Split Thread: Socially DIS-engaged Buddhism

[Kokuu]

The Zen book that grabbed me was a Brad Warner book. I like his band and give him credit where credit is due in getting me to sit every morning. I wouldn't read another of his books and don't watch his YouTube channel because I feel he must have a sore arse from sitting on the fence with everything.

Hi Onka

I must admit I have not noticed that Brad is one for fence-sitting. Can you give examples? Politically he does but that is out of a choice to keep politics out of his Zen (a stance I don't agree with but a stance all the same) and he is pretty clear on his views regarding virtual practice and drugs in Buddhism.

His views and mine often don't match (I am 100% with him on the drug ones though) but I am glad he says what he thinks. Fortunately I missed the gender dysphoria statements as don't think I would have enjoyed those.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

[Onka]

Come on comrade, you know me well enough to know that of course I was referring to politics with the statement about fence sitting. Every aspect of our lives is governed by politics of some kind.
Gassho
Onka

[Jundo]

The Zen book that grabbed me was a Brad Warner book. I like his band and give him credit where credit is due in getting me to sit every morning. I wouldn't read another of his books and don't watch his YouTube channel because I feel he must have a sore arse from sitting on the fence with everything. He lost me completely when he compared having man boobs with gender dysphoria. Insert every swear word invented here. If I was in LA I'm sure I'd have delivered him a good old fashioned strongly worded letter attached to my fists and boots and then probably have to spend the following 20 years living naked in a cave reciting the Verse of Atonement non stop.

... Come on comrade, you know me well enough to know that of course I was referring to politics with the statement about fence sitting. Every aspect of our lives is governed by politics of some kind.

Personally, I believe that Brad is very political as a Zen teacher, maybe more than many. Every talk by Bro. Brad about closing one's ears to the news, about just being concerned about one's own practice, about how wrong it is for Buddhists to engage in social causes as an aspect of their practice, about how there is no need for Buddhist groups to take special steps to welcome sexual, racial or economic minorities, is a political statement and a strong one.

Gassho, J

STLah

[StoBird]

Personally, I believe that Brad is very political as a Zen teacher, maybe more than many. Ever talk by Bro. Brad about closing one's ears to the news, about just being concerned about one's own practice, about how wrong it is for Buddhists to engage in social causes as an aspect of their practice, about how there is no need for Buddhist groups to take special steps to welcome sexual, racial or economic minorities, is a political statement and a strong one.

Gassho, J

STLah

I’m surprised by that because I like Brad’s books for the most part. A non-stance stance kind of seems antithetical to the Bodhisattva way. Liberal or conservative, it seems like an aspiring Bodhisattva would be active in the world or am I missing a subtle teaching of Dogen that can be interpreted differently? Because I’ve never seen that way of thinking from any Mahayana teacher, Soto or otherwise that I’ve read or talked to. Bless all you Catholics out there but it kind of reminds me of the Pope’s stance during WWII.

One thing I’ve noticed is a fault me and Brad share: we are dismissive of things we don’t understand, for example in one book he dismisses the concept of “dharma position (jū-hōi)” because he “doesn’t get it.” And I tend to dismiss everything that I don’t get as a “deepity”. I realize that is unfair (and I fight the urge to judge and just simply not know) when reading Dogen’s writings because they *are* profound and beautiful when understood in the context of Zen.

Gassho,
Tom

Sat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Jundo]

... it seems like an aspiring Bodhisattva would be active in the world or am I missing a subtle teaching of Dogen that can be interpreted differently? Because I’ve never seen that way of thinking from any Mahayana teacher, Soto or otherwise that I’ve read or talked to. Bless all you Catholics out there but it kind of reminds me of the Pope’s stance during WWII.

Well, in the Buddha's time, Dogen's time, it was not so easy. I wrote this the other day ...

Buddha, Dogen and the other ancient Zen masters in China and Japan lived in the days of kings and emperors with armies, samurai and sword makers. Many of those kings, emperors, samurai and sword makers were their patrons and Buddhist followers. Further, in those ancient agricultural, traditional, rigidly class based and authoritarian societies, the kings and samurai were the rulers and elite, the educated (or nearly so) and powerful. One simply had no choice, if one wanted to have a temple or Sangha without it being burned to the ground and one's monks put to the tip of a sword, of pleasing those kings and samurai.

So called "engaged Buddhism" with interest in social justice, helping the poor, opposing wars and the like was simply not an option 200 or 2000 years ago. The rulers would tolerate no social protest. There were some great exceptions, such as Tetsugen Dōkō (鉄眼道光 1630–1682) of the Obaku Zen school in Japan ...

Tetsugen decided to publish the sutras, which at that time were available only in Chinese. The books were to be printed with wood blocks in an edition of seven thousand copies, a tremendous undertaking.

Tetsugen began by travelling and collecting donations for this purpose. A few sympathizers would give him a hundred pieces of gold, but most of the time he received only small coins. He thanked each donor with equal gratitude. After ten years Tetsugen had enough money to begin his task.

It happened that at that time the Uji River overflowed. Famine followed. Tetsugen took the funds he had collected for the books and spent them to save others from starvation. Then he began again his work of collecting.

Several years afterward an epidemic spread over the country. Tetsugen again gave away what he had collected.

For a third time he started his work, and after twenty years his wish was fulfilled. The printing blocks which produced the first edition of sutras can be seen today in Ōbaku monastery in Kyoto.

The Japanese tell their children that Tetsugen made three sets of sutras, and that the first two invisible sets surpass even the last. (from zen flesh zen bones)

In fact, one of the main reasons that Soto Zen is so widespread throughout Japan, and the largest Zen sect by number of temples and followers, is ... not ... Zazen (which really appeals to people of a certain bent), but their activities in (I quote) "the building of bridges, digging of hot springs, irrigation projects, the the curing of diseases, and the expulsion of evil spirits and wicked dragons." (https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=...ragons&f=false)

Many Zen and other Buddhist priests were socially active with the rulers ... by helping the rulers, in their policy making and as advisors.

One simply had no opportunity to make waves and, perhaps, there was even the feeling that "Karma" and their own acts in previous lives had led poor peasants to be poor peasants, so it was something that the peasants had to work through themselves ... perhaps for a better rebirth next time.

All that changed in the 19th and 20th centuries, with the advent of so-called "Buddhist modernism," monks and lay people in Asia and the west more interested ... and freer and more able ... to engage in social causes such as building orphanages and hospitals, school for the common people and the like (frankly, usually directly inspired by ... and in competition with ... the Christian missionaries who were flooding Asia).

Furthermore, it is only in the last 100 years that Buddhist and other clergy can march in the streets, oppose our leaders' policies, protest a war, engage in civil disobedience and the like without being thrown in prison or, quite possibly, in a grave. (It is still not possible in much of the world).

Where I disagree with Brad is in his criticisms of those today in the Zen world who choose to combine their social concerns with Zen Practice. Brad does not believe that one can or should do so, but many of us believe that the Precepts and our Vows to rescue Sentient Beings means more than just teaching them about "Emptiness" when their stomachs are empty. One can cook for hungry monks or cook in a soup kitchen for the poor, clean temple floors or work to clean the oceans, nurse a sick monk or nurse the sick in Africa. He has been so critical of Zen groups that are trying to do so. I agree with Brad on many things such as Shikantaza, but here he is just plain wrong and unfair to a lot of good people who are trying to sit Zazen, then get up off their asses to do something.

Gassho, J

STLah

PS- I am going to split off this topic, if I may.

PPS - If anyone needs any wicked dragons expelled, drop me an e-mail.

[Jundo]

By the way, Dogen ... as limited as he was in his ability to change the world (rather than see through it) .... seems also to have supported helping the poor as one could. He wrote this in the Zuimonki (2-2) ...

Dogen instructed,

Once, while the late Sojo Eisai was at Kenninji, a poor man came and said, “My family is so destitute that we have had nothing to eat for several days. My wife and children are about to die of starvation. Please have compassion on us.”

At the time, there was no clothing, food, or other possessions in the temple. Although Eisai contemplated what to do, he was at a loss. There was a little bit of thin copper allocated for making the halo for the Yakushi-Buddