Priests and Priests: Walking the Buddhist and Christian Path [Archive]

doogie

12-08-2010, 07:45 PM

NOTE FROM JUNDO: THESE POSTS WERE SPLIT FROM ANOTHER THREAD

"Gustav Ericsson is a very nice chap, and also an ordained Christian priest in the Church of Sweden."

I find it interesting that a Christian Priest would receive dharma transmission. I've heard of this before, and it may have been discussed elsewhere in the forum, but I wasn't able to find anything.

It brings up many questions that are difficult for me to formulate. I suppose in the spirit of non-duality it makes perfect sense. Or non-sense. But in the practical world of distinctions how can one be a master of two seemingly opposed religious viewpoints? One that seeks to end suffering by ending delusion, and one that seeks to end suffering by inculcating delusion.

I realize the second half of that last sentence might seem offensive to some, but it wasn't meant to be.

Does the fact that one can be a Christian priest (with all the dogma that entails) relegate Soto Zen Buddhism to little more than a system of techniques rather than a religion? Do the precepts simply become a subordinate adjunctive philosophy? Can one vow with one breath to save all sentient beings, and with another breath promise everlasting life only to those who take refuge in a specific god or trinity of gods?

Has Nishijima Roshi ever written anything on this topic?

Out of pure curiosity (and I'm sure there's no way to know this anymore than I can know how someone else experiences Hot or Cold), but I wonder if holding Christian beliefs (or any other religious beliefs) while sitting zazen inhibit or give a very different flavor to a satori-type experience than a Buddhist might have.

Another question also comes to mind on the topic of dharma transmission. Do you, Jundo, feel a sense of responsibility for passing along Nishijima's tradition as it was passed to you, and do you worry that others might be altering the tradition, and in effect changing the message? Put another another way, do you expect your future dharma heirs to pass along the tradition that you received from Nishijima Roshi as you received it?

Gassho,

David

Jundo

12-09-2010, 02:17 AM

Hi David,

Some big questions! Well, first, I will also ask our very wise Fr. Kyrillos to join in with some observations, as he is walking that walk. Fr. James too, if he sees this.

I usually sum up our practice as, at heart, sitting with (and as) "what is" ... just as it is ... whatever it is, pushing nothing away. So, I sometimes write ...

Here is my simplistic view:

If there is a "God" ... whether in the Judeo-Christian way or some other, whether named "Allah" "Jehovah" "Thor" "Brahma" or "Stanley" ... I will fetch water and chop wood, seeking to live in a gentle way.

If there is no "God" "Allah" or "Stanley", or any source or creator or point to the universe at all, I will fetch water and chop wood, seeking to live in a gentle way.

If there is a "God" or "Power" or "Spirit" who has kindly given us life, I will honor that fact by living that life fully and seeking to be a human being who does little harm to others of his/her/its/whatever's creatures and creations.

And if there is no such "God" or "Power" or "Spirit", I will still live this life fully and seek to do little harm.

I think that, in our Zen Practice, we do taste a truth that some people may call "God" or "That" or "Thou" or "Buddha" or some such name. It is the sensation that there is some intimate connection to this universe, some profound basis to our being born, some deep beauty behind it all. In fact, we experience that this Reality, and all creatures, are just who we are ... that we are just That.

But my attitude remains much like a newborn infant lying in a crib, not understanding anything beyond the fact that shadows are passing before its eyes. The world contains many mysteries that the infant cannot fathom. Yet somehow we were allowed the wonder of life, and something in this world provides the sun and air and nutriment and drink we need to survive. Here we are, and some wonderful cause(s) let us be so!

If it is just the world, mechanical and unthinking, I express my gratitude to that.

If it is a "god" or "power" or "consciousness" or something else far beyond our understanding, I express my gratitude to that.

If someone is a Christian or Muslim or Jew and open to Buddhism, I see no reason that they cannot combine the two smoothly. (It depends on how flexible they are in their own minds about combining the perspectives.) But, you can practice Zen if you are a baseball fan, you can practice Zen if you are a football fan, you can practice if you believe in god, you can practice if you don't, you can practice if one fundamentally drops the whole need for the question.

In all cases we sit with (and as) what is ... and should not be so quick to think that others' views are not what is. I also write ...

The Buddha did not even say that he was the only Buddha, and many Sutra and such imply that there are countless Buddhas ... more than all the grains of sand of all the seas anywhere among the stars. Personally, I do not think that "my way" is the only way ... and different people might cross this mountain on many good paths (anyway, WHAT MOUNTAIN?) Certainly, all paths just go where they go, and we always are just where we are (however, though there is no place to "get to" ... some "ways" lead in circles, off a cliff or into the poison ivy.)

I would not even be so quick to assume that the other fellow's path is wrong for her, or that one might not walk several paths at once on this wondrous non-mountain.

I might also point to some of the threads in the "Tackles the BIG Questions" series, which touch on such BIG questions. :D

viewforum.php?f=24 (http://http://www.treeleaf.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=24)

Another question also comes to mind on the topic of dharma transmission. Do you, Jundo, feel a sense of responsibility for passing along Nishijima's tradition as it was passed to you, and do you worry that others might be altering the tradition, and in effect changing the message? Put another another way, do you expect your future dharma heirs to pass along the tradition that you received from Nishijima Roshi as you received it?

I most certainly feel that I am practicing in Nishijima Roshi's way, and certainly in keeping with the "Homeless Kodo" Sawaki-Uchiyama Roshi corner of Soto Zen we fall in, and certainly within Soto Zen, Zen, Buddhism ... etc., and I feel a love and loyalty in doing so.

At the same time, there is something quite close about our Practice to the Practice of learning to be, for example, a classical pianist in a conservatory (I actually have a couple of those in my family). I may play the same black and white keys, and the same 'Bach and Beethoven' as my teacher ... but everyone phrases the music in their way of expression. Same tune, same instrument. Otherwise, Buddhism would have changed not a drop over the centuries (which it did, even though the heart is unchanged) (Dogen called the relationship of teacher and student "entwined vines").

I am a guy who grew up in the 70's in America, Nishijima Roshi and Sawaki Roshi in 1930's Japan ... (and, of course, Dogen in the 13th century, and Buddha 2500 years ago in Ancient India) ... so same music, but different ears and voices. However, the Heart of the Buddha's teachings ... the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, Non-Self, Non-Attachment, the Middle Way, etc. etc., ... All are here now as much as there then!! What's more, we are a pretty typical and mainstream Sangha in the content and style of Soto Practice being taught around Treeleaf, especially as it is found in the West these days. And not to mention too: When there is sitting a moment of Zazen ... perfectly whole, just complete unto itself, without borders and duration, not long or short, nothing to add or take away, containing all moments and no moments in "this one moment" ... piercing Dukkha, attaining non-self, non-attached ... then there is not the slightest gap between each of us and the Buddha.

I hope that someday you learn to play a heck of a piano in your style. In the meantime, keep practicing your scales. :)

Gassho, J

Jundo

12-09-2010, 08:22 AM

What about the accepting Christ as one's personal savior?

Seems to me that atman and anatman are different coins altogether.Then there's sunyata --

... although sunyata (emptiness) makes things all there/not different, yet not .... much as Chugai is there, and is all things, yet not ...

This dichotomy of atman (abiding self-hood) and anatman (no abiding self-hood) was never quite as clear in Buddhist history as one might think. Some feel that it crept back into Buddhism in the Mahayana with visions of, for example, the "all pervading, timeless, true and ultimate" Dharmakaya body of Buddha ...

http://buddhism.about.com/od/buddhismgl ... makaya.htm (http://http://buddhism.about.com/od/buddhismglossaryd/g/dharmakaya.htm)

The result was something darn close to a "Cosmic One Spirit" ... yet in a system also allowing for impermanence and "no independent selfness" too.

(and before anyone objects that is was something that crept into and polluted "real Zen" ... such is not the case. Dogen and all the rest of them were into it very much).

Quiet often Gautama, the historical Buddha (who, says the Mahayana, was the Nirmanakaya to Dharmakaya http://buddhism.about.com/od/buddhismgl ... nakaya.htm (http://http://buddhism.about.com/od/buddhismglossaryn/g/nirmanakaya.htm) ) just refused to answer all such 'BIG' questions as irrelevant. His method was to afford us escape and end suffering, and taking a stand on some things was a side issue (assuming that even he knew for sure):

Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta - The Shorter Instructions to Malunkya

Ven. Malunkyaputta arose from seclusion and went to the Blessed One. On arrival, having bowed down, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "Lord, just now, as I was alone in seclusion, this train of thought arose in my awareness: 'These positions that are undeclared, set aside, discarded by the Blessed One... I don't approve, I don't accept that the Blessed One has not declared them to me. I'll go ask the Blessed One about this matter. If he declares to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,' that 'The cosmos is not eternal,' that 'The cosmos is finite,' that 'The cosmos is infinite,' that 'The soul & the body are the same,' that 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' that 'After death a Tathagata exists,' that 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' that 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' then I will live the holy life under him. then I will live the holy life under him. If he does not declare to me that "The cosmos is eternal,"... etc. or that "After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist," then I will renounce the training and return to the lower life.'

[The Buddha answered]:

"Malunkyaputta, did I ever say to you, 'Come, Malunkyaputta, live the holy life under me, and I will declare to you that "The cosmos is eternal,"... etc. or that "After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,"

"No, lord."

"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.

"In the same way, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' the man would die and those things would still remain undeclared by the Tathagata.

"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'... 'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... 'After death a Tathagata exists'... 'After death a Tathagata does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' is undeclared by me.

"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to [non-attachment], dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.

Also, if one were to visit a typical Zen temple in Japan, Korea or China, one might be surprised how "religious", worshipful and even "deifying" (although not literally calling Buddhas as "gods") ceremonies and doctrine can be ... closer to what might be seen in a Catholic Church in the West than you might imagine. Western Zen Buddhism (with the exception of some Sangha, such as perhaps the OBC/Shasta Abbey) has, in fact, stripped a lot of the "worship" and "churchiness" out of Zen that is found in Asia.

Gassho, Jundo

Hans

12-09-2010, 11:44 AM

Hello,

just a suggestion. Might we move the last part of this thread to a new individual thread? This might make it easier for future forum readers to find the topic.

Allow me to add at this point, that when using words like "God", "Chrstianity" etc., there are so many individual interpretations, that it is of absolute importance to clearly define these terms.

It's slightly tedious, I know, but otherwise we'll end up with dozens of comments slightly talking past one another (and I for one have wasted hours and hours in such phantom discussions).

An impersonal yet all encompassing principle is different from a personal entity with likes and dislikes who cares about which kind of meat to eat, days of the week etc.

Also let's please remember that sometimes there is no right and wrong to be found. I have observed a slight tendency for mystically minded people to sometimes cultivate a kind of well meaning arrogance that sees their mystical approach as the valid one, a position that automatically (though not explicitly or voluntarily) paints the average practitioner as a non-enlightened sheep (excuse my slight exaggeration here).

A lot of terms that used to have a distinct kind of meaning are being opened up to include just about any personal interpretation, making a true discussion of many topics almost impossible. Precision of meaning is being sacrificed on the altar of "let's respect each ther's views" very often in this postmodern day and age IMHO.

I love the diversity of mystical traditions and am a great admirer of Rumi, Teresa of Avila and a few others, but if you eat meat, you are not a vegetarian in my book.
Can you eat meat, be happy and call yourself a vegetarian without that being anybody's issue but yours? Sure. But the more people are doing that, the more the term "vegetarian" will lose its power of definition and original meaning.

Gassho,

Hans

P.S. Please keep in mind that I am only at the beginning of my training as a priest. I am sure throughout the process of receiving further instruction and hopefully gaining more experience in life in general, my views are bound to undergo a process of clarification.

doogie

12-09-2010, 04:42 PM

Jundo,

Thank you for your response. I think I understand your point about chopping wood and fetching water with regard to what might or might not be "out there," "in here," "over there." There's no way to know one way or another, so just sit. That's the practice. But I would think that somebody who takes a vow as a catholic priest or church of Sweden priest must hold tightly to the fundamental doctrine of those churches.

If one does NOT believe in Jesus Christ as the resurrected only-begotten son of God, in heaven and hell, Satan, and various other things the Catholic church holds to be absolute inviolate truths, then taking a vow as an officer of that church--as a teacher of those truths--would be spiritual fraud.

If the priest DOES *believe* in those inviolate truths--holds them firmly in his heart--then can he ever get past a certain point in his progress as a Soto Zen Buddhist? Can he (generic he, no one in particular) ever truly experience the universe as it is if he clings to any idea, let alone a rigidly dualistic doctrine. Or does it simply not matter what you believe in this practice?

Is it fine for me to walk around during the day believing that an alien overlord spirit named Bob secretly runs the universe from his bachelor pad in Betelgeuse as long as I practice my shikantaza at night? I suppose that by practicing, that particular delusion (I don't really believe in Bob--everyone knows Steve runs things now) might fall away eventually, but perhaps not.

I was just struck by the notion that one can be a an ordained Bobbist on the one hand, and a zen master/Buddhist teacher/lineage holder/non-dualist cushion warrior on the other.

****And I hope no one thinks that I'm putting down Christianity (or Bobbism for that matter.) That's certainly not my intent. I can see that in certain circumstances one can be both a wonderful Buddhist and a wonderful Christian at the same time, but both world views have to be plastic enough to meld with each other. Orthodoxy, however, doesn't allow for plasticity.

Saijun

12-09-2010, 05:04 PM

Hello all,

There are conservative and liberal takes on just about everything in life; perhaps plasticity in the belief system is secondary to plasticity in the practitioner's mind?

When I broke away from the Church, I was very very "fundamentalist" Buddhist. I could not, would not, entertain the notion that there could be more than one path. However, as I've (hopefully) matured in my practice, I can gradually see that Buddhism is so much more than an orthodox religion. Surely there are people that take it as such, but you don't have to. Gradually, the Dharma is more and more revealing itself to me as the chair that I sit on, the monitor I read the forums on, the dishes that need doing. Everyday life.

I know Christians and Sufis that would say, have said, much the same thing. Not just a "big old man looking down from Heaven," but the interactions between people. The opening of the heart, becoming as Christ was (it sounds very much like the Bodhisattva path, as I understand it).

Of course I don't understand everything I should, and maybe this "kinship" is all in my head, but I truly think that there is nothing that could exclude practicing both the Buddha-Dharma and the Christ-Dharma.

(And, as an aside, I have a sneaking suspicion that Christianity isn't nearly as dualistic as it seems.)

Just my thoughts.

Much Metta to all,

Perry

doogie

12-09-2010, 05:41 PM

Saijun

12-09-2010, 06:26 PM

You'd really have to pick and choose the particular Christ-Dharma that fits with the Christ-the-Bodhisattva model. It can be argued that Rabbi Jesus was every bit the religious zealot as those who wrote down his story long after his death. Much of Christ-as-enlightened-master version of the man is a backward projection and reformulation of the truth. I doubt Jesus was any more of a perfected being than Gautama. That said, the Buddha probably gets in the way of realization (enlightenment, whatever) more than Christ.

Hello doogie,

Could not a "backward projection and reformulation of the truth" simply be observing something in hindsight? I know that my parents were terrible strict dictators when I was a child, but the older I get, the more I understand what they were trying to do at the time. I'm sure that you're correct that over time the truth has been reformulated, but could this be simply another interpretation?

As to "Christ-the-Bodhisattva," I (not being a Christian, nor equipped with an encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible), think that you can see the underlying desire to help people, to show a better (for lack of a better word) way to live, even in his angry moments. Belief in a soul or not, belief in a God or not, don't you think that it could be said that anyone who encourages generosity, self-control, and forgiveness is a Bodhisattva?

I don't think that one even needs to be aware of being a Bodhisattva to be a Bodhisattva, but that's just me and my limited, deluded thinking.

Thanks for listening to the ramble,

Perry

JohnsonCM

12-09-2010, 07:02 PM

Some big questions and big words here!

The first thing that I would like to say is that it is important that we remember that one can experience Christ, or Allah, or Vishnu, or Buddha in different ways, but always with the heart. The problem that seems to be in dispute here isn't so much the Way of Buddhism vice the Way of Christianity but rather dogma. In another thread, Jundo explains that the suttras were all written well after the Buddha's death, so the faithfulness of each written word might not match up with each spoken word from Buddha's mouth. Just so with Christianity. All the dogma that is now part of the Christian faith was resolved in a counsel, called the cousel of Nicea (where Christians get the Nicean Creed) and it was there that Emperor Constantine of Rome and the presiding cardinals of the time first codified the writings of the bible and addmitted the books considered to be cannonical and threw out the rest. That was done by Man. If you have a moment, look into the Dead Sea scrolls, more commonly known as the Gnostic Bible. These were purportedly written by Jesus and his disciples and in them you'll find a decidedly different view on things than that addopted by the modern Catholic Church. Also remember that most historians of the time and continuing up until the Enlightenment were of two classes, royalty (who derived their power from divine providence and so had an interest in proliferating the faith) and the priestly class. History, along with policy and proceedure, is written by the victors.

So, what all that means to me is this. I think one can be a Buddhist and a Christian with no problems. I think that if one really delves into the history of the religion of the Christ, you might find that his teachings more closely approximated those of Buddha than you'd think. The rest is man made, and subject to the failings of man.

doogie

12-09-2010, 07:45 PM

Perry,

We cannot observe Christ in hindsight. To do so is a mental projection. A delusion. All we can do is read what was written about him and interpret those recorded events for ourselves. However, the events you're reading about--the King James bible for instance--is already a product of multiple interpretations/biases/agendas. Only certain events were recorded, many of which have been altered over time, and then of course there's always the problem of translation.

The particular flavor of Christ in your head might not even come close to the actual man, or even to anyone's else's notion of what Christ is. That makes Christ-the-Bodhisattva more of an abstract idea. And there's nothing wrong with that. As long as one sees it for what it is.

In reality, Jesus may have been a terribly intolerant person. I'm not saying he was. Fact is, know one knows. Looking at various religious leaders today though, it's not a huge leap to say that he may have held some prejudices. Certainly he wasn't too fond of money lenders anyway. The Dalai Llama has his peculiar views on homosexuality, and Nishijima Roshi and other zen teachers have (had) their own biases against various ethnic groups.

Romanticizing a man, any man, and putting him up on an impossibly high pedestal is much like romanticizing zen and attaching things to it that aren't helpful for someone on that path. Getting back to the problem of translation, I've just downloaded a really interesting paper on how Zen in the Art of Archery did that for many people, even me when I was a child. It presented zen as something it is not.

One could say that it's just a matter of of interpretation whether the book does or does not present the truth of zen, but when we look at the facts, the author's master archery teacher wasn't even a zen practitioner, he didn't speak English, and his Japanese most likely wasn't relayed correctly. The zen in German philosopher Eugen Herrigel's mind was a product of his own making. And then the whole story was further translated from German into English, thereby going through somebody else's mind who may have "corrected" or otherwise altered the work.

Calling Jesus a Boddhisattva, or Gautama a Buddha seems rather useless to me. If you don't believe in the miracles, then the only thing separating you from Christ is action. The only thing separating you from Buddha is realization that you are Buddha. If one doesn't believe in his heart of hearts that Jesus was the Messiah--something other or outside come to save you--then calling oneself a Christian is no different than calling oneself a Ghandian or any other venerable -ian.

I am Christ. I am Buddha. I am Jundo. I am Perry. To seek to be them, or to worship them, or to attain what *they* attained, is to believe that they are other than me. Separate from me.

The word "Christian" has a meaning to most Christians, and though you might change the meaning of the word to describe yourself (Not you, Perry), it wouldn't mean the same thing that it does to most other Christians. And words are useless if they don't communicate meaning (the correct meaning) to others. That's their whole purpose, right? I want to tell you what I believe, so I call myself a Christian, and from that you can unpack all the baggage that the word entails and know generally what I believe. Same with Soto Zen Buddhist or Rinzai Zen Buddhist, no?

I grew up LDS, and I've met lots of Christians, but I've never met anyone who identified themselves as Christian who didn't believe that Jesus was the one true son of God, the only way to salvation, and that he and/or God (it gets fuzzy there) are going to judge each of us as worthy or unworthy of a seat at God's table. In a sense, it's almost anti-Buddhist. It's company line that a Christian priest is expected to toe and teach others. So we're not just talking about an average Joe who holds a vague notion of a Christlike it's-all-good-man Bodhisattva, but rather a representative and proponent of a dualistic orthodoxy.

Sorry for yet another long post. The things I'll do avoid writing what I'm supposed to be writing.

Saijun

12-09-2010, 08:05 PM

...The particular flavor of Christ in your head might not even come close to the actual man, or even to anyone's else's notion of what Christ is. That makes Christ-the-Bodhisattva more of an abstract idea. And there's nothing wrong with that. As long as one sees it for what it is.

I think that this, and the whole of your post, is a fair criticism. Siddhartha Gotoma must have been different from the Lord Buddha we remember. I'm sure Jesus of Nazereth was just as human as either of us. However, that abstract idea can, if held lightly, used mindfully, become an ideal--something to remind us of what we're trying to do. Like the Buddha image on an altar, no? And if we hold both Buddha and Christ as an ideal, something to be used skillfully to tread the path, how are they different?

I think that you may be coming at this from a slightly more devotionally minded angle, and I from a more practical (as in practice oriented, not more useful) angle. And I completely agree with the points you've made regarding devotion, and dualism in that paradigm.

Calling Jesus a Boddhisattva, or Gautama a Buddha seems rather useless to me. If you don't believe in the miracles, then the only thing separating you from Christ is action. The only thing separating you from Buddha is realization that you are Buddha. If one doesn't believe in his heart of hearts that Jesus was the Messiah--something other or outside come to save you--then calling oneself a Christian is no different than calling oneself a Ghandian or any other venerable -ian.

I fully and completely agree that the only thing separating us from the from Buddha or Jesus is action. That's why I'm here, trying to learn. However, I've always (heretically) viewed Christ as a perfected human. He was the son of God in the sense that he completely embodied what he saw as the nature of God; his entire life was a finger pointing at the moon for the people of Judea. This is just my own personal interpretation, and I know that it's completely unacceptable in the orthodoxy.

I am Christ. I am Buddha. I am Jundo. I am Perry. To seek to be them, or to worship them, or to attain what *they* attained, is to believe that they are other than me. Separate from me.

Still, there is work to be done, at least for me, before I can actualize the way. Holding the two as examples of compassion and wisdom, each doing what they could to ease suffering. Ghandi, Mother Theresa, Rumi, all fine examples. Even if they have been deified to one degree or another.

I'm a simple, deluded, struggling human being. For now, I need my ideals to act as a beacon when I wander off the path. Perhaps someday I'll be able to "burn the sutras" and "kill the Buddha," but for now they are useful tools, not to be abandoned too early.

Sorry for yet another long post. The things I'll do avoid writing what I'm supposed to be writing.

You know, I just heard the *exact* same words from my father on the telephone :lol:

In any case, I think that we're on the same page, just talking a little past each other. Isn't that how it always happens?

Metta,

Perry

Onshin

12-09-2010, 08:12 PM

Hi
Years ago I remember watching a documentary where the inhabitants of a town in Java ( I think) were building a new temple. All the religions pooled thier resources so this temple was divided into three, Taoist, Buddhist and Hindu with televisions in each so you could keep up with ceremonies going on at the same time. In China they have no problem in following Taoist philosphy, Confusionism and Buddhism at the same time. It seems that this idea that you have to believe in one thing to the exclusion of all else is purely in the Judeo-Christian world, and not just within those two religions.

Gassho

Joe

doogie

12-09-2010, 08:19 PM

I think we are on the same page. Couldn't be otherwise.

I'd just like to add that, like you, I do think Jesus was a perfected man. He should be. We've had nearly two thousand years to perfect him.

;-)

David/Doogie

Taigu

12-10-2010, 12:46 AM

I don't accept the Christ I met as a child, or through the church. Nowadays, I don't want to hear about Christ. But I am sure He doesn t mind. If he does, I am sorry for Him. I feel so good with my brothers Christian, Muslim, Jew...I don't mind what they believe or not. I deeply feel and experience the connection beyond our apparent differences.
Just do your thing, do it with all you heart and that's it.

gassho

Taigu

Hans

12-10-2010, 09:04 AM

Hello everyone,

may I recommend a wonderful book (I read it in German so I don't know what the English translation is like) written by the famous Egyptologist and religious scholar Jan Assmann: "The Price of Monotheism".

http://www.amazon.com/Price-Monotheism- ... t_ep_dpt_1 (http://http://www.amazon.com/Price-Monotheism-Jan-Assmann/dp/0804761604/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1)

There are very distinct differences between religions, not only in terms of general doctrine, but in their relation to notions of ultimate truth. Assmann shows what a massive game changer the advent of middle-easter monotheism was in terms of establishing notions of "ultimate truths". It is a whole lot easier for most average polytheists to accept other people's practise than it was traditionally the other way around. All animosity aside, Buddhism and Shinto have many currents where their practise overlaps, but it is still possible to distinguish them from one another very clearly.

Maybe I might suggest that we should also keep in mind the fact that neither Christianity's nor Buddhism's doctrines are free of contradictions.

As a rookie novice priest, I find that these question are not just academic gymnastics, but do open up a whole load of other questions all having to do with the future of Zen in the West.

Thank you for all your contributions that make me re-evaluate my own position time and again.

Gassho,

Hans

JohnsonCM

12-10-2010, 01:41 PM

Maybe I might suggest that we should also keep in mind the fact that neither Christianity's nor Buddhism's doctrines are free of contradictions.

This is why I was drawn particularly to Zen. It has been said that Zen is a transmission "beyond words" and the emphasis in our Way is to know the dharma, not just intellectually, but to experience it in all things and all forms. Words, whether written or spoken, are at the mercy of those who repeat them, and they get changed from their original meaning to suit the person speaking them. This is why there are so many schizms in so many religions. Catholic, Christian, Methodist, Free Presbyterian, Lutheran, Mormon, Scientologist, Baptist, Protestant, Anglican, Pali Buddhism, Theravada, Mahayana, Gelug, Islam, Sufism, Sihkism, Sunni, Shiite, on and on and on. These all say that they are the heirs of the original teachings of their religious leaders, but they can't all be right? Or can they?

Bits and pieces, perhaps, of the original sewn together with the personal beliefs of those who broke from their churches.

But our Way is beyond that. Our Way teaches us to experience the dharma for ourselves. I think, too, that many of the original teachings of the original religious worthies, follow that as well. I recalled something from the Gnostic Bible (Dead Sea scrolls) I believe directly from the Gospel of Jesus where he said, "You shall not find me in any place made of wood or stone, you will only find my dwelling place in the hearts of men." This was stricken from scripture as blasphemy by the Catholic Church, for obvious reasons, but this I think is more in line with what the actual Jesus might have said.

Seishin the Elder

12-10-2010, 04:56 PM

I suppose it is about time for me to weigh in here on this discussion. I did try yesterday, and I had a rather lengthy response with all sorts of quotes and then, just at the end my fat fingers toched something on the keyboard and it all...disappeared. I couldn't get it back. After a while, I thought about it and decided it was a lot of blather anyhow and deserved to be "disappeared".

Okay Doogie, I see your point, but only if you are using the paradigm of the dogmatic Christian Church of the West since about the 14th century. But even within that there can arise those who see the universality (the true meaning of catholic, btw) of Christianity and are able to live it fully, in their hearts and still have room in there for something else like Buddhism. Two major Catholic clergymen who were able to do this spring to mind simply because they are spiritual heroes of mine, Fr. Bede Griffiths and Fr. Thomas Merton. When onew breaks down their writings on their individual spiritual journeys one finds that what is key to both of them is "the heart". The Compassionate Heart is the place where, I believe, all division dissolves. Sure if I stay in my head, in doctrine and dogma; I cannot, will not come to much else but a condescending acceptance of "meditation tachniques" from Eastern Asian religion, and there may be some of those people out there doing just that. I am not referring to those people.

I have been a monk for about 40 years. I started in the Eastern Orthodox tradition and over the years transitioned through Byzantine Catholic to Benedictine Monastic spirituality. I am presently an Eastern Rite Benedictine hermit monk. I am fortunate in that all of my spiritual training has been in the monastic school, which is vastly different than the "secular-diocesan" school, where dogma, doctrine and the canons of the church are paramount. In the Eastern, in particular the Russian, Byzantine/Orthodox monastic school our training was primarily toward the mystical experience of being through the liturgy, offices of prayer, meditation and Prayer of the Heart. I have been fortunate in that through my years I was able to meet and become acquainted with monastic not of the Christian church, but in whom I was able to recognize a similar "heart". As a Christian monk I was able to spend time with them in their monastic settings in places like Shasta Abbey, Ramakrishna Vedanta Monastery, and others. Certainly there was difference sometimes in language, dress and custom, but at the heart of it all we all were moving toward discovering whatever it was that the universal cosmic revelation was. We all come to that point "from" someplace. None of us springs whole into Cosmic Consciousness. But coming from someplace does not mean that that is the only place there is, nor does it mean that it limits to where we may go. I did not stop being of Italian ancestary because I was in a Russian church. I do not need to flush Christ from my heart to be Buddhist; the same Compassionate Heart resides in both the Christ and the Buddha.

I know there are even Buddhists who hold that one cannot be a Christian or a Jew, or whatever and practice Buddhism. I have met that even in the Western Christian world: he's Latino, he cannot be Greek Orthodox; oh!, you're not German, and yet you're a Luthren? Spiritual phyletism is still very much alive in the 21st century! I am also sure that there are many who have felt hurt or betrayed by the Christian Church, or more properly by the human beings involved in it, and so paint the entire structure with a tar brush and feel justified in doing so. I just do not feel people ought to carry all that baggage around with them so much. Perhaps it is because I felt the extreme weight of all that sort of baggage over the years that I finally decided to drop it all at one depot or another and travel more lightly. As you pointed out Doogie, much of what the Church holds as Dogma was formed by the Church Councils staring with Nicea, and always under the authority of the Emperors, and always with an agenda. But what is also true is that through all of that time there was also the culture of the monastic Fathers and Mothers in the Desert at Theses, on Mount Athos and the steppes of Russia that kept alive a mystical tradition we believe more reflective of the life taught by the Christ, and as it comes more into contact with other monastic forms finds harmonies its practitioners relate to. Such has been what Bede Griffiths, Thomas Merton and this old monk have found. It is on that basis that I can unequivocally say that I am both a Christian and Buddhist monk.

Gassho,

Seishin Kyrill

JohnsonCM

12-10-2010, 07:11 PM

On the subject of religious dogma, I would like to recount a joke from the famous Emo Phillips:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!"

He said, "Nobody loves me."

I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes."

I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"

He said, "A Christian."

I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"

He said, "Baptist."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Baptist."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."

I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

'nuff said.

doogie

12-10-2010, 07:24 PM

Hahaha. I forgot all about that joke. I used to listen to Emo Philips tapes when I was a kid. I was a weird kid. Thanks.

Jundo

12-11-2010, 03:02 AM

Another baffling point (to me) to walking the Buddhist path as a Christian or the Christian Path as a Buddhist is why?

Is it a case of riding two horses or jack of all trades syndrome?

http://buddhism.about.com/b/2010/12/04/ ... d.htm?nl=1 (http://http://buddhism.about.com/b/2010/12/04/buddhism-as-belief-salad.htm?nl=1)

Anyway no matter what it seems to be the secret ingredient --

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091802.htm (http://http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101207091802.htm)

Hi Chugai,

First, the description of "Buddhism in Japan" at the top link is not my experience at all. I will post a comment there.

There are several things here in Japan which one MUST believe in unquestioningly if one is to be accepted into a temple and considered a true Buddhist.

1) reincarnation
2) souls and ghosts
3) various realms of heaven and hell
4) demons
5) prayer
6) the Bodhisattvas are REAL gods
7) Buddha is a god residing in a heavenly realm

I cannot speak for all forms of Buddhism in Japan, but the modern Japanese are not very insistent on these things, and one will find all variety of folks ... clergy or not ... some who believe literally, some who believe figuratively, some who don't give these things much thought at all. It is not, in fact, unlike how things are now in the west, where LOTS of folks believe in things like ghosts and spirits. Depends on the person. At least, my experience of modern "Soto Zen" in Japan is that most of the teachers are pretty "down to earth" and fairly "modern thinkers", who do not push the literalness of such things, and leave some other questions (such as about the details of "rebirth") as just open questions. It may be different in other sects of Buddhism here (I know that Buddhism in China and some other places tends to be a bit more into "ghosts and spirits" and such than the Japanese these days).

The other point is about "having two masters". As far as I am concerned (and as Fr. K's description speaks so well), it depends how this is done. One must have many teachers, learning from any wise voice, and from children, the mountains and trees. Look, one can "make a salad" wisely or foolishly. Tomatoes and greens go together well, but I would not mix and match ketchup and bananas! :?

Another interesting parallel is the way that some Zen Buddhists have comfortably incorporated the teachings of Jodo (Pure Land) Amida Buddhism, which has many similarities to Christianity, with a "messiah" like figure and a "pie in the sky" vision of heaven. In fact, most of Chan/Zen in China and Vietnam is now a combination of Zen and Pure Land. For any doctrinal wonks out there, the following article discusses how doctrines were reconciled (and sometimes not) over the centuries Unfortunately, I cannot find a copy online ...

Chappell, David W. 1986. "From Dispute to Dual Cultivation: Pure Land Responses to Ch'an Critics." In Peter N. Gregory , ed., Traditions of Meditation in Chinese Buddhism, pp. 163-197. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

However, D.T.Suzuki (not to be confused with Suzuki Roshi) became quite taken with Pure Land in his later years, though in ways quite harmonious with his vision of Zen Practice ...

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... -nuG-ghX2w (http://http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:2Lw7z4Lqj_sJ:www.worldwisdom.com/public/viewpdf/default.aspx%3Farticle-title%3DShin_Buddhism_by_DT_Suzuki.pdf+dt,+suzuki+ pure+land&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShSGtBGHn7VV5mFxkoCBwmA1ZSqFnNYS9wEgBH3 F3gO6IXe5FIyEq0tq3Lutosq0zYJZIk44cYbm21CMnt9oDuCdN eFvdr9Nl72RJO0djOldGzbzgyVGYgSEieHGLXa6N9UtJsS&sig=AHIEtbTOXqHrscOVNErIuXxp-nuG-ghX2w)

Gassho, Jundo

doogie

12-11-2010, 04:03 AM

I found this to be an interesting site which references the Three Pillars of Zen. It describes the five varieties of zen--Bompu, Gedo, Shojo, Daijo, and Saijojo:
http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/fivetypes.html

It presents Saijojo as the highest form of zen. Not surprisingly, the zen of the soto sect. The zen of shikantaza. If a Rinzai guy wrote it, he'd have placed Daijo as the highest form of zen, right?

It goes on to say that Zazen is the actualization of your undefiled True-nature. Sounds good. But the fundamental underpinning of Christianity is the concept of original sin, isn't it? The concept that we are born sinners. In essence, we are born defiled. It was Christ, then, who died for those sins. I know of no Christian religion that doesn't hold this to be true, though I'm sure there are individual Christians who don't believe it at all. But priests? Ministers? I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that one can create their own salad of beliefs for themselves, but can one be a Jewish rabbi, a soto zen priest, a catholic priest, a taoist priest, and a Lutheran minister all at the same time?

If I believe that the purpose of zazen is to strive to awaken to my true nature using koans, am I practicing soto zen? If I believe Jesus was just a compassionate man, or even a Bodhisattva, and not the only begotten son of God at all, am I a Christian? If I don't believe in transubstantiation, am I a Catholic? Can you believe in transubstantiation and original sin and practice soto zen? Or more specifically, can I believe in transubstantiation and original sin and still receive dharma transmission from Jundo?

Jundo

12-11-2010, 04:09 AM

It goes on to say that Zazen is the actualization of your undefiled True-nature. Sounds good. But the fundamental underpinning of Christianity is the concept of original sin, isn't it? The concept that we are born sinners. In essence, we are born defiled.

Well, whether we are "born" with it or not, whether it is just the way we act here or now or not, and even despite dropping all thought of "pure vs. defiled" or not ... I still chant this each week:

All evil karma ever committed by me since of old,
On account of beginning-less greed, anger, and ignorance,
Born of my body, mouth and mind,
Now I atone (which is also "at one") for them all.

So, one way or the other, all comes out in the wash.

Gassho, J

doogie

12-11-2010, 04:50 AM

:-)

Yes, it's been a while since I chanted that. I suppose I'm overdo.

Gassho

Seishin the Elder

12-11-2010, 06:38 AM

12-11-2010, 07:36 AM

Hi.

Please take all the below as my own thoughts and ponderings, i am no authority on the matter...

Forgive my clumsy walking amongst the otherwise so delicate tapping, but a thing in this, which seem to be missed, is what is the fundamental pillar of Christianity and of Buddhism?
And for the second one, are they both religions?
Thirdly, are the definitions the same for everyone, i dont think they are, or do we go by an "communal academic" definition?
Does it matter?

Because it seems to me that the question in question is if you can be a "true believer" in two different religions that seem to contradict each other, or am i wrong?
And before having gone through the above questions, i don't think you can say yes or no if you can go both paths and if you can to what degree.
We can well enough tiptoe around, but in my humble opinion if you don't grab the ox, you won't go to the market.

Mtfbwy
Fugen

Hans

12-11-2010, 11:49 AM

Hello everyone,

the last few posts led to the arising of a few not really all that well connected ideas in the mind of a sometimes confused novice. So please take everything I write here with a pinch of salt.

On an individual level, who is to say that a particular style pf practise is valid/invalid? Only the practitioner him/herself can.

Another question would be? Why feel the need to even try to walk different paths unless it was felt that one path was felt lacking in some way? If it was not lacking, why the need to integrate other practises?

One can bake an apple pie, or one can bake a cherry pie. A pie with apples and cherries can be a wonderful thing, however, it is something new and shuld be called thus.

Coming down from the clouds of metaphors and idealism, we have to also acknowledge the social and political dimension that supporting any kind of religious practise entails.

One can be e.g. a most compassionate Roman Catholic on a personal level, but it is simply a fact that supporting the Roman Catholic church means not only supporting hospitals and schools in third world countries, but supporting a very strong anti homo-sexual and anti contraceptive agenda as well (I'm not even going to get started with the Pandoras box that is sexual abuse/anti-semitism in the Christian churches).
In the same way one can be an extremely tolerant Muslim, but with the exception of a handful of comparatively tiny Sufi orders, religions other than Christianity, Judaism and Islam are not seen as being worthy of respect at all in almost all muslim congregations.

When horrible things happen in the name and in the context of religious practise, one can often hear/read: They are not true Christians/Muslims/Jews/Buddhists/Hindus etc. ......

That may sound nice at first, but ultimately means that real criticism is impossible, because whatever positive kind of things have happened are taken as the ground for definition, and the negative aspects (Crusades, Buddhism being wiped off the map of India by Muslim armies, inquisition etc.) are marginalized.

Once mutliple paths are mixed, it seems easier to call oneself a pan-traditional mystic, follower of Philosophia Perennis, Neo-Buddhist, Neo-Christian etc. instead of trying to fit one's own path to fit terms that used to have a more distinct meaning before the postmodern age.

It's interesting that the everyday literal acceptance of certain ideas and concepts is now more and more being seen as "fundamentalist" or "orthodox" than just being normal. The "Zeitgeist" seems to dictate that everyone not prepared to embrace relativistic approaches to religions must be somehow "radical".

But that's just my chocolate box full of ideas travelling around my mind. I do not mean to preach in any way.

Gassho,

Hans

Taigu

12-11-2010, 01:43 PM

Hi Hans,

Too wordy...So to speak :wink:

gassho

Taigu

Hans

12-11-2010, 02:24 PM

Hello Taigu,

as I wrote before, just a collection of randomly arisen thoughts. Wordiness and non-wordiness stop when you look at issues like kosher/halal slaughter methods, gay bashing etc. the list is long and has nothing to do with over-intellectualising and everything with how supporting religious currents impacts on daily life.

Gassho,

Hans

Jundo

12-11-2010, 04:03 PM

doogie

12-11-2010, 05:39 PM

It goes on to say that Zazen is the actualization of your undefiled True-nature. Sounds good. But the fundamental underpinning of Christianity is the concept of original sin, isn't it?

Actually Doogie, that is not true for all stripes of Christians. The Eastern Orthodox for one have a different view of this than the legalistic Roman Catholic dogma does. We also differ in the concept of the Immaculate Conception and the Procession of the Holy Spirit, as in the "filioque" verse of the Creed as the Roman Church says it. You really cannot make too many blanket statements about Christians anymore, or actually since about the 10th Century, when the One Church began its divisions.

Here's the thing...the Buddha did not say he was God, others said that of him and then much later. I haven't joined a Buddhist sect which demands that I "worship" the Buddha, or any Bodhisattva, as God or a God. I am following the Teaching of a reasonable man who never demanded that his disciples worship him, or anyone else; or that they would cease worshipping a God, if they did. His teaching does not depend upon theology, so why put it in conflict with any theology? Frankly, I do not see any conflict and I am the one who is a Catholic priest and also one who has received Buddhist monk vows. I am walking in these shoes and they seem to fit me.

Gasshoi,

Seishin Kyrill

Thank you for commenting. And please don't take what I write as criticism of yours or anyone else's faith. After reading through Chugai's link, I see there are differences in interpretation of fundamental Catholic doctrine. I shouldn't lump everyone together.

I still don't think the fundamental question is being addressed however. It may be true that Buddha said nothing to his disciples about whether it was fine to worship one or as many Gods as they wanted, but in light of his realization would he have (could he have) worshiped a God? If he clung onto the belief that there was something outside himself, something that should be worshipped, could he ever have had that same realization? Is "worshiping God" so fundamentally dualistic that it blocks that realization. Zen and Buddhism are the path to realization, to enlightenment, right? So does adding "worshiping God" and various other dualistic beliefs about the universe and our place in the universe act as a roadblock to enlightenment?

Does belief even matter?

If I live a virtuous life, keep the precepts, worship the one true God (or even The Buddha) for 23 and a half hours a day with my very marrow, teach others to worship in the same way, but drop all that when I practice zazen (shikantaza) for a half hour each day, am I on the Buddha's path?

Perhaps the answer is one thing in the Rinzai school and quite another in the Soto school. Or different from one teacher to another.

Put another way, is it enough to be awake 30 minutes of the day?

I apologize if there appears to be some judgement and bias in how I use "awake" in this sense, but I don't know another way to phrase it with my own limited understanding. I certainly do have my own biases, and many of the discussions that I'm finding in this thread and others have been very helpful. I am not a Christian, and have not even taken (received?) Jukai yet, so I ask these things out of genuine intellectual and spiritual curiosity, and to help me better myself.

Hans

12-12-2010, 11:18 AM

Hello Jundo,

in your last post you wrote:
"Buddhism, during its history, is also not without fault and should not throw stones."

I do not think anyone ever suggested in this thread that Buddhism was/is pure and perfect in its actions through its different cultural variations over time. My point is that we cannot just focus exclusively on the positive sides of inter-faith inspiration and understanding, since religious practise is never one hundred percent a-political. Evaluating the actual "actions" and tendencies of different religious currents has to include the real-life consequences that certain mind sets entail. In the case of Buddhism e.g. this meant and means that notions of karma have often led to people taking a slightly passive and fatalist approach to the ills in their own society ("It's their karma.").

Religions form around human needs, which is why they share a lot of the same territory. At the same time however, the differences between religions are not just to be found in the aesthetic and the cosmetic.

As a first starting point, one might consider Prof. Jan Assmann's and Prof. Theo Sundermeier's notion of primary and secondary religions, which get mentioned in this very interesting non-specialist blogpost:

http://egregores.blogspot.com/2009/11/e ... ories.html (http://http://egregores.blogspot.com/2009/11/essence-of-religion-four-theories.html)

Buddhism, although a "secondary" religion founded on the revelation of Siddhartha Gautama, is insofar special as it has been "relatively" non-aggressive for large parts of its history (and yes, there are a whole list of exceptions).

Why do I even mention all this?

Because the historical body of evidence points toward a great probability that an overall positive and non critical reception of Christian-Zen will not benefit the survival of the Dharma in the long term, however it will benefit many Christians insofar as it supplies them with a wonderful technique to experience and to get closer to "God".

The vedic notion of "the truth is one, the wise call it by many names" was never at the heart of the mainstream practise of the great monotheist traditions. The tolerance we encounter nowadays in western countries is more due to humanism than to original monotheism.

There is no point in over-intellectualsing life, compassion etc. At the same time, negating differences for the sake of harmony can turn into a kind of escapism and withdrawal from daily life as well.

Gassho,

Hans

Jundo

12-12-2010, 02:55 PM

Hi David,

I feel that some of your conclusions are possibly hindering and barriers of the mind.

Is "worshiping God" so fundamentally dualistic that it blocks that realization. Zen and Buddhism are the path to realization, to enlightenment, right? So does adding "worshiping God" and various other dualistic beliefs about the universe and our place in the universe act as a roadblock to enlightenment?

Saying that "worshiping God blocks realization" is itself truly the erecting of a dualistic division in your mind that can block realization.

A truly "non-dualistic" realization might feel something like "neither worshiping God nor not worshiping God blocks realization, for realization cannot be blocked ... as realization holds and easily allows for all". In fact, even asserting "worshiping God blocks realization" or "worshiping God does not block realization" will not block realization in the least when realization is correctly perceived.

Does the presence of a star in the sky block your realization? Does the absence of a star in the sky block your realization? Do high mountains and walls block your realization? So, how would God or her absence block realization?

In our Buddhist way, the stars and mountains and walls are seen as just the dance of emptiness, which is anything but empty and void. There is no "mountain" truly there, yet there is a mountain to climb. There is no wall there, but what do you stub your toe against? If someone finds that their "Buddha" or "Emptiness" feels like what some call "God", or that one does not leave room for the others ... well, names do not matter, and there is more than enough room when all mental barriers are knocked down.

In Shikantaza, we drop all judgments and divisions in order to manifest realization. I advise you to drop the judgments that "worshiping God hinders Shikantaza" ... for otherwise you hinder Shikantaza by the fact of the judgment itself.

If I live a virtuous life, keep the precepts, worship the one true God (or even The Buddha) for 23 and a half hours a day with my very marrow, teach others to worship in the same way, but drop all that when I practice zazen (shikantaza) for a half hour each day, am I on the Buddha's path?

In Shikantaza, we drop in order to find what was all along. It is not a matter of 30 minutes or 30 Kalpa. If there is a God to worship, we sit Shikantaza. If there is no God to worship, we sit Shikantaza.

Being filled with greed, anger and divisions can block realization ... but worshiping a God (or not) cannot (assuming that doing so is the absence of greed, anger and mental divisions).

Enlightenment is so vast and wide that it comfortably holds both God and her absence.

Please sit with that.

Gassho, Jundo

Jundo

12-12-2010, 03:32 PM

Dear Hans,

1 - Your opinion is too much up in your own head, creating divisions and barriers that need not be there. While what you say may be true in some cases, it need not be true in all cases. You need to sit with this issue more and drop some of these opinions about what is or is not possible. Some ways of combining Zen with other beliefs may be harmful, but some may be not.

2 - Some forms (maybe the most common forms) of Christianity and Judaism may be practiced in ways that shut out or are incompatible with other religious traditions, but not all Christians and Jews practice in such ways. Some ways of practicing Christianity and Judaism (such as what Fr. K expressed above) are quite compatible and harmonious with Zen Practice. That does not mean that all Zen practitioners need be Christians, nor that all Christians need be Zen folks. It merely means that there are some folks walking the path(s) in a way quite nurturing of both.

3- Your statement is not the policy of this Sangha, which is quite welcoming of people who wish to practice the Buddha's Way ... whether Christians, Jews, believers in Thor, Atheists or Agnostics, or folks who do not give much thought or define themselves within any such categories. You are a priest in training here, and I am concerned that some people may think you are speaking for this place. You are not.

Finally, please note that I am not saying that "people must be a Christian or Jew to practice Zen Buddhism". Of course not. Nor am I saying that all ways of practicing Christianity, Judaism or other religions are compatible with Zen practice. Of course not, because some are quite incompatible (especially the judgmental and closed versions of those paths). Nor am I saying that it is wrong for some to reject Christianity etc. when practicing Buddhism ... for it is fine if someone feels it not right for them and wish to devote themselves to a Buddhist path alone. All I am saying is that certain flavors of Christianity etc. are quite compatible with what we practice here ... just as being a Yankees fan, a Red Sox fan or having no interest in baseball whatsoever are each perfectly compatible with Zen Buddhist practice. It is not harmful to mix these things when done in a positive way. Furthermore, one can be a non-Christian, a mailman, gay or straight, a Conservative or Liberal, an Atheist or Agnostic and be a Zen Buddhist, attaining realization. Realization is so spacious and whole that it is found as both God and Atheists.

Gassho, Jundo

Onshin

12-12-2010, 05:35 PM

Hiya,
probably going off at one of my tangents here, (that's the atristic mind for you), years ago when ran a bookshop one of my customers was an american quaker teaching at the uni. We talked a bit about religion and I told him I saw quakers as 'Zen Christians', a view I had got from the way they have honed down thier worship to just that, the barenes of thier meeting halls, way they havwe tolerance for other faiths, going so far as to allow Buddhists to have religious meetings in thier halls, also thier compassion and non-violence and so on, well, far from being offended as some Christians would be, he understood and was flattered by the tag, he, like me, saw no dichotomy there. Can't we all?

Gassho

Joe

Seishin the Elder

12-12-2010, 07:27 PM

Is "worshiping God" so fundamentally dualistic that it blocks that realization. Zen and Buddhism are the path to realization, to enlightenment, right? So does adding "worshiping God" and various other dualistic beliefs about the universe and our place in the universe act as a roadblock to enlightenment?

Well , you know Doogie, it all honesty...I don't know. Perhaps that is why I am here and doing this practice, to find out. Since I haven't as yet achieved enlightenment (that I know of) I couldn't tell you if it was because I have belief in God, or if it is just that I am a plodding lazy human. However, I would like to be allowed the opportunity to try along with all the other broken individuals that populate our universe, and not necessarily be excluded simply predicated on the fact that I am Christian, or Jewish, a Muslim or a Scientologist. I would hope that in the 80,00 Dharma Teachings of the Buddha there might have been one for me. I know that my heart is open to it, even if some in the room believe I have the wrong clothes on to be at the party.

Actually I want you to know that I appreciate this questioning since it again helps me to redefine for myself why I am here.

Gassho,

Seishin Kyrill

Saijun

12-12-2010, 07:36 PM

Actually I want you to know that I appreciate this questioning since it again helps me to redefine for myself why I am here.

Gassho,

Seishin Kyrill

Hello Brother Kryillos,

Isn't it this very "defining" that keeps us locked up in delusion? Thinking that we "are this, not that; want this, not that; are here for this, not for that" etc. I've always seen "God" (put in quotes because I know my view is quite heretical) as something like the undefined "wilderness" that lies beyond views and concepts, not limited by time and place. If a practice is to lead us closer to the undefined, unborn, undying Reality, how would defining oneself help?

I promise I'm not trying to be critical; this is just a very, very interesting topic, and I appreciate all of the views expressed!

Metta,

Perry

doogie

12-12-2010, 07:43 PM

I will sit with that Jundo. Thank you. And I'm sure you're right. But I'm still unsure about the more practical applications of being both an orthodox Christian priest and a zen priest. I'm just curious how your dharma brother, for instance, functions as both a zen teacher and a priest in the lutheran orthodox church (this thread is about priests). Just as you don't want Hans giving his opinion and having us mistaking it for the sangha's opinion, I have to assume that he runs into conflict between his Christian dogma and his Buddhist teachings regarding homosexuality, heaven and hell, whatever. He did become a priest in the church of Sweden after he received dharma transmission, so maybe there is no conflict. Maybe he's simply a Christian priest who practices zazen.

I looked for other christian priests/ministers who are also zen teachers, and there are a few. Here's an article on Father Robert Kennedy, a jesuit and zen teacher. creedible.com/creed/featured-content/6-top-stories/640-first-empty-your-cup-a-reflection-on-christian-zen-meditation

"Kennedy has received the title roshi, or “old teacher” in the Zen tradition. As a committed Christian, priest, and Zen teacher, he has helped thousands to grow closer to Christ by helping them to empty their minds so they might be filled with the mind of Christ."

I may be misinterpreting this, but it sounds like he's using zen for the purpose of getting closer to Christ (which doesn't seem in line with 'sitting for no purpose.' Of course that can be interpreted many different ways, depending on how one wishes to interpret it. The mind of Christ could be substituted for the mind of Buddha. But emptying the mind of all notions of self so that one can replace it with another, whether Christ, Buddha, or something else?

doogie

12-12-2010, 07:45 PM

Actually I want you to know that I appreciate this questioning since it again helps me to redefine for myself why I am here.

Gassho,

Seishin Kyrill

I say the more diversity the better. And I am trying to define myself all the time. Maybe that's my problem.

Gassho,

David

Geika

12-13-2010, 08:19 PM

Seishin the Elder

12-13-2010, 09:55 PM

Isn't it this very "defining" that keeps us locked up in delusion?

Hello Perry,

I don't think I am trying to "define" myself in any way. What I was trying to say there in that the questions helped me to "redefine for myself why I am here" is that these sorts of questions help to clear away any clouds that may have settled in my head, and help me to remember why I took up the study of Zen in the first place.

...And to Chugai,, in answer to your question, about my particular church's affiliation with Rome; no, we are not in union with Rome. I never have been with either the Orthodox Church nor now with the Anglican Church.

Gassho,

Seishin Kyrill

Saijun

12-13-2010, 10:09 PM

Hello Perry,

I don't think I am trying to "define" myself in any way. What I was trying to say there in that the questions helped me to "redefine for myself why I am here" is that these sorts of questions help to clear away any clouds that may have settled in my head, and help me to remember why I took up the study of Zen in the first place.

Gassho,

Seishin Kyrill

Ah. Thank you, Brother Kyrillos, for the clarification.

Metta,

Perry

Ankai

12-14-2010, 05:31 PM

Another baffling point (to me) to walking the Buddhist path as a Christian or the Christian Path as a Buddhist is why?

Is it a case of riding two horses or jack of all trades syndrome?

Just my own thoughts here...
The sky is blue. The sea is blue. Both those things are true. Both are equally false... neither the atmosphere nor water actually have color. that is true too.
In order for one of those statements to be true, does the other have to be LESS true?
Look deeper at it, and we see that those colors only even exist because of the light of the Sun, both the atmosphere and the water reflecting its rays off one another. And then we must acknowledge that the colors, sea, sky, Sun, and even the "selves" seeing them are really just matters of perception.
So... maybe it's neither "riding two horses" or any kind of "syndrome." I think it's simply a matter of seeing truth two ways, as one might see the color of the sky reflected in the water or vice-versa...or, two truths in the reflection of the same Light.

Ankai

12-14-2010, 08:33 PM

Christianity and the Dharma seem to me not to be bookends.
Maybe I'm just dense. I can't make Christ's message of God's redemption for mankind etc. work for me.
I know he supposedly said some nice things about the Golden Rule and all that but he also supposedly said some things about eternal life in the hereafter, he supposedly walked on water, raised the dead, etc . .. and I know that folks have written wild magical accounts of the Buddha like he was born walking and talking etc but I cannot make sense of those accounts either and I do not believe them. I believe little about accounts of the historical Buddha.
Well, let's say for the sake of argument (not in anyway meaning aggression... just trying to say what I mean clearly,) and suspending disbelief for a moment that it was ALL true. Christ really WAS God incarnate. Or, let's look at them all as characters in a story.
So then, it was God who walked on water. God who raised the dead. God incarnate, in the flesh as Christ. So... what would be the big deal? He's God, right? What's the big whoop about the laws of physics not applying to the Almighty? Nothing, really. Not special at all for God. Right?
But look at the STORIES themselves... Jesus walking on the water is rippling with symbolism, isn't it? Think of the sea as the troubles, problems, phenomena, delusions, samsaric horror and illusions of this life... he walks above all that. As the shattering "storm" rages around him, Jesus simply walks through it, not avoiding it or creating a magic pathway, he simply walks calmly through the horror as it is, seeing it for what it really is and not letting it stop him. Pretty zenny when you look at it.
And THAT isn't even the important part. What really matters in that story is the usually glossed over or forgotten part... that Peter ALSO walked on water, albeit briefly. Sure... when he looked around- and was affected by what he sensed as a man- and got scared, he started to go under, but when he was able to just move in faith, ignoring the appeaance of the world around him, he stood on the waves too. And if Peter can do it, so can you or I. I think there's a LOT a Buddhist can get from that story. you may not have faith in Christ, or even in the Buddha, but you DO have faith ITSELF... and we CAN step out of the boat. It's about leaning on our faith when we step out of our comfort zone... and that, to me is what sitting and practice are all about.
The symbolism of the raising of the dead, the blind gaining sight, the lame rising to walk... these are stories that apply to EVERYONE, regardless of how one belief system may have co-opted them. Remember... even the Bible doesn't call him the Son of Christianity. He's called the Son of Man. Looked at symbollically rather than literally, the Gospels can take on a dimension that applies to anyone, and which really, at its core, isn't in any way contrary to the Dharma.
That's my take, anyway. I haven't got much use for Christianity or religion in general... but I remain "spiritual." I think I'd be silly if I rejected a teacher because I didn't like the name of the school.

doogie

12-14-2010, 09:52 PM

What's held as one's private belief (or private religion) is not the only issue here, and that's what most people are focusing on. Again, this thread is about those who walk both the Christian and Buddhist paths as priests in both religions.

Is zen Buddhism a religion with beliefs, or is it a philosophy that enhances other belief systems. If Buddhists don't believe in an everlasting, unchanging immortal soul, and the belief of an everlasting, immortal soul is the cornerstone of Christianity, how can this dichotomy be reconciled?

Looking around the web, I see there are many Christians who use zen to get closer to Christ and to find a more mystical connection to their God. There is nothing wrong with this, but is it Zen? Or more specifically, is it Buddhist zen? Also, if you wholeheartedly believe that there is a God out there who will judge you for your sins, can you still teach the dharma?

And I think we should be careful here about interpreting Christian stories from a Buddhist perspective. It makes no more sense than interpreting Buddhist stories from a Christian perspective. I can tell you my dream, and you can tell me what it means to you, but it won't mean the same thing it means to me, and after all, it's my dream. The life of Jesus may have meant something very different to the man who lived it than to the men who wrote it down, but all we know of his life is what they wrote.

Scripture indicates that Jesus was not denying His deity by referring to Himself as the Son of Man. In fact, it is highly revealing that the term “Son of Man” is used in Scripture in contexts of Christ's deity. For example, the Bible says that only God can forgive sins (Isaiah 43:25; Mark 2:7). But as the “Son of Man,” Jesus had the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:10). Likewise, Christ will return to Earth as the “Son of Man” in clouds of glory to reign on Earth (Matthew 26:63-64).

He may have been denying his divinity when he proclaimed himself to be the son of man. Or not. We'll never know.

Ankai

12-15-2010, 02:40 AM

And I think we should be careful here about interpreting Christian stories from a Buddhist perspective. It makes no more sense than interpreting Buddhist stories from a Christian perspective.

Well... of course... that's why the point is to read BOTH - or anything- from a PERONAL perspective. "What is the story saying to me?" as opposed to, "What do THEY say this story means." I'm sorry if I was unclear.

Jundo

12-15-2010, 02:53 AM

If Buddhists don't believe in an everlasting, unchanging immortal soul, and the belief of an everlasting, immortal soul is the cornerstone of Christianity, how can this dichotomy be reconciled?

Why not toss your fixed ideas and beliefs in a fixed and immortal "soul" into the wash of emptiness, and also toss your fixed ideas and beliefs in the absence of a fixed and immortal "soul" into the wash of emptiness, and toss your small human image of "unchanging and immortal" into the timelessness of emptiness, and see what comes out in the wash? Thus, the "conflict" becomes something of a "non-issue".

There is nothing wrong with this, but is it Zen? Or more specifically, is it Buddhist zen?

Please toss your rigid ideas of "Zen" and "Buddhist Zen" into the baths of emptiness too.

Then perhaps you will first have some clue as to what Zen/Buddhist Zen is!

Imagine, that you and I disagree over whether there is or is not some timeless "Buddha Nature" which we all have/are, debate the right practices to manifest our "Buddha Nature", and whether this allegedly timeless nature somehow does not vanish following what appears to be human life and death in this visible world.

Imagine that folks got so hung up on this idea of what "Buddha Nature" is or is not, and whether it is fixed and unchangeable, immortal and timeless, or not ... that "Buddhist Teachers" even had to caution such folks to drop the whole concept of "Buddha Nature" from mind, and to STOP and drop all mental divisions such as "fixed vs. flowing" "changing vs. changeless" "time bound vs. timeless" and "immortal vs. birth/death". These teachers advised folks just to drop all such categories and divisions away. Toss it all away like so much old trash.

Well, perhaps doing so will not do one darn thing to make "Buddha Nature" any more or less 'true' then it was before ... for if it wasn't a real thing before, then probably it still isn't. And if it was never realistic, then it might still not be no matter what we do. (Anyway, Buddhist teachings even say that you and me and the table across the room are not really "real" and here in all ways ... even though we quite obviously are in some ways).

However, by dropping all ideas of "Buddha Nature", and all mental divisions of time and change and changeless and all the rest ... some might say that What's thus tasted is Buddha Nature, both within time and timeless, a world changeless in its flowering changing, deathless even in a world of birth and death (perhaps life to life), just who we are all along.

Now, toss "soul" or anything else in the above equation and see what happens. Perhaps the Buddha (who quite clearly believed that something, in some way, remains after 'death', and continues on and on for countless lives) meant something like that.

Gassho, J

PS -

Also, if you wholeheartedly believe that there is a God out there who will judge you for your sins, can you still teach the dharma?

Almost all Buddhists I know, in one way or another, believe in a concept of "sin" or "evil Karma", and the heavens and hells that result. Some may take it more literally, as literal "Buddhist hells and heavens" after death ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_(Buddhism (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_(Buddhism))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yama_(Budd ... _mythology (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yama_(Buddhism_and_Chinese_mythology))

... or some may take it as the "hells and heavens" we make for ourselves in this world through our harmful words, thoughts and acts. No matter, we believe.

http://feelpost.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/25-%E9%A4%93%E9%AC%BC%E5%9C%B0%E7%8D%84.jpg

Shokai

12-15-2010, 10:49 AM

Isn't an after life a wonderful comforting thought? Isn't it nice to think that "those people" who do bad things will be punished in an after life?
After suffering the stings and arrows of this world we can all go (if we are good little boys and girls) to a place that will be just perfect !

Thanks for playing folks, it is what it is. I would rather "just sit" and find the truth "as it is".

More power to the one who tries to ride a number of different donkeys up the mountain. It would be easier to herd cats.

gassho,

Ankai

12-15-2010, 01:18 PM

Ankai

12-15-2010, 01:22 PM

Isn't an after life a wonderful comforting thought?
Not necessarily.

Isn't it nice to think that "those people" who do bad things will be punished in an after life?

Not if you have compassion for them and the obvious suffering that made them as they are.

After suffering the stings and arrows of this world we can all go (if we are good little boys and girls) to a place that will be just perfect !
Not really.

Thanks for playing folks, it is what it is. I would rather "just sit" and find the truth "as it is".
...isn't that what any religious or philosophical expression- including our own- is at its core? A search for truth? What if there's more than one "truth?"

More power to the one who tries to ride a number of different donkeys up the mountain. It would be easier to herd cats.

Unless one has great burdens. Then that extra donkey might come in handy.

gassho,

doogie

12-15-2010, 05:58 PM

Do I have this right?

I'm climbing up a mountain. Weighed down by not one heavy pack, but two. I think, 'drop one and the climb would be easier. You say, 'Drop both and it's easier still.' Or 'carry both, drop both, it doesn't matter. Both packs are essentially empty. Drop the mountain too. And climbing. And the one who is climbing.

Geika

12-15-2010, 10:30 PM

If Buddhists don't believe in an everlasting, unchanging immortal soul, and the belief of an everlasting, immortal soul is the cornerstone of Christianity, how can this dichotomy be reconciled?

I found a weird quote that attempts to reconcile it. It's from a book of koans published in 1959 called simply, "Zen Buddhism:"

"In satori we are able to look beyond our immediate world into the universe of original, eternal, Absolute Being-- often called the Great Emptiness-- which was before our world was formed, and will be after it disappears. In this condition we lose our sense of Self, and know ourselves to be part of the great Oneness of all. Knowing ourselves to be part of Absolute Being, our ego and our problems of ego-- sin, pain, poverty, fear-- all dissolve. This is salvation in Zen terms.

"Having reached the state of satori, we become aware that everything in all this world about us, all other living and non-living things, even our lowest animal functions, are part of Absolute Being-- and are thus essentially holy. Mountains and rocks, trees and grass blades, elephants and microbes, all share equally in the Eternal."

Why not toss your fixed ideas and beliefs in a fixed and immortal "soul" into the wash of emptiness, and also toss your fixed ideas and beliefs in the absence of a fixed and immortal "soul" into the wash of emptiness, and toss your small human image of "unchanging and immortal" into the timelessness of emptiness, and see what comes out in the wash? Thus, the "conflict" becomes something of a "non-issue".

...Imagine, that you and I disagree over whether there is or is not some timeless "Buddha Nature" which we all have/are, debate the right practices to manifest our "Buddha Nature", and whether this allegedly timeless nature somehow does not vanish following what appears to be human life and death in this visible world.

From Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land:

"Jubal called out, 'That house on the hilltop-- can you see what color they've painted it?'

"Anne looked, then answered, 'It's white on this side.'

"Jubal went to Jill, 'You see? It doesn't occur to Anne to infer that the other side is white, too. All the King's horses couldn't force her to commit herself... unless she went there and looked-- and even then she wouldn't assume that it stayed white after she left.'"

Ankai

12-15-2010, 10:35 PM

I'm climbing up a mountain. Weighed down by not one heavy pack, but two. I think, 'drop one and the climb would be easier. You say, 'Drop both and it's easier still.' Or 'carry both, drop both, it doesn't matter. Both packs are essentially empty. Drop the mountain too. And climbing. And the one who is climbing.

Maybe some people have found a way to use two sources of strength and wisdom to make it up the hill.

Saijun

12-15-2010, 10:46 PM

Geika

12-15-2010, 10:50 PM

I have a friend who mountain-unicycles. Same trails, same days. I use two wheels, he uses one. Each understands why the other rides, because we ride for the same reason. Each of us thinks the other is completely insane for his choice of vehicle. Which is better? Who is right? How does Grant riding a unicycle down the trail affect my own experience?

I love this analogy and I also love to unicycle as well! I've always wanted to try mountain unicycling and I just need to go out and get that good tire!

doogie

12-15-2010, 11:04 PM

doogie

12-15-2010, 11:16 PM

Maybe some people have found a way to use two sources of strength and wisdom to make it up the hill.

Hello friends,

I agree with this sentiment, for what it's worth.

I mountain bike. I have a friend who mountain-unicycles. Same trails, same days. I use two wheels, he uses one. Each understands why the other rides, because we ride for the same reason. Each of us thinks the other is completely insane for his choice of vehicle. Which is better? Who is right? How does Grant riding a unicycle down the trail affect my own experience?

Metta,

Perry

Not sure I understand the analogy in context with the thread. Maybe the question would be -- can your friend ride a bicycle and a unicycle at the same time? Not really a fair analogy though.

I guess the question I'm really interested in asking someone who is both an ordained Buddhist and a Christian priest is why. No judgement at all. Just curiosity. I also wonder if any of the vows might conflict.

Taigu

12-16-2010, 02:26 AM

I'm climbing up a mountain. Weighed down by not one heavy pack, but two. I think, 'drop one and the climb would be easier. You say, 'Drop both and it's easier still.' Or 'carry both, drop both, it doesn't matter. Both packs are essentially empty. Drop the mountain too. And climbing. And the one who is climbing.

Pretty close, Doogie. Not minding being right is the last task. It is done when the one climbing the mountain is dropped, really dropped, not just in words.

gassho

Taigu

Seishin the Elder

12-16-2010, 03:28 AM

I guess the question I'm really interested in asking someone who is both an ordained Buddhist and a Christian priest is why. No judgement at all. Just curiosity. I also wonder if any of the vows might conflict.

In answer to your first question: Why not? No sarcasm intended, just a real response.

In answer to your second question about vows; how could vows to live a good life, treat others with honor and respect, practice humility and voluntary poverty for the benefit of others be in conflict?

Personally, I am trying to keep my life simple: being a monastic, living simply and trying to calm the turmoil of that which we call life by spiritual practice. I'm just hoping to see the moon reflected in the pool, so I am not going to stir up and muddy the water with conflicts that do not need to be there.

Gassho,

Seishin Kyrill

Engyo

12-16-2010, 04:31 AM

It is not "news", per se, but I remember watching this in the press as it unfolded.
There were those of a more literal and conservative view who fought this issue tooth and nail in any press which would listen. Their object was to contest the appointment of a Bishop who had also taken Jukai. Here are two takes on this story, one of which even raises the question, "Who cares?":

http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/2/23/northern-michigan-elects-christian-buddhist-bishop

http://www.getreligion.org/2009/02/zen-and-the-art-of-episcopal-news/

In the case above, when all was said and done, the common people of the church just went to the convention and voted to endorse a man (not of dogma or doctrine but) of faith. "Good choice", I say.
Gassho,
Don

Shokai

12-16-2010, 12:21 PM

I had the fortune to be born at a very early age, into a Christian family . Consequently, I learned Christian things; values, creeds, prayers, songs and such. Some of these stick with me and give delusional comfort at times. I was confirmed into the Anglican Church and enjoyed the privilege of receiving its sacraments on several occasions. I struggled with the miracles of Jesus and came to realize with time what a miracle consists of; understanding of the laws of nature or the lack of it. BUT, the one thing that has always stuck in my craw is the thing about Christianity ( or Judaism, or Islam, Or Hinduism, or any other ism) being the one and only way to salvation (or do we really need to be saved; and from what.) I can feel resonations with Kabbala, an esoteric theosophy of rabbinical origin based on the Hebrew scriptures and developed between the 7th and 18th centuries. I cried when I first read the Koran; at the pure beauty of it ( it's even better in Arabic, btw.) For a time I thought it would be nice to be pre-Hinduistic. Another diversion was to study and follow the Bahai faith. All, have their merits. (As Fugen would say, "It's all good.") I can understand what is meant by saying the sins of the fathers .... I see this now as the passing down of ignorance from generation to generation through myths and old wives tales. However, I feel that there are so many interpretations to the word 'sin' and I'm afraid to think of how many persons in positions of power have milked this to the bone. We should all flow with the herd without worrying about which donkey whoever is riding. The ilk of a person is not in what they wear or how they think, it's in how they relate. If what we think is our reality, then it all falls into line anyway :) .

Br. Kyrill wrote [probably the truest and most sincere words one will ever hear.]:

how could vows to live a good life, treat others with honor and respect, practice humility and voluntary poverty for the benefit of others be in conflict?

Personally, I am trying to keep my life simple: being a monastic, living simply and trying to calm the turmoil of that which we call life by spiritual practice. I'm just hoping to see the moon reflected in the pool, so I am not going to stir up and muddy the water with conflicts that do not need to be there.

Don wrote:

when all was said and done, the common people of the church just went to the convention and voted to endorse a man (not of dogma or doctrine but) of faith. "Good choice", I say.

As above, Ioften use the analogy of riding a donkey to to reach the top of the mountain. If someone can truly ride two, three or all in the same lifetime, more power to him/her.

and thereto I plight thee my troth.

gassho,

Jundo

12-16-2010, 02:12 PM

Maybe some people have found a way to use two sources of strength and wisdom to make it up the hill.

Sure. But does this suppose then that neither of them alone is enough? Neither perfect?

From Sawaki Roshi:

Everyone believes they have to add something to their zazen. You shouldn't add anything. It's good as it is. You don't need to fool around with it.

If there is even a bit of individuality left over, it isn't pure, unadulterated zazen. We've got to practice pure, unadulterated zazen, without mixing it with gymnastics or satori or anything. When we bring in our personal ideas - even only a little bit - it is no longer the buddha-dharma.

Perhaps I've misunderstood this. If you can drop Christ and God and soul and Buddha Nature and all desire for experiencing God or Vishnu or Christ-Mind or reconnecting with the spirit of your dead dog, then it is unadulterated zazen. But if you're seeking any of these things, you're adding to it. If you're hoping for an answer or a mystical experience, then it isn't buddha-dharma. But like I said. I may have misunderstood this. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if I had.

I would say that some things matter and cannot mix well with Zazen. For example, being filled with anger, jealousy, excess desires and attachments, thoughts of "us vs. them" each would interfere with tasting the plain beauty of Zazen.**

But other things do not matter. For example, whether one is wearing a red shirt or a blue shirt during Zazen, is Japanese or American or French, is riding a bicycle or a unicycle up and down mountains.

If Christianity or Judaism (or Buddhism) is practiced too much with an "us vs. them" attitude, then, yes, perhaps these paths cannot go together. But if each is practiced while dropping such a dividing attitude, then they both fit quite nicely on the cushion (for the cushion holds all things quite roomily). We sit to "find reality always present" by quieting the runaway mind, by dropping thoughts of division, by radically "finding by giving up the search somewhere distant". If someone can find something thereby which is our "Original Face" ... and if they feel that what is thus found is also perhaps a "face of God" ... good.

As Suzuki Roshi said ...

Everyone believes they have to add something to their zazen. You shouldn't add anything. It's good as it is. ... When we bring in our personal ideas - even only a little bit - it is no longer the buddha-dharma.

Perhaps when you bring your personal idea that it is impossible to practice while being a Christian, and perhaps when you try to add to Zazen your feeling that one cannot practice "real Zazen" if also having another faith, then it is YOU who is adding his personal DIVIDING ideas to Zazen. That act is what adulterates Zazen by the very dividing.

On the other hand, if one sits Zazen without adding such personal, divisive thoughts ... sitting Zazen whether as a Christian, a Jew, an Agnostic or Atheist, in a red shirt or a blue, on a bike or a unicycle ... then one's Zazen is pure, unadulterated.

Gassho, J

* * (Heck, one can even sit Zazen as a robber or hired killer ... but the poison of such a mind turns the experience black).

chessie

12-16-2010, 03:44 PM

I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread, as it speaks to my experience in many ways. The thread that Taigu had recently regarding the alms bowl reminded me of an email I wrote quite a while ago. This was written to a close friend who is a fundamentalist Baptist, in an attempt to show how Christianity and Buddhism are integrated to a degree for me--please forgive the length, as I couldn't figure out what to edit out. I saved this on my pc under the title "Bowls":

1. Been thinking about bowls a lot lately, since they keep coming up in Buddhist studies:
a. alms bowl as on of the few (as in less than 5) possessions of a monk/nun
b. the story I told you earlier where the 'punch line' is the master telling the disciple that if he has eaten his rice, then he needs to wash his bowl.
c. the shape of the meditation bells, which are basically an iron bowl
d. and, last night, I noticed (again, for the first time?) that I have two pottery bowls, one round and one flat, with the same glaze patter & color--way cool!

well, bowls are really of no use, unless they are empty, right? You can't put something in a full bowl!

2. Been reading the Heart Sutra, which is a classic, and thought to be a prime condensation of ideas. Not to get into the whole thing (although it is realllllly short)
a. First lines that appealed to me say, basically, that when the mind has no hindrances, there is no fear

but, then line that kept going round my head because I had trouble making sense of it was this:

b. Form is no different from emptiness, Emptiness is no different from form
That which is form is emptiness, that which is emptiness is form

3. I read a talk yesterday where the guy said that Buddhist practice does not require that anyone leave their roots, traditions, core faith, etc. In fact, if someone leaves the Christian faith to practice, he will tell them to go back, and practice Christianity more fully with what they have learned (kind of...)

4. I listened to part of a talk (Thanks JUNDO!!!) (headphones attached to laptop) that was 'zen for newbies'. He first talked about our natural tendency to always judge another person, or a situation, or think 'if only' or 'when this occurs' I will be happy, or looking forward to or dreading the future, or missing the past, etc etc. He said that these thoughts (and demonstrated) are like continually hitting oneself with a hammer. In zen practice, you learn to put the hammer down. Stop the thoughts. Learn to, even for a moment, dwell in actual, internal silence (okay, my words, not his, but that's the idea anyhow).

4. Reading about Christian contemplative prayer and how Catholics use Zen

Okay, after all that, here's the good part.

5. One book that I've known about for years, but always considered too hard, or too dense, or too impenetrable, is the Ascent of Mount Carmel by St. John of the Cross. For some reason, this morning I thought, well, maybe I'm ready to try it now. I'm reading the Introduction, and come across this paragraph (the paragraph before this talks about going through the dark night of the soul before coming out into the sunrise of Divine light, or some such thing):

Through this obscurity the thread which guides the soul is that of ‘emptiness’ or ‘negation.’ Only by voiding ourselves of all that is not God can we attain to the possession of God, for two contraries cannot co-exist in one individual, and creature-love is darkness, while God is light, so that from any human heart one of the two cannot fail to drive out the other.5959Ascent, Bk. III, Chap. ii.

Emptiness IS form--the form of Divinity! Because, only where we are empty, can there be room for 'indwelling'.

This was written a long while back, and I'm not sure I'm exactly in the same place today, but it was a wonderful 'ah ha' moment for me.

Gassho, Ann

doogie

12-18-2010, 12:18 AM

Geika

12-18-2010, 12:46 AM

well, bowls are really of no use, unless they are empty, right? You can't put something in a full bowl!

I've never thought of it this way before.

Seishin the Elder

12-18-2010, 04:00 PM

I was just listening to a really good mp3 of RM Jiyu-Kennett, and she talks about this very thing. Not about priests per se, but Christianity and Buddhism. Worth a listen.

Thanks for this, it was a wonderful talk. Just as an aside, when I was living in a monastery in Northern California I had some rather extensive correspondance with Kennett Roshi, even participated in a correspondance course she offered at that time and spent some time at the monastery on Mount Shasta. Part of the reason I am comfortable in doing what it is I am doing today is because of those previous particular contacts.

Gassho,

Seishin Kyrill

Geika

12-19-2010, 04:18 AM

I was just listening to a really good mp3 of RM Jiyu-Kennett, and she talks about this very thing.
http://www.obcon.org/Dhrmatlk/RM%20Jiyu%20Intro%20to%20Zen%20Training.mp3

This is great, though I admit I am only through a third of it. Really eloquent explanation of the grace of accepting not knowing.

Geika

12-19-2010, 04:23 AM

...when I was living in a monastery in Northern California I had some rather extensive correspondance with Kennett Roshi, even participated in a correspondance course she offered at that time and spent some time at the monastery on Mount Shasta...

There are people who believe that Mount Shasta is a kind of "vortex for enlightenment." I have had some ah-ha times there myself. Very beautiful place.

Jundo

12-19-2010, 04:27 AM

I was just listening to a really good mp3 of RM Jiyu-Kennett, and she talks about this very thing. Not about priests per se, but Christianity and Buddhism. Worth a listen.
http://www.obcon.org/Dhrmatlk/RM%20Jiyu%20Intro%20to%20Zen%20Training.mp3

Thank you, Doogie, for providing this talk.

Jiyu Kennett Roshi and her Lineage, the Order of Buddhist Contemplatives (Throssel Hole Buddhist Abbey in the U.K. and Shasta Abbey in the U.S) might be said to present a particular interpretation or flavor on these questions. Perhaps more than most Zen Lineages in the West, her teachings do present a rather "Theistic" feel to the nature of "Buddha Nature", "Buddha" and the like. Although she would say that "Ultimate Reality" is quite beyond definition and description, she did (and many of the presentations from her Lineage do) present these as finding "The Eternal", "That" "Thou" "The Still, Small Voice Within" or a feeling of Godhead and Diety, that we are to uncover and be worshipful and devotional toward (often found, for example, in passages of the translation of Shobogenzo produced by the OBC, which can often be quite "King James" in tone). As she says in the talk, her feeliing is that Yahweh, Allah, Buddha and such are all words for the same That. She was also a seer of mystic visions, not unlike many others of the past (Keizan is said to have been such a seer of visions), and that feeling does come through in many of her teachings. In many ways, she created rituals and customs that very much incorporate the feeling of the Anglican Church, such as the lovely Buddhist chants which are written as Gregorian or "Plain" chants ...

viewtopic.php?p=40544#p40544 (http://http://www.treeleaf.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=40544#p40544)

I feel that this is all FINE AND BEAUTIFUL. Yet, as well, it may not be the only way to encounter or present the Zen Buddhist teachings. Many in the west (me among them) may feel that uniting with and fully allowing this life-world-all time and space-ultimate reality, and leaving the ultimate to flow along as the ultimate, might mean that one need not necessarily put things that way, and that everyone from "theists" to so-called "secular humanists", atheists and agnostics, can be held within this "reality" which rejects none of that ... for what can be left out of what is? Perhaps Kennett Roshi's way is actually closer to the devotional, church-like, worshipful flavor of Buddhism that one might encounter at most Buddhist temples in Asia.

LOVELY, and the wonderful thing about the "Zen Buddhist Tent" ... just as wide and all encompassing as the whole universe, plus all of Reality itself ... is that it is spacious enough to hold all, leaving nothing out. There are as many ways to hear the Sound as there are ears to hear it. Many paths up and down the mountain (and, ultimately what mountain?. I practice such 'non-mountain' hiking.)

I encountered a passage by Thich Nhat Hanh yesterday in which he spoke of not caring for the definition of "Prajna" as "Wisdom", because to his ears, "Wisdom" seems as such a fixed and solid thing. He prefers "Understanding", which has the feel of "flowing" and penetrating which is fluid, flexible to all conditions. An image I like for that is the sailor single handedly sailing the vast sea who flows and allows for the ever changing conditions of wind and tide, ably sailing whatever comes, allowing it all and ever practicing with each league of the trip. The sailor knows that sea and sail and wind and boat and sailor are each what they are, and wholly one.

One can be that sailor, whether or not knowing the "beginning and end" of the sea, every inch of coastline, the shape of each grain of sand upon all its beaches, the bottom of its depth or the height of the sky above ... just sailing the sea right here, now, where the hull meets the water and the salty breeze is felt and tasted. The sea is just revealed right to the bottom, and all time and space held within every tiny drop.

One can be that sailor, whether one tastes the salt of the sea as "God", "H2O" "Water" "The Eternal" "Waves and Sea" "Poseidon" "Sand and Shore" "Buddha" "Liquid and Solid" "A Mirage" "A Dream" "Atoms" or just the flowing Sea.

Something like that.

Gassho, Jundo

Geika

12-19-2010, 04:33 AM

...the wonderful thing about the "Zen Buddhist Tent"... is that it is spacious enough to hold all, leaving nothing out.

Like that bowl that keeps coming up...

frjames

12-19-2010, 08:13 AM

Hi.

I tried a couple of times to give some point by point response to the question that doogie asked. But I just ended deleting them. I don't think its about the notion that if one practices Christianity, one cannot practice Buddhism, particularly in the this case, Zazen. I don't think it should be that way.

Doogie, I appreciate your question but if I engage with it then I will just be locked into an intellectual debate and not get down to the fact that Zazen is universal. Just as the Love of God, as taught by the Christ, is not a monopoly of any Christian church. Oh, of course, we can argue endlessly about the teachings of the institutional Church but even Buddhism has its institutional challenges.

Matsouka roshi was my first zen teacher. When I entered his zen temple 20 years ago, I admitted to him that I'm a Catholic priest. He immediately said, almost interrupting me, "No contradiction between Catholic and Buddhism." I believed him and have lived his words ever since.

Karen Armstrong, in her book, A Case For God, contends that up until the modern era (about the 1400's) people were more concern about practice than doctrine. Thus for the Christian, for example, the essence of Christianity was about practicing compassion and helping one's neighbor as the Christ taught. It was also about practicing "prayer"--particularly, liturgical prayer, where the whole body and mind is absolved in the practice. One "lost" oneself in prayer. For Armstrong, and I agree with her, belief and faith is not about intellectual assent but about "to give one's heart".

Armstrong also reintroduces the 5th century notion of apophasis, that the more we talk about God, the more we know nothing. "[A]pophasis, the breakdown of speech, which cracks and disintegrates before the absolute unknowability of what we call God.” When it comes to theology, "we really can't know what we are talking about." God or the concept of God can only be known through dedicated practice.

And that brings me back to Matsouka-roshi and his "No contradiction." After he said those words to me, he pointed to the cushion: "Sit!" To me its not about riding a bike or baking a pie or riding a horse. Its not even about popes or original sin or dogmas and doctrines. Its about sitting. At least when I sit, there is "no contradiction."

I apologize if this doesn't contribute much to the discussion or to the question.

Gassho,

James.

frjames

12-19-2010, 11:53 AM

Jundo said:
but I would not mix and match ketchup and bananas!

Jundo said:
A truly "non-dualistic" realization might feel something like "neither worshiping God nor not worshiping God blocks realization, for realization cannot be blocked ... as realization holds and easily allows for all". In fact, even asserting "worshiping God blocks realization" or "worshiping God does not block realization" will not block realization in the least when realization is correctly perceived.
There's the Teacher teaching. Thanks for this Jundo.

Deep bows,

James.

Attached files http://www.treeleaf.org/forums/images/attachments_phpbb/45083=407-41797_2203898389_6848_n-1.jpg (http://www.treeleaf.org/forums/images/attachments_phpbb/45083=407-41797_2203898389_6848_n-1.jpg)

Jundo

12-19-2010, 01:21 PM

I apologize if this doesn't contribute much to the discussion or to the question.

Gassho,

James.

I feel that it answered about all that can be answered. Thank you, Padre.

Gassho, J

doogie

12-19-2010, 07:26 PM

I see how there may be no contradiction between Soto Zen and Christianity (or any other religion). Zen appears to be infinitely plastic.

After reading the pdf that Jundo linked to called The New Buddhism, I am left with questions. The author discussed many of the issues that I've been wrestling with, and although Jundo may not agree with all the author's points, I believe many of the points are valid, and the last point deals directly with this discussion. It is the notion of enlightenment as faith.

It got me thinking about the story of Abraham, and whether or not a Buddhist would have handled the situation differently. Would a Buddhist, when ordered by his God to kill his son, have taken it on blind faith that he should do so, or would he have declined the offer with a bow.

I believe the Buddha certainly would have taken issue with any God demanding such an act of faith. In fact, isn't that the whole point of his original message? To wake up from all such delusions and reach that place where the precepts manifest themselves? To act morally because it is your true nature to do so, instead of acting against your nature as an act of faith in an external force?

Ankai

12-19-2010, 11:56 PM

doogie

12-20-2010, 04:41 AM

Doogie, You're right.
You could pick apart the stories of any religion and base an opinion on them. On a personal note, you just blew off the faiths of millions of people as "delusion," and while I understand your point, there is a more delicate way you could express your own beliefs and ideas about those of others. The simple truth is that our Zen trancends those ideas and beliefs, and rather than worry about "delusions" held by others we ought to remember the delusionary nature of our OWN beliefs rather than those expressed by other people. If you're not a believer, sit with it. If you are a believer, sit also. But Ihave to be honest, it's coming across like your questions are more a matter of stating disagreement with other faiths and what other people think or believe than they are questions about anything.

If you can state that my OWN beliefs are delusions, then I doubt I'm the only one. That's the point, isn't it? That all beliefs are delusions.

Zen doesn't mean anti-intellectual. The answer to every question can't be "just sit." Buddha didn't "just sit." He thought about this stuff. Being surrounded by the hindu faith, he thought often about gods. He had opinions on them.

I'd like to think that "just sitting" would solve a complex dilemma of faith, but perhaps not. If you believe in a God, and that God came down from on high and told you to sacrifice your child, clearly that would contradict everything we know about what it is to be Buddhist. One who is truly enlightened would never do such a thing. Perhaps that's not politically correct, but can't Buddhists agree on that simple point?

Religions are useless if they don't offer moral guidance, and I think it's just fine to point out moral inconsistencies on both sides. That doesn't disparage either religions, but creates a dialogue between them. Zen has been used for purposes of war, which contradicts the spirit of the Buddha's teachings. It's okay to talk about that too.

Ankai

12-20-2010, 01:17 PM

I'd like to think that "just sitting" would solve a complex dilemma of faith, but perhaps not. If you believe in a God, and that God came down from on high and told you to sacrifice your child, clearly that would contradict everything we know about what it is to be Buddhist. One who is truly enlightened would never do such a thing. Perhaps that's not politically correct, but can't Buddhists agree on that simple point?

But, Doogie, if you're not a member of one of the Abrahamic faiths, and don't accept most of the tales of the Buddha either, they're all just stories, right? Illustrations, parables making a broader point? Which matters more... literal flowers springing up in the Buddha's footprints, or that he was a blessing to the world? But if you don't see them as literal- if they're not stories you'd take at face value anyway... Nothing you're actually hanging your faith on? So, how can there be a crisis of faith regarding something you don't believe to begin with?

Saijun

12-20-2010, 02:07 PM

Hello friends,

Maybe clinging so tightly to our own notions and ideas is just as bad as hanging on the words of a God who tells you to kill.

Just my thought.

Metta,

Perry

Seishin the Elder

12-20-2010, 02:39 PM

or this might be better -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akd7V-0JI6w[/video]]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akd7V-0JI6w (http://[video=youtube_share;akd7V-0JI6w)

Oh Chugai...thank you for this portal. It opened onto so many wonderful places, not only Brother David's simple wisdom, but Merton and so much more. A lot of material I am enjoying. Best Christmas present ever!!!! :)

Gassho,

Seishin Kyrill

doogie

12-20-2010, 07:36 PM

But, Doogie, if you're not a member of one of the Abrahamic faiths, and don't accept most of the tales of the Buddha either, they're all just stories, right? Illustrations, parables making a broader point? Which matters more... literal flowers springing up in the Buddha's footprints, or that he was a blessing to the world? But if you don't see them as literal- if they're not stories you'd take at face value anyway... Nothing you're actually hanging your faith on? So, how can there be a crisis of faith regarding something you don't believe to begin with?

You think that I'm picking a fight with some group. I'm not. All religions have the same heart deep down, but there is a lot of window dressing (delusion) in all of them. Even zen. Thinking zen is the one thing that transcends beliefs is itself a delusion. The practitioner is not separate from the practice, and people have beliefs, sometimes contradictory. I'm sure there are even some here who believe Rinzai is inferior to Soto, that RM Jiyu Kennet's soto zen isn't "our" soto zen, that pureland people have it all wrong.

It's funny. Buddhists are far more likely to criticize other Buddhists than they are to criticize Christians, Jews, Muslims, or Hindus. But nothing about this thread should be taken as criticism of any religion. Like I said, all religions have the same heart, but their window dressing is very different. If we can't peel it all away, we can't really see that it's all the same space. Perhaps not everybody cares how a Catholic/Buddhist priest might interpret the story of Abraham, but I think it's interesting. Maybe others reading this are wondering how they might reread the bible or the koran or the Torah from a different perspective.

Perhaps someone following both faiths might reinterpret the story of Abraham to transform it from a literal lesson in faith and obedience to a more metaphorical lesson in attachment. If not, then how does one reconcile that story with the dharma?

I did grow up in an "Abrahamic" tradition, albeit an odd one, and I was taught a very specific dogma. It's all about faith. Those who have it are gonna be saved, and those who don't aren't. I was ordained into the priesthood at the age of twelve, and at fourteen I was told I needed to start doing baptisms for the dead. That's so you can convert all those poor souls who passed on before they had a chance to accept Jesus as their savior. If you ever wondered why mormons are so interested in genealogy, that's the reason. I thought the whole thing was rather rude. Maybe they didn't want to be converted. Maybe they were just fine believing what they believed even if they were dead. I left the church shortly after, and only now can I really see the unifying threads. I think if you can see that they are all equally false, including zen, then you can see also they are just as equally true.

I couldn't imagine trying to practice as a mormon elder and a Buddhist priest. There are too many differences in the window dressing. That isn't to say others couldn't do it, but I would find myself standing on the opposite side of many of the church's beliefs and worldly dealings.

doogie

12-20-2010, 07:37 PM

I wonder what a religion would look like stripped of everything. I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing mind you, but I wonder. No Buddha, no Christ, No Allah, no Vishnu, no chanting in Korean or Japanese, no incense, no full lotus, no hymns or parables, bon or shinto, eastern rite or legalistic Roman Catholic, pews or cushions, facing East or facing West, runes or eye of frog, souls or aggregates, robes or collars. What would it look like? What would it feel like? How would you express it? How would you convey it without dressing it up and wrapping it in cultural context?

Maybe that's where sitting takes you (reveals to you). That stripped down place (non-place) where we all go for the answers. The place (non-place) beyond beliefs. Beyond the window dressing. But you can't stay in that place. You have to come back to the world. You have to take an active role in it, which can be hard when you've seen behind the curtain -- seen all the cabling and props and sets for what they are.

Perhaps for some its better to have never glimpsed the "eternal" or whatever you want to call it, because once you do you can't plead ignorance. You can't return to a belief that two people shouldn't be allowed to love each other or marry because they're the same sex (to take a random example), or that it's fine to put someone to death for this reason, but not for that reason. Those particular beliefs cause suffering. You can't go back to gazing at your naval and letting things be as they are because they are perfectly as they are. You are now responsible. Awake at the wheel. Not just driving yourself, but driving all those snoozing people in the back of the bus.

Once again, this isn't about private beliefs. It's about how one chooses to act in the world with those beliefs. I've read through the Treeleaf manual for training priests, and I see they are expected to perform as priests in the world, not cloister themselves (not that there's anything wrong with that). Until Fr. Kyrillos enlightened me, I just assumed Catholic priests were the same way. I also believed a priest represents the beliefs of the church from which he derives his authority, but I suppose that's not necessarily true. See, I'm learning.

* By the way, that was an interesting video, Chugai. Thank you.

Saijun

12-20-2010, 07:58 PM

Hello friends,

Maybe clinging so tightly to our own notions and ideas is just as bad as hanging on the words of a God who tells you to kill.

Just my thought.

Metta,

Perry

I tried researching the God commands people to kill but didn't find it -- I found stuff on him commanding Angels to kill and certain armies to kill , one thing on killing false prophets, Do you have something on that?

Hello Chugai,

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but it seems that I've offended you with my previous post, and for that I apologize. It wasn't intentional. I was merely referencing the above example about God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son.

As for me "hav[ing] something," I've got nothing. I never have.

Metta,

Perry

Ankai

12-21-2010, 01:33 PM

I think a lot of us Westerners, particularly in America, are caught in the Judeo-Christian mindset whether we want to recognize it or not. Each of the Abrahamic faiths teaches that it is "THE Truth," and that all others are error. Because this ethic is so steeped in our shared culture and thinking, the resultant thought is that, "But if I believe THIS is tue, then THAT can not be..." and we apply such thinking regardless of what our faith- or the lack thereof- might be. Hence, while we're here debating the issue in this thread, Asian Buddhist leaders such as His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh either pay scant attention to the difference between faiths or outright encourage deep exploration, the attitude being, "Don't convert- use these teachings to become a better whatever you are!" I think teachers trained in Asia, like Jundo, Bernie Glassman, Aitken Roshi, have also adopted some of this same attitude. (LOOK how many Western Zen teachers and those of other styles are Jewish, for example, and have no problem reconciling their spirituality!)
Buddhism, and our Zen, are unique in that they do not present the "ALL OR NOTHING" mindset of other religious expressions- they simply seek to incorporate our individual "all." AND nothing.

Saijun

12-21-2010, 02:56 PM

I believe I made the mistake -- I was just asking if you had a link or something to the scripture where god commands us to kill --- the Bible is a tricky read -- I am not offended, I have no God or Savior unless they are invisible and work in such mysterious ways I cannot perceive them except by intuition (which has failed me so far).

Good morning (here) Chugai,

I'm glad that's settled. The verse in questions is this:

Genesis 22

1And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

2And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

3And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.

4Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.

5And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.

6And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.

7And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?

8And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

9And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.

10And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

11And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.

12And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

13And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

Metta,

Perry

Ankai

12-21-2010, 03:07 PM

Don't you think this is a story about faith and trust, an allegorical parable rather than a recording of an historic event? Even at face value, one must see that the book was supposedly written by Moses... who wasn't even close to being born yet, so at BEST it's not an eyewitness account, right? I personally think this, like most of the stories in the Old Testament (and much of the New) are allegories meant to make a specific point (or multiple ones) and that dichotomy is only apparent when one tries (as many do) to interpret them literally.

doogie

12-21-2010, 06:31 PM

Or it's a story about faith and obedience. And I don't think it matters whether it should be taken literally or as a parable. An interesting Pew poll from 2006 shows that 70% of Lutherans in the United States take the stories in the Bible to be literal. But that's neither here nor there. How does the parable jibe with Buddhist ethics? Abraham is fully prepared to sacrifice his son on God's command, and God goes on to say why he tested him: "... for now I know that thou fearest God."

All too easily Buddhist ethics are left out of zen, and you end up with something not so much Buddhist as Dogenist, or Japanese spiritualist, or something else. There's a Soto sangha here in Southern California that seems very un-Buddhist to me. A lot of American flag-waving, pro war, us against them attitude. It's not unlike some of the flavors of zen that have sprung up over in Japan at various times.

Here's an interesting paper on D.T. Suzuki. It touches on some of this stuff.

http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol5/suzuki-gentium.pdf

Ankai

12-21-2010, 06:53 PM

Or it's a story about faith and obedience. And I don't think it matters whether it should be taken literally or as a parable. An interesting Pew poll from 2006 shows that 70% of Lutherans in the United States take the stories in the Bible to be literal. But that's neither here nor there. How does the parable jibe with Buddhist ethics? Abraham is fully prepared to sacrifice his son on God's command, and God goes on to say why he tested him: "... for now I know that thou fearest God."

You really don't see it? It's a story about Zen in its primal form!
Take the literal interpretation out, if you can do that... drop the characters and actions as historic ideas, and you're left with a parable about letting go in the face of samsaric clinging... severing all ties, even your dearest and closest held attachments in this life, even if it seems not to make sense or to be selfish or unreasonable... EXACTLY as the Buddha did when, in his story, he walked away from the responsibilities of rule, his wife, and his son. And, lets not forget, in both tales, it was the willingness to let go that bore the deeper spirituality and spiritual relationships between the people involved in time.
Did it literally HAPPEN? I have no idea. I wasn't there. Is there a very "Buddhist" lesson in the story? ABSOLUTELY.

doogie

12-21-2010, 07:48 PM

You really don't see it? It's a story about Zen in its primal form!

That's a beautiful story. But it's YOUR beautiful story. It exists in your mind. That may not be how a Christian views the story at all. You say I don't see IT. I can see what you want me to see. That doesn't mean that it's IT. A Christian might take it as a literal story and yet still want to be a good Zen Buddhist. It becomes a test between external authority versus internal authority. Are you walking the Buddhist path when you abrogate your own morals for the morals of a sovereign being (i.e. God). We cannot alter the story or remove any part of it. We have to take it as it is. You can put whatever spin on the lesson you want, but the parts must remain intact or else we can do away with the story altogether and write a fiction perfectly acceptable to both sides.

Geika

12-21-2010, 08:33 PM

I think those most willing to follow a religion religiously are those just starting out, or those with a particularly strong family upbringing in it, or culture. Most other practitioners follow their own flavor of their religion-- following the main points, but with variations based on personal thought, family upbringing, the society they are brought up in, etc. I was a Catholic up until around fourteen or fifteen, and while I would have those times of trying to follow the rules, I usually went pretty easy on myself with other things. I always had a natural buffer for being overly dogmatic with myself, trying to keep in with the essential golden rule more than worrying about how often I was going to confession.

Karen Armstrong, in her book, A Case For God, contends that up until the modern era (about the 1400's) people were more concern about practice than doctrine. Thus for the Christian, for example, the essence of Christianity was about practicing compassion and helping one's neighbor as the Christ taught.

Like in that MP3 doogie shared:

Armstrong also reintroduces the 5th century notion of apophasis, that the more we talk about God, the more we know nothing... "we really can't know what we are talking about."

Jundo said:
but I would not mix and match ketchup and bananas!

I lol'd.

It got me thinking about the story of Abraham, and whether or not a Buddhist would have handled the situation differently. Would a Buddhist, when ordered by his God to kill his son, have taken it on blind faith that he should do so, or would he have declined the offer with a bow.

That's a damn good question, but I would ask it this way:

"Would the Buddha, if ordered knowingly by God to kill his son, have taken it on blind faith that he should do so, or would he have devised some other answer?"

But still, this is all just stories in my opinion, and wondering about them in a serious sense is pointless...

I wonder what a religion would look like stripped of everything.

It wouldn't be, nor have been?

I see [Treeleaf priests]... are expected to perform as priests in the world, not cloister themselves...

Visualizing the teaching, "life is our temple," has really helped me. Activity in "real life" is essentially no different from activity in a monastery or retreat.

I think a lot of us Westerners, particularly in America, are caught in the Judeo-Christian mindset whether we want to recognize it or not.

True that. At least, I tend to recognize this in myself, whether I want to or not:

Each of the Abrahamic faiths teaches that it is "THE Truth," and that all others are error. Because this ethic is so steeped in our shared culture and thinking, the resultant thought is that, "But if I believe THIS is tue, then THAT can not be..." and we apply such thinking regardless of what our faith- or the lack thereof- might be.

[The story of Abrahm is...]about Zen in its primal form!
Take the literal interpretation out, if you can do that... drop the characters and actions as historic ideas, and you're left with a parable about letting go in the face of samsaric clinging... severing all ties, even your dearest and closest held attachments in this life, even if it seems not to make sense or to be selfish or unreasonable... EXACTLY as the Buddha did when, in his story, he walked away from the responsibilities of rule, his wife, and his son. And, lets not forget, in both tales, it was the willingness to let go that bore the deeper spirituality and spiritual relationships between the people involved in time.

Interesting way to look at it.

Ankai

12-22-2010, 01:17 PM

So if I change the whole thing around and look at it with my eyes nearly closed it should make sense?
Wait, What?
No, the point is we should look at it with the mindset of "What does it say to me?" as opposed to "Well, THEY believe it's about THIS or THAT..." Rejecting wisdom because one doesn't like the source is silly, and so is simply disregarding such a possible source, don't you think?
...and who cares? What difference can it make to me how a Methodist or a Catholic sees that story? I have no problem seeing the story of the offering of Isaac as nearly identical to the Buddhist tale I referenced... and I personally think finding common ground is much more important and productive than pointing out and further widening the differences that seperate us as people. If, at the end of the day, all we have to offer is just another "Us" and "Them," then what does our faith hold that any other doesn't?

Jundo

12-22-2010, 04:03 PM

doogie

12-22-2010, 07:19 PM

Someone asked me today why I seem to say opposite things on issues such as this. They were a bit confused about what I mean about "certain" flavors of Christianity or Judaism (or Atheism too) being "compatible with our Practice ... while, in my view, many or most flavors of Christianity or Judaism (or Atheism too) really are not.

Likewise, they have read me be critical of much of what I call "magico-supersticio hocus-pocus bunkum" in Buddhism, and much myth and fairy tale that it has picked up over the millenia ... yet I also say that esoteric practices (in some flavors) can be harmonious with "our Practice" under certain conditions. Likewise with regard to chanting to Amida, prayer and the like.

So, what gives?

It is really very simple. The key, by my eyes, is radical, non-attaining and goallessness of Shikantaza ... moving forward, yet ever still ... polishing the tile, yet not one thing to change. Of course, we sit seated Shikantaza Zazen each day, but many activities and beliefs in daily life can be "Shikantaza" too. For example, if one washes the dishes because dirty dishes are bad, and one cannot be happy until the dishes are clean ... that is not what I would call Shikantaza. However, if one can wash dishes because dirty dishes are bad (but also beyond all thought of "good and bad") and because one must get the cleaning done (but also simultaneously with nothing to attain or in need of fixing) and cannot be happy until they are clean (but while simultaneously content with dirty dishes as dirty dishes, clean dishes as clean dishes, in between dishes as in between dishes ... even content with one's discontent at the dirt) ... that is rather Shikantaza.

If one sits Zazen striving to get enlightened ... not Shikantaza. If one sits Zazen striving to get enlightened ... with nothing lacking anywhere along the way ... and enlightenment in the piercing of that "nothing in need of fixing, even as we fix" ... that is Shikantaza.

Well, what goes for dish washing and Zazen applies to all practices, makiing Buddhas, praying, chanting, painting pictures, believing or not believing in God, practicing a religion, holding a political view ... anything really. We try to make ourselves more "Buddha-like" and better people, even though "Buddhas all along" with not one hair on our heads to change. If one prays or bows or chants with nothing in need of getting ... Shikantaza.

Thus, for purposes of our practice here, it all depends how it is done ... and whether it is Shikantaza.

I may be wrong, and forgive me if I misunderstood, but it seems as if experiencing this nonduality is the highest ideal. That this non-attaining goalessness itself is complete enlightenment. But many supposed zen masters have been tragically flawed individuals, just like many leaders in other religions, and just like people in general. Without a reliance on Buddhist ethics, it seems all too easy to think that sitting shikantaza is enough -- like saying a bunch Hail-Marys to absolve oneself of sin is enough.

One can behave badly, then return to the source, to enlightenment where one is a perfectly actualized Buddha, and then come back to the world and behave badly again. Around and around it goes.

Perhaps someone who is truly Enlightened (Big E) doesn't need the precepts. Perhaps one can't help but live the precepts because one is enlightened. Perhaps the precepts themselves are enlightenment. That is to say, even if one had never heard of the precepts, someone who is Enlightened would live them anyway. But most people here aren't like that. I know I'm not. What does this have to do with anything?

There are sometimes conflicts between Buddhist ethics and the ethics taught in other religions. In fact, there are sometimes conflicts in the ethics within zen as well (or have been anyway). Divorcing zen from Buddhism, or simply removing aspects of Buddhism which seem inconvenient, can lead to something like Samurai zen.

Imagine you're a Catholic Chaplain as well as a Zen Buddhist Priest, the only one within a thousand miles capable of performing marriages, and U.S. Federal law is changed to allow servicemen and woman to marry those of the opposite sex. You believe as your Christian church believes, that it is immoral, and so you refuse. This causes great suffering. Does it go against any of the precepts? I don't know. Perhaps not. Is there still a conflict there. I think so.

Is the purpose of Zen or Buddhism to help someone live rightly, or is its purpose to help someone be at peace with living rightly and/or wrongly? (And before I'm corrected, the term "right" does appear in the precepts).

Jundo

12-23-2010, 04:07 AM

Hi Doogie,

I am going to borrow this from where you posted on the "Karma" thread today ...

There is a notion. That we (whatever "we" are) are like children. Spun off of something greater. Call it God, the Source, the Tao, whatever. We return lifetime after lifetime to grow more fully into what we are. That is, what we are capable of being. We do this by working through karma. If I kill a man in this life, perhaps I return in another to be killed so that I experience the consequence. Not as retribution, but as a tool to learn and to grow. Eventually we will have learned all that this place can teach us and we move on.

In this way, a world of suffering isn't a prison to be escaped. It is a school in which to learn.

I am not saying that such is how the universe works or not. I just want to say that what you describe might not be all so different from the "Christianity" and other belief systems hold. Call it sin ... call it karma ... call it heaven/hell or "Buddhist heaven/hell" ... and it just becomes words after awhile.

You also post above:

I may be wrong, and forgive me if I misunderstood, but it seems as if experiencing this nonduality is the highest ideal. That this non-attaining goalessness itself is complete enlightenment. But many supposed zen masters have been tragically flawed individuals, just like many leaders in other religions, and just like people in general. Without a reliance on Buddhist ethics, it seems all too easy to think that sitting shikantaza is enough -- like saying a bunch Hail-Marys to absolve oneself of sin is enough.

One can behave badly, then return to the source, to enlightenment where one is a perfectly actualized Buddha, and then come back to the world and behave badly again. Around and around it goes.

We had another thread on when Zen teachers act "Ugly, Small And All Too Human", and you might wish to have a look ...

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2074 (http://http://www.treeleaf.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2074)

In a nutshell, while one may realize wondrous Truths in this Practice, one must still Practice those truths and "realize" them (make them real) through our conduct. So long as we are frail human beings subject to fall in this samsara world, we are never free of the chances to act "all too human". Even the most gifted tight rope walker might stumble and fall with the next crossing, with the next breeze. Darn right that we use the Precepts and Zazen (not two), much as that pole the acrobat holds for balance in crossing.

Is the purpose of Zen or Buddhism to help someone live rightly, or is its purpose to help someone be at peace with living rightly and/or wrongly? (And before I'm corrected, the term "right" does appear in the precepts).

Hah! I would say perhaps that the purpose is to help us live rightly and gently ... and be at total peace (beyond small human thoughts of "right and wrong") in a world that can seem to go sometimes terribly terribly wrong. Something like that. 8)

Gassho, J

doogie

12-23-2010, 09:14 PM

Thank you, Jundo. The cosmology of Christian versus Buddhist isn't as important as possible ethical differences and practical choices, but I understand why you can't answer some of those questions.

Jundo said:

We had another thread on when Zen teachers act "Ugly, Small And All Too Human", and you might wish to have a look ...

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2074

In a nutshell, while one may realize wondrous Truths in this Practice, one must still Practice those truths and "realize" them (make them real) through our conduct. So long as we are frail human beings subject to fall in this samsara world, we are never free of the chances to act "all too human". Even the most gifted tight rope walker might stumble and fall with the next crossing, with the next breeze. Darn right that we use the Precepts and Zazen (not two), much as that pole the acrobat holds for balance in crossing.

I read through it, thank you. It's true that people are people, whether priest or president, and it's unrealistic to place anybody up on these pedestals of perfection. The practice never ends, and it's probably pretty easy to let power and praise corrupt that practice.

Sometimes the people who become priests are the last people who should be priests, just like the people who become president are the last people who should be president. In fact, I think you have to be a little crazy to want to be president. I want someone in office who DOES'T want to be president.

There's a saying in the world of psychology and psychiatry that those those who enter the field are sometimes the most screwed up people around. Some enter it in order to "fix" themselves, but only end up harming others. That's a gross generalization, of course, but all-too-common. When you put neurotic people in positions of power, those neuroses are usually going to surface.

Those relative few Catholic priests who harm children didn't become that way because they were Catholic priests. They most likely became catholic priests in order to deal with those impulses (just a hypothesis).

I don't think anybody comes to Buddhism happy, successful, content, and well-adjusted. People come because they are suffering. They're searching for a "fix," and maybe for a while they find it, and perhaps even try to pass it on to others, but that "fix" is an illusion. Wherever you go, there you are, even if you think you've finally done away with your "self." (The "self" might be an illusion, but so is doing away with it, right?)

If I've learned anything from Treeleaf (and I've learned a lot), it's that the practice isn't limited to the cushion, and it never ends. Not for a novice and not for a roshi. I've also learned that there's nowhere to get to, so if you think you've arrived, wake up and keep practicing.

Gassho,

D.

** I hope I didn't give anybody the impression that I think all priests, psychologists, and presidents are nuts or deviants. That's not the case at all. Well, maybe all presidents.

Yugen

12-24-2010, 01:17 AM

Seishin Kyrill et al,

The Merton interaction with Buddhism is quite interesting. If you have not already done so, have a look at his book Zen and the Birds of Appetite... a couple of interesting points emerge from this work -

1) Merton, despite his affinity for and interest in the philosophies and religions of the East, reaffirmed his own Western lineage and roots - note that Thich Nhat Hanh also has quite a bit to say about Westerners who wish to renounce their cultural/religious roots and become Buddhists. They both appear to share the belief that one's (interfaith) practice is best based in one's original cultural/religious milieu.

2) On his Asian trip, Merton had a conversation with Nishida Kitaro (of the Kyoto School - an interesting story in itself), and he quoted Nishida's definition of God: "the spirit of unity at the center of the universe." Aside from the fact that the Kyoto scholars were for the most part Rinzai-affiliated (Shenichi Hisamatsu and the ultimate koan a favorite of mine).

It is a tragedy that Merton's intellectual and spiritual maturation was cut short -

Gassho,
Alex (Yugen)

Jundo

12-24-2010, 04:51 AM

Well, what goes for dish washing and Zazen applies to all practices, makiing Buddhas, praying, chanting, painting pictures, believing or not believing in God, practicing a religion, holding a political view ... anything really. We try to make ourselves more "Buddha-like" and better people, even though "Buddhas all along" with not one hair on our heads to change. If one prays or bows or chants with nothing in need of getting ... Shikantaza.

Let me underline how sacred it all is, every breath and step, the sacred unity at the heart of this universe, whether washing windows, washing a face, chanting to Buddha or praying to one's image of God, working in a laboratory to unlock DNA, parenting children, being alive ... all sacred among the sacred, each the total manifestation that is the heart of reality. This sense of the sacred too, in every action and every instant of Zazen ... is Shikantaza. If one manifests such insight into every action ... praying, chanting, researching, washing ... all Shikantaza.

Do not assume that "just this ordinary life" is just "ordinary"? The Ancestors are not preaching mere resignation and stoicism, but to find the jewel and the sacred in this "seems so ordinary" existence. We encounter the "ordinary" for the wondrous, miraculous, whole and flowering treasure that it is ... and which is just "us" too. Such are the fruits of Zazen. It is only that, in Shikantaza, there is found what is here all along by giving up the search somewhere distant and apart.

Gassho, J

Seishin the Elder

12-24-2010, 04:01 PM

It is a tragedy that Merton's intellectual and spiritual maturation was cut short -

Yes Alex, it is a shame. I am sure that he would have had so much more to learn and to say about it. But it wasn't totally stopped. His Gethsemane Monastery took up the torch, along with a number of other monastic scholars both Eastern and Western, and with the gentle guidance of the Dalai Lama there has continued a regular meeting and association of (mostly) monastics of the Buddhist and Catholic traditions over the years. They have regular conferences and even publish work about the spiritual path together. It has grown over the years into the Monastic Inter-Religious Dialogue. No one is trying to subject one side to the other: Christian to Buddhist, or Buddhist to Christian. No one is trying to create a syncrtic form of a "new religion". What is happening on a larger scale thre is what happened with me, personally on a much smaller more personal scale; a genuine feeling of the sharing of monastic fraternity with someone of a different religion, that was at once familiar and welcoming, as well as practicable in the idiom I already understood. Once that is felt, there is a natural draw to learn how much more we share. For some of us, not all; it is comfortable enough to open up to the possiblity of monastic/priestly expression in both traditions, with the proper permissions, of course. I think Merton would have move more in that direction as time move on. Others of his Order as well as other Catholic priests have over the ensuing years. So far, as far as I know, the Pope hasn't made a move to baptise all the Buddhists, nor has the Dalai Lama moved into the Vatican.

Gassho,

Seishin Kyrill

AlanLa

12-28-2010, 03:27 PM

For the very little that it's worth, us Zennists tend to read our scriptures (sutras) more critically (as guidance from the Buddha) than Christians, who I think are taught to read the scriptures devotionally (as the Word of God). I don't know if us Zennists get taught, per se, to read the sutras more critically as much as it is encouraged or at least tolerated. On the other hand, I think Christians are often dissuaded from critical thinking about their scriptures. All this all too often adds up to conflict and talking past each other. After reading this very interesting thread, I think people in all religions could benefit from reading their respective scriptures more contemplatively, which seems a mix of both devotion and critical thinking.

doogie

12-28-2010, 06:06 PM

I agree Alan. Great faith, great doubt, and great determination.

AlanLa

12-28-2010, 06:22 PM

Oh, I forgot to add that at the devotional level there is conflict between Buddhism and Christianity, hence your original question. But once you get to the contemplative level that conflict seems to go away. Interesting.

AlanLa

12-29-2010, 02:52 PM

Sorry, just one more worthless thought. Depending on where you stand, the whole zen experience is in this thread/topic. If you stand in a place of devotion you see many mountains, or religions. If you stand in a place of criticism those mountains become rivers of thought or beliefs. And if you stand in a place of contemplation (zazen) it all becomes One Mountain, One Body.

Seishin the Elder

12-30-2010, 03:30 PM

Depending on where you stand, the whole zen experience is in this thread/topic. If you stand in a place of devotion you see many mountains, or religions. If you stand in a place of criticism those mountains become rivers of thought or beliefs. And if you stand in a place of contemplation (zazen) it all becomes One Mountain, One Body.

That's what I wanted to say...thanks Alan. Makes sense to me.

Gassho,

Seishin Kyrill

Geika

12-30-2010, 05:58 PM

What is happening on a larger scale thre is what happened with me, personally on a much smaller more personal scale; a genuine feeling of the sharing of monastic fraternity with someone of a different religion, that was at once familiar and welcoming, as well as practicable in the idiom I already understood. Once that is felt, there is a natural draw to learn how much more we share.

I'm also drawn to similarities and common themes between religions.

...at the devotional level there is conflict between Buddhism and Christianity, hence your original question. But once you get to the contemplative level that conflict seems to go away.

Depending on where you stand, the whole zen experience is in this thread/topic. If you stand in a place of devotion you see many mountains, or religions. If you stand in a place of criticism those mountains become rivers of thought or beliefs. And if you stand in a place of contemplation (zazen) it all becomes One Mountain, One Body.

Nice!

Kyousui

04-07-2017, 03:13 AM

Article in Zen Friends Vol. 15, Ni.1 2004 P. 13 A Christian Zen Friend Misao Kawamata Catholic Priest

Jundo

04-07-2017, 03:30 AM

Article in Zen Friends Vol. 15, Ni.1 2004 P. 13 A Christian Zen Friend Misao Kawamata Catholic Priest

Hi Tom,

Is there a link?

Most of the Catholic Priests I know who are also Zen Practitioners are Jesuits, and most seem to be practitioners of Rinzai Zen or the mixed Rinzai-Soto Sambokyodan. (I wonder why not so much Soto Soto? Hmmm. Perhaps just historical fluke and one followed another in that direction.)

Robert Kennedy, S.J., Roshi, is a Jesuit priest and Zen teacher in the White Plum lineage. He studied with Yamada Roshi in Kamakura, Japan, with Maezumi Roshi in Los Angeles, and with Glassman Roshi in New York. Glassman Roshi installed Kennedy as sensei in 1991 and conferred Inka (his final seal of approval) in 1997, making him a roshi (master). Kennedy Roshi is the author of Zen Gifts to Christians and Zen Spirit, Christian Spirit.... To date, Kennedy Roshi has installed six dharma successors...and Kevin Hunt Sensei, a Trappist monk from St. Joseph's Abbey at Spencer, Mass.

For the occasion of Fr. Hunt's installation, the Superior General of the Society of Jesus, Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, S.J., wrote:

"Because of the long preparation and training required to become a master of the demanding Zen training, Fr. Hunt's achievement is one that we can all celebrate in thanksgiving to God ... Jesuits and other Christians have found Zen to be a valuable instrument for progressing in the spiritual life. ... By coming to focus on the present moment through the practice of the techniques of Zen meditation, the Christian can become aware of God's immediate loving presence."

http://kennedyzen.tripod.com/index.htm

Gassho, Jundo

SatToday

Myogan

04-07-2017, 03:56 AM

Let me feed your curiosity.

https://www.amazon.com/One-God-Clapping-Spiritual-Rabbi/dp/1580231152

As for the gentleman in your post, I'm sure he practices the paramitas. If he does so earnestly, he should handle the three poisons including delusion. If you mean the western meaning of delusion, the Buddha told the parable of the poisoned arrow to reccomend becoming entangled in metaphysical speculation, not to say not to believe in something greater than yourself. Just don't let it turn you into a pretzel.

Gassho
Sat

Tai Shi

04-07-2017, 05:23 AM

I am a Zen Buddhist by choice, and I came to Treeleaf Zendo thinking I knew about meditation, not knowing. For about four years before coming to Treeleaf, I sat counting my breath scanning my body and sitting quietly with my breath to alleviate my arthritic pain. Now I just sit. And sometimes I return to these meditations. I observe the things I have learned in reading through the small amount I have done, and by observing and doing. For me I sit, and I am learning to sit often. I am learning not to announce on Facebook that I am a Zen Buddhist, but I've had to make that mistake a lot before that began to happen.

I've had to make many mistakes in my Shikantaza before even getting started, and I feel like I'm just getting started. I want longer sitting to be in my future. Like many I left fundamentalist Christianity at the age of puberty, and I toyed with main-stream Christianity until I found Unitarian Universalism and I'm still a part of this, and I sit with the help of folks at Treeleaf. AND Jundo says there is no bad sitting, and length of sitting time does not matter. I'm not a real Christian.

I know who Thomas Merton is, and I've read St. John of the Cross. I've memorized parts of poetry, but really, Shikantaza is my first formal introduction to actual meditation. I guess all this is unimportant. I sit Shikantaza, and I will continue to sit alone or with others. I'm not sure where my sitting will take me, and some people, Jr. Priests, and practitioners with much more sitting time, tell me that I have a lot to learn, that sitting in and of itself will lead me to more.

I'm a Christian, but only in that I look at some of the practices of Jesus as truth. I am at this time in my life a Soto Zen Buddhist, and Jundo and the other priests of Treeleaf are offering much. I'm told that I have much to learn. I'm 65.

Tai Shi
sat today
Gassho