of these different experiences to which we refer with the word "love" are connected. In my spiritual journey, every time I have become lost, whether lost in terms of feeling a lack of direction or enthusiasm or in terms of being overwhelmed by darkness, love has been what has revived me. Love is the one consistent guidepost I have found in navigating a life of practice. When you can trust no one and nothing else, you can trust where love guides you.

I especially find this guiding love in the context of relationships. And in my experience, love comes forth more clearly in non-romantic relationships than in romantic relationships. "Romance" seems to be predominated by more shallow drives and feelings, and to be very self-centered, full of desire and need. It is when the blush and thrill of romance is past or absent from a human connection that the more subtle and transformative phenomenon of love becomes apparent to me. I experience it most in the context of situations that require me to accept and/or forgive something another person I care about has done or is doing that I do not like, that I find personally uncomfortable or hurtful. In that moment when I get past what I want for me, and find it does not matter as much as caring about this other person and wanting them to be happy, I find something far more rewarding and mysterious--love. I am struck by the closeness of these concepts of love and forgiveness in the Christian tradition, and while Christian metaphysics do not speak to me, this expression of Christ's life as an act of love and forgiveness is a very powerful spiritual trope for me. And I think few, if any, have written on love in a spiritual context as powerfully and clearly as Rumi.

I also think of love in a scientific context. I have an avid interest in evolution and find contemplating evolution to be very spiritual and awe-inspiring, increasing my sense of connection to this world, its creatures and its history. And it is very striking to me that the more research that is done into the evolution of the human species, the more clear it becomes that we are what we are because of love: because of our strong social bonds (a common trait among mammals), because of our skill in cooperation, because of our altruism and sense of the importance of the group's survival being greater than an individual's survival. It is striking how scientists describe evidence that deeply ancient human ancestors cared for the crippled and elderly. And neuroscience is showing us that our very consciousness, the very way we experience the world, is rooted in the way we experience others and our place among them. We learn through the activity of mirror neurons that fire when we observe others. We experience the grief of loss with the same brain activity we do when we experience physical pain. I think if any clear "purpose" for our species can be gleaned from our history and our increasing scientific knowledge of who and what we are, it is the expression of love.

As for the absence of this topic in Zen teachings, I think there are likely many reasons. One is very much that the strong power of human-to-human attachment has always been viewed with a skeptical eye in the Buddhist tradition. I think there is a value in this; to see clearly, we must be able to see through the powerful feelings that arise out of our human relationships, even as we still feel them. And most of the traditional teachings we study in Zen were written by monastics, who undoubtedly experienced strong bonds of friendship and spiritual connection with one another, yet all the same saw the typical pattern of human love as problematic, an obstacle in developing a clear eye, to the extent that giving up "family life" was an important part of their path. I do find Buddhist teachings on the "brahma-viharas" to be very inspiring, and to capture how I experience love in its clearest and most potent form. And I think we are already seeing the topic of love become much more common in Zen writings as more and more lay practitioners are contributing significant writings. All the same, I don't think any tradition is perfect--and I certainly tend to look to other traditions when looking for inspiration and guidance on the topic of love.

Although one of my favorite love poems was written by John Daido Loori:

I love you.
This is loving the self,
loving loving,
being loved by loving,
being loved by the Way.
Isn't this the same as loving a mountain,
or a river, a bird or a tree;
loving a person, loving you, loving the self?
My love for you is you;
your love for me is me.
This is true not only for love
but for all activity.
This is true not only for sentient beings
but for the myriad dharmas.
I love you.

Thank you, Stephanie.


_/\_

galen

[Myoku]

I had to sink your original question in for a few days; but it remains the same: Love is only a word; it depends what we mean by that. Love, for me, is appreciation, is saying 'yes', is compassion, is avoiding harm naturally. Naturally is the key, and I think it flows naturally as our practice deepens. Sometimes when I sit or in a moment where I didnt expect it, a tremendous love comes up, a tremendous yes to people or life in general. I'm not sure if one should talk about or emphasise the aspect of love in our practice, but I'm sure its part of it.
_()_
Myoku

[Hans]

Hello,

once more a quick thank you for all the great input. I feel that we Westerners are slowly finding our own way of expressing the teachings of our Zen traditions. My gut was pointing to the fact that there were many experiences I have had in relation to modern Zen practise, that left me bewildered after seeing how little joy and non-selfish aspects of love was being projected by those present. That was not the case during our winter retreat by the way...nor am I saying that "Zen has to be THIS and not THAT"... I still feel that a lot of western Zen is very contrived due to many of us westerners trying to live up to our stereotypical ideas about how practitioners should act, present themselves and come across.

Time will find many answers to these questions.

Gassho,

Hans Chudo Mongen

[RichardH]

Hi Hans. A couple of times here you have mentioned how Zen practitioners can be contrived.... that word, contrived. It is my understanding that the truth of Dukkha.. "Here is Dukkha, Dukkha is like this" is very visceral and uncontrived.. it can only be raw. The containing rituals and manners of Zen when just done..in the the same way as just sitting, are also direct and raw. Where I see contrivance in myself and others is around our loamy ,messy, humanness. It is the contrivance of "having it together" which never works.
The subject of being contrived and uncontrived is impossible for me. How does one be uncontrived? An effort to be uncontrived would be a miserable trap. We is what we is, it seems to me..including our artifice and contrivances.... and edits. Just thinking aloud. Thank you for this topic for reflection.


Gassho, kojip

[alan.r]

Hi Hans. A couple of times here you have mentioned how Zen practitioners can be contrived.... that word, contrived. It is my understanding that the truth of Dukkha.. "Here is Dukkha, Dukkha is like this" is very visceral and uncontrived.. it can only be raw. The containing rituals and manners of Zen when just done..in the the same way as just sitting, are also direct and raw. Where I see contrivance in myself and others is around our loamy ,messy, humanness. It is the contrivance of "having it together" which never works.
The subject of being contrived and uncontrived is impossible for me. How does one be uncontrived? An effort to be uncontrived would be a miserable trap. We is what we is, it seems to me..including our artifice and contrivances.... and edits. Just thinking aloud. Thank you for this topic for reflection.


Gassho, kojip

An effort to be uncontrived would be a contrivance. I think Dukkha is often a contrivance - when something unpleasant happens to us, a broken leg, a car accident, a family member becoming ill, if we lose ourself in ourself, our little self-pitying thoughts, why me, why this, why now, while we may not realize it (though I've always thought we always do realize we're doing this), this is a complete artificiality imposed on the "raw" pain. A kind of contrivance, to me. Though perhaps I misunderstand.

Your story about the Theravadin monk I, well, I love. Just kidding; but yes, it's a wonderful story and completely honest and true. In our Zen practice, probably in most Buddhist practices, love is a term which connotes attachment. And so for the Buddhist - Oh no! Not attachment! Get rid of it! But that's just silly, yeah. To me, hopefully we're all attached in some way to some people, because if we're not, then we're not loving. I don't know what love is, but when it is there it is there. I don't know what zazen is either, but when I'm doing it I'm doing it. Also, I think there is such a thing as wise attachment - relationships that are unselfish, kind, etc. We let go of, more and more, negative thoughts and feelings, negative relationships, but when love comes up are we supposed to think "Oh crap, now I'm loving, better let go" - Nah, probably not. Just to be aware that one is attached to someone is enough, lessens the attachment, makes it easier to love even, easier to go in the flow of loving, to give to them rather than to want from them.

Anyway, lovely discussion here.

Gassho,
a

[Jinyo]

Hello,

once more a quick thank you for all the great input. I feel that we Westerners are slowly finding our own way of expressing the teachings of our Zen traditions. My gut was pointing to the fact that there were many experiences I have had in relation to modern Zen practise, that left me bewildered after seeing how little joy and non-selfish aspects of love was being projected by those present. That was not the case during our winter retreat by the way...nor am I saying that "Zen has to be THIS and not THAT"... I still feel that a lot of western Zen is very contrived due to many of us westerners trying to live up to our stereotypical ideas about how practitioners should act, present themselves and come across.

Time will find many answers to these questions.

Gassho,

Hans Chudo Mongen

Hi Hans - this is an interesting discussion so can I press some more? It would help me to understand better if I could hone down from the general to the particular. Can you give an example of an experience that ran contrary to an expression of non-selfish love? Could you give an example of a stereotypical idea expressed through action?

My understanding of Zen comes mainly from reading - I have never attended a retreat, been in a room (physically, in material time) with other practitioners.

I'm wondering if you feel that in essence we (in the west) need to re-express the teachings of Zen using our own cultural metaphors - not only in word but in action?

I think - if this is the case - you have a strong point. In a way this is what Taigen is attempting in his book - but I'm not convinced this particular book works. Keeping metaphors fresh is very difficult - and though I admire Dylon, love Mary Oliver's poetry, also Rumi - this is still putting Zen through a particular filter that does not feel fresh to me.


This is just my subjective view - but if Zen practitioners want to speak from the heart - and to speak from love - then perhaps they need to speak from their own heart.


We all borrow too many words (IMHO)

Gassho

Willow

[RichardH]

An effort to be uncontrived would be a contrivance. I think Dukkha is often a contrivance - when something unpleasant happens to us, a broken leg, a car accident, a family member becoming ill, if we lose ourself in ourself, our little self-pitying thoughts, why me, why this, why now, while we may not realize it (though I've always thought we always do realize we're doing this), this is a complete artificiality imposed on the "raw" pain. A kind of contrivance, to me. Though perhaps I misunderstand.

Hi Alan. I guess in a sense Dukkha is a contrivance. Though I tend to see it more as errant instinct rather than a conscious effort. More like a bewildered contraction of life. It's definitely something we do, and the buck does stop here.

The rawness (in my experience) is in coming to terms with the fact of Dukkha, the suffering... and how the strategies and compensations of a life-time no longer work.


Gassho, kojip.

[Hans]

Hello Willow,

thank you so much for your questions. Please excuse me being so brief, but I'm at work as it is..... You wrote:
"I'm wondering if you feel that in essence we (in the west) need to re-express the teachings of Zen using our own cultural metaphors - not only in word but in action?"

Well..basically I do not feel "we" or anyone else needs to do anything....but after having sat with a few Zen groups over the years, and having read far too many exchanges over the internet that gave me a flavour of different Zen lineages in my cultural neck of the woods I still feel (and I am sorry I cannot make this more concrete) there is a great deal of samurai-re-enactment going on and in Germany in particular (in many, not all cases) a strain of humourless Zen is being propagated (and I don't just mean a certain AZI current) that seems to try and emulate the strictness of Japanese cultural confucianism...which doesn't really leave a lot of room for laughter and joyful...dare I say even ecstatic expressions of unselfish love.

In many cases the sour faced Zen people I have met are very often fake faces...masks...as if looking like a pissed of patriarch would change anything for the better. The urge to follow a pseudo-orientalist notion of what authentic Zen is is IMHO creating the opposite in many cases.....

The dharma has arrived in the West and it'll take some time for us to "make it ours" (though it belongs to no- and everyone)....so no need to rush anything, but yeah, my gut tells me that ultimately we have to find more of our own expressions. Both on an emotional, poetic and "deed" level. Looking at what the many nuances of unselfish love mean to us and what expressions they might command is part of that (for me....please everyone do what you want, I am not preaching, just sharing impressions )

Gassho,

Hans Chudo Mongen

[kosen]

Hello to all. Here also, in France, we are confronted with a teaching of the Zen which does not know how to speak about the love. It seems to me caused by a very dated and false vision of Japan and traditions of the Zen, by preconceived ideas on Asian cold and deprived of feeling or hiding them. But Eric Rommeluère, who had practiced zazen in zen japanese monasteries said that he has never found nothing else but love in the Zen monasteries of Japan. If I can recommend a book allowing to integrate the love into the practice of the Buddhism, it would be Teachings of Love, by Thich Nhat Hanh: many of your questions are approached there. If I can make reference to the people and teachers whom I met, I would say that the love is born by practicing zazen, at first because we love zazen, then the others, and finally ourself (it is the most difficult, to love ourself). Then the power of the love submerges everything, in the point to be difficult to live and to create difficulties in the relations with the other human beings who do not know that we are in the love for all. It is necessary at this moment to learn to manage the love, and even to hide it, if we want to avoid hurting the others. It is for it that certain Buddhist masters are surly.
Kosen

[galen]

Hello to all. Here also, in France, we are confronted with a teaching of the Zen which does not know how to speak about the love. It seems to me caused by a very dated and false vision of Japan and traditions of the Zen, by preconceived ideas on Asian cold and deprived of feeling or hiding them. But Eric Rommeluère, who had practiced zazen in zen japanese monasteries said that he has never found nothing else but love in the Zen monasteries of Japan. If I can recommend a book allowing to integrate the love into the practice of the Buddhism, it would be Teachings of Love, by Thich Nhat Hanh: many of your questions are approached there. If I can make reference to the people and teachers whom I met, I would say that the love is born by practicing zazen, at first because we love zazen, then the others, and finally ourself (it is the most difficult, to love ourself). Then the power of the love submerges everything, in the point to be difficult to live and to create difficulties in the relations with the other human beings who do not know that we are in the love for all. It is necessary at this moment to learn to manage the love, and even to hide it, if we want to avoid hurting the others. It is for it that certain Buddhist masters are surly.
Kosen

Thank you for a great post, Kosen,

We all have some different views, perceptions, but for the most part they end up in a wash. It seems that love does start and end with zazen as you say, but seemingly; too really, really love other, we must first love ourselves (and yes the hardest), but zazen is there for that. Also, not sure about hiding our love in fear of hurting other (get what you mean though), because it seems that a deep genuine bliss-filled zazen love, can not be hidden. Its overwhelming and comes from grace. Others, including what even could be called a bad person, could not deny this deep empathy and overwhelming love of even them. It seems that is what they need in the form of acceptance and forgiveness, as do others who could to be thought to be this good person. {No good, no bad, only perception.} Thank you again!


_/\_

galen

[Jinyo]

Hello Willow,

thank you so much for your questions. Please excuse me being so brief, but I'm at work as it is..... You wrote:
"I'm wondering if you feel that in essence we (in the west) need to re-express the teachings of Zen using our own cultural metaphors - not only in word but in action?"

Well..basically I do not feel "we" or anyone else needs to do anything....but after having sat with a few Zen groups over the years, and having read far too many exchanges over the internet that gave me a flavour of different Zen lineages in my cultural neck of the woods I still feel (and I am sorry I cannot make this more concrete) there is a great deal of samurai-re-enactment going on and in Germany in particular (in many, not all cases) a strain of humourless Zen is being propagated (and I don't just mean a certain AZI current) that seems to try and emulate the strictness of Japanese cultural confucianism...which doesn't really leave a lot of room for laughter and joyful...dare I say even ecstatic expressions of unselfish love.

In many cases the sour faced Zen people I have met are very often fake faces...masks...as if looking like a pissed of patriarch would change anything for the better. The urge to follow a pseudo-orientalist notion of what authentic Zen is is IMHO creating the opposite in many cases.....

The dharma has arrived in the West and it'll take some time for us to "make it ours" (though it belongs to no- and everyone)....so no need to rush anything, but yeah, my gut tells me that ultimately we have to find more of our own expressions. Both on an emotional, poetic and "deed" level. Looking at what the many nuances of unselfish love mean to us and what expressions they might command is part of that (for me....please everyone do what you want, I am not preaching, just sharing impressions )

Gassho,

Hans Chudo Mongen

Thanks for explaining Hans. It is interesting that the difficulty seems to come more from 'personalities' than perhaps written Zen teachings?

Kosen mentioned Thich Nhat Hahn. Hahn was my first introduction to Zen and I have read many of his books. I like his work very much - there is a lot of compassion
and calm - but sometimes I think he simplifies love - and I have many issues concerning this simplification within Zen in general.
There is not really space to go into it here as it would make this post too long.

Going back to the original question of how Zen is portrayed by certain teachers,(cold, love-less) etc - I don't have any direct experience of this - but it is enlightening to read about the experiences of members who do.

Gassho

Willow

[Kaishin]

I can't seem to construct a coherent response :P I do think I get what you're saying. Have never really considered it before or seen it as a problem, though. But now maybe I do!

Anyway, just a note to say thanks for the topic and responses.

[Nindo]

... there is a great deal of samurai-re-enactment going on and in Germany in particular (in many, not all cases) a strain of humourless Zen is being propagated (and I don't just mean a certain AZI current) that seems to try and emulate the strictness of Japanese cultural confucianism...which doesn't really leave a lot of room for laughter and joyful...dare I say even ecstatic expressions of unselfish love.

In many cases the sour faced Zen people I have met are very often fake faces...masks...as if looking like a pissed of patriarch would change anything for the better. The urge to follow a pseudo-orientalist notion of what authentic Zen is is IMHO creating the opposite in many cases.....

Hi Hans,

thanks for writing about your experience in Germany (and Kosen in France). I can understand what you mean, that this is somewhat of a cultural phenomenon. Some folks I sat with in Germany and Austria seemed to have this dead-serious, austere look at Buddhism as well. And you can find the same in North-American centres of course. This may come from an effort to "do it right", without really understanding what Zen is about. So it's easy to fall into the trap of copying an image one may have of "sour faced patriarchs".

However, in the talks I read, and listen to via podcast, I would say that mentioning love has very much increased in the last couple of years, mostly in the context of boddhisattva love. Examples would be talks from Upaya, Oregon Zen Centre and Zen Moutain Monastery. Similar thoughts are also contained in Joko Beck's books.

I'd say, if Zen is presented without warmth, joy, empathy in a group, run like hell!

[Risho]

... I still feel that a lot of western Zen is very contrived due to many of us westerners trying to live up to our stereotypical ideas about how practitioners should act, present themselves and come across.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on that. I think this happens in any discipline. When you start something like martial arts, or I don't know... a new job. You want to get it right sometimes so bad that you forget to be natural.

Gassho,

Risho

[Nindo]

... To me, hopefully we're all attached in some way to some people, because if we're not, then we're not loving. I don't know what love is, but when it is there it is there. I don't know what zazen is either, but when I'm doing it I'm doing it. Also, I think there is such a thing as wise attachment - relationships that are unselfish, kind, etc. We let go of, more and more, negative thoughts and feelings, negative relationships, but when love comes up are we supposed to think "Oh crap, now I'm loving, better let go" - Nah, probably not. Just to be aware that one is attached to someone is enough, lessens the attachment, makes it easier to love even, easier to go in the flow of loving, to give to them rather than to want from them. ...

(my highlights)

Since nobody has picked up Alan's statement yet, I will - just to throw it out there, as I'm not quite sure where I stand on this myself.

Is love equal to attachment?
Can it be true love if it is free from attachment?
Is love free from attachment just an ideal?
Does love get "better", "more pure" or whatever when attachment lessens?

My "ideal" love is expressed in this story:

One day some people came to the master and asked ‘How can you be happy in a world of such impermanence, where you cannot protect your loved ones from harm, illness and death?’ The master held up a glass and said ‘Someone gave me this glass, and I really like this glass. It holds my water admirably and it glistens in the sunlight. I touch it and it rings! One day the wind may blow it off the shelf, or my elbow may knock it from the table. I know this glass is already broken, so I enjoy it incredibly.’

Taken to our relationships, this would mean:
I know that my husband, mother, father, sister, friends are already dead, so I enjoy them incredibly...

[galen]

(my highlights)

Since nobody has picked up Alan's statement yet, I will - just to throw it out there, as I'm not quite sure where I stand on this myself.

Is love equal to attachment?
Can it be true love if it is free from attachment?
Is love free from attachment just an ideal?
Does love get "better", "more pure" or whatever when attachment lessens?

My "ideal" love is expressed in this story:


Taken to our relationships, this would mean:
I know that my husband, mother, father, sister, friends are already dead, so I enjoy them incredibly...

Well thrown, Nindo,

You have intrigued me, and alan has offered up a perfect dilemma of what or if, in this so-called ideal love, whether attachment is necessary and/or even real. Also, your response to the `master seemingly was a smash hit.

Is love equal to attachment?...... Is attachment equal to love? Is anything equal to love, or need to be? It seems if so-called love is real in the `world of phenomena, it would thrive more with nothing to ad, and esp clinging or even what could be called a healthy attachment.

Can it be true love if it is free from attachment?....... It seems so, even more so. Is it necessary to attach to any`thing?

Is love free from attachment just an ideal?...... Is anything ideal in the real sense, or is that a human construct, as even love seems to be? It seems if there is this so-called feeling of love, does it need a name or can it just be a felt sense, but maybe deeper then most feelings?

Does love get "better", "more pure" or whatever when attachment lessens?...... It seems so, esp in the `world of phenomena. If this so-called love is real, why would there be any need to attach, does it not speak for itself?

[Jinyo]

(my highlights)

Since nobody has picked up Alan's statement yet, I will - just to throw it out there, as I'm not quite sure where I stand on this myself.

Is love equal to attachment?
Can it be true love if it is free from attachment?
Is love free from attachment just an ideal?
Does love get "better", "more pure" or whatever when attachment lessens?

My "ideal" love is expressed in this story:


Taken to our relationships, this would mean:
I know that my husband, mother, father, sister, friends are already dead, so I enjoy them incredibly...

Hi Nindo - I like the story about the glass - not sure that I'd interpret it as meaning that objects of attachment are already dead, but it certainly
points to the inherent impermanence of all dharmas.

I think culturally we have a lot of difficulty with the buddhist notion of attachment - I'm wondering if we need to re-express the meaning of this in our own
words for our own time. All of our current knowledge on child development comes from 'attachment theory' and how important it is (to be able to love) to have
healthy attachments.

Not understanding what is meant by non-attachment in buddhism seems to throw up a lot of problems and misunderstanding.

I think in terms of loving, expressing love, we must embrace attachment - attachment is human and it's the emotional glue that holds together the bonds of love and caring we make.
Dhukka comes when we can not accept that attachment is no guarantee of permanence - all that we are and all that we love will pass away. Personally - I am not convinced that buddhism can protect us from the pain - but it can perhaps help us with acceptance.

Gassho

Willow

[Taigu]

Easy... I am attached to my beloved ones...So attached, just like anybody else. When they go, everything goes.

Easy, I am in pain when the beloved ones are suffering.

Easy, I am deluded.


And-Shikantaza-guy I sit
through
in
out
with
for it
without it
with it
or
i don't know


I sit in being this


Easy...


gassho


Taigu

[pinoybuddhist]

I care, I love, I form attachments, I embrace... and sometimes I get hurt because of this. Still: I care, I love, I form attachments, I embrace...

The blue sky does not push the clouds away.

[Marla567]

When I woke up today, I thought about a poem, that was very important for my life and I now want to share it with you.

Before I decided to go some kind of "spiritual path" (or better to say to go it again) I had a time I felt very cold and numb. I got the impression that I only have to function and it doesn't matter at all what it feels like. But that is really not true, because love and health are bound together: Our true self and love can't be divided.

That is the meaning of the poem and even if it is a christian story that is told in the poem I first read it in a Buddhist book and it's meaning truely is universal:

St. Francis And The Sow

The bud
stands for all things,
even those things that don't flower,
for everything flowers, from within, of self-blessing;
though sometimes it is necessary
to reteach a thing its loveliness,
to put a hand on its brow
of the flower
and retell it in words and in touch
it is lovely
until it flowers again from within, of self-blessing;
as St. Francis
put his hand on the creased forehead
of the sow, and told her in words and in touch
blessings of earth on the sow, and the sow
began remembering all down her thick length,
from the earthen snout all the way
through the fodder and slops to the spiritual curl of
the tail,
from the hard spininess spiked out from the spine
down through the great broken heart
to the blue milken dreaminess spurting and shuddering
from the fourteen teats into the fourteen mouths sucking
and blowing beneath them:
the long, perfect loveliness of sow.

Galway Kinnell

Gassho
Bianca

[Mp]

I care, I love, I form attachments, I embrace... and sometimes I get hurt because of this. Still: I care, I love, I form attachments, I embrace...

The blue sky does not push the clouds away.

Nicely put ...

Gassho
Michael

[Dosho]

Lovely Bianca...just lovely. May I ask what book that poem came from?

Gassho,
Dosho

St. Francis And The Sow

The bud
stands for all things,
even those things that don't flower,
for everything flowers, from within, of self-blessing;
though sometimes it is necessary
to reteach a thing its loveliness,
to put a hand on its brow
of the flower
and retell it in words and in touch
it is lovely
until it flowers again from within, of self-blessing;
as St. Francis
put his hand on the creased forehead
of the sow, and told her in words and in touch
blessings of earth on the sow, and the sow
began remembering all down her thick length,
from the earthen snout all the way
through the fodder and slops to the spiritual curl of
the tail,
from the hard spininess spiked out from the spine
down through the great broken heart
to the blue milken dreaminess spurting and shuddering
from the fourteen teats into the fourteen mouths sucking
and blowing beneath them:
the long, perfect loveliness of sow.

Galway Kinnell

[Marla567]

Lovely Bianca...just lovely. May I ask what book that poem came from?

Gassho,
Dosho

Joseph Goldstein: Insight Meditation

I liked this book very much. It is not about Zen, but about Western Buddhism in general. It was a recommendation of a German, who went to Thailand to become a monk and then came back to Germany as a monk to study and teach Buddhism.

Gassho
Bianca

[Seizan]

Hi Hans.

There is a wonderful Theravadin monk I know who's mother recently died. He has been a monk for maybe 40 years, and has been abbot of several monasteries. About ten years ago his elderly mother took ill and did not recover. My friend stepped down as abbot, returned to Canada, and moved in with his mother to nurse her.... she was very frail and could not take care of herself. He did this for ten years, which is tough for a Theravadin monk living by strict vinaya. His focus was nursing his mother, but he still gave talks from time to time, and lead the occasional weekend retreat. One time during a public talk, a lay person who was aware of his situation challenged him.. and told him he was (horrors) "attached" to his mother. This monk's response was angry.. "Ofcourse I'm attached to my mother.. SHE'S MY MOTHER!!". Now that is Theravada Buddhism, where sometimes you'll fine hard cases who just want to kiss this suffering world goodbye. But, I have found a pretty cold attitude among some Zen folk to... a kind of sublime sociopathy for an "illusory" world. It is not a stretch to imagine the Zen soldier hacking his way through Nanking. So.. yes, if I understand you correctly, I agree, more loving commitment... less selfish preoccupation with cool non-attachment, and the dissolving of every human value in emptiness to that end.

Gassho, kojip.

I definitely have to come back and read *every* post on this thread, but I thought I would chime in. When I first started studying Buddhism, I was really focusing on works by the Dalai Lama. He mentioned love so very often, and ways to cultivate love. He would often in the next paragraphs discuss attachment, but never was a clear correlation explained to me. In the margins of quite a few books I wrote notes on "why all this love if we can't be attached?"

I was very dismayed at the thought of non-attachment. Like Kojip's friend, I could not imagine not being attached to my husband- of course I am! I think you don't hear much about love in the teachings because it comes, in all its forms and definitions, easily in life. We love from the moment we are born- we love our mother for sustaining and comforting us as infants and then move on to other stages and manifestations. Non-attachment is something most people have to really study and work for.

I brought this up at a Tibetan group I was attending for a bit, and their answer after much discussion very much satisfied me. This might be a little off topic but just a theory I wanted to share that cleared up my own misunderstanding. Practicing non-attachment does not mean don't love, or that love itself doesn't matter, but it just means don't be so attached to things that when their true nature (impermanence) arises you are blindsided, kicked down, devastated, destroyed, overwhelmed etc. Love with clear sight.

I definitely think this ties in with the Zen readings I've studied so far- zazen is real life, life is zazen, zazen is seeing clearly. I think that love isn't really brought up so much because it is so natural and is already there when non-attachment is realized. Just my take, may have already been voiced and may be off topic! When you see clearly, the part that was taught and worked at (non-attachment) co-exists with the love you already knew.

Thich Nhat Hanh has a book that is really focused on love- I have yet to read it but I read in the descriptions that he fell in love with a young nun once and used that love to further his practice. http://www.amazon.com/Cultivating-Mi.../dp/1888375787.

Hope this wasn't repetitive/too off topic.

Gassho,
Dani

[Geika]

Dani said: "...This might be a little off topic but just a theory I wanted to share that cleared up my own misunderstanding. Practicing non-attachment does not mean don't love, or that love itself doesn't matter, but it just means don't be so attached to things that when their true nature (impermanence) arises you are blindsided, kicked down, devastated, destroyed, overwhelmed etc. Love with clear sight..."

I like this.

[Jundo]

Practicing non-attachment does not mean don't love, or that love itself doesn't matter, but it just means don't be so attached to things that when their true nature (impermanence) arises you are blindsided, kicked down, devastated, destroyed, overwhelmed etc.

I would say that is just how we would say it too. Thank you.

Can you love with all you heart ... yet not smother or overly cling?

Can you hold someone tightly in your arms when together ... yet be willing to let them go when life makes it so in passing time?

Can you feel the natural grief and tears of loss ... yet the Peace and Buddha Smile of acceptance ... All At Once, As One?

I would say this is what we Practice.

Gassho, Jundo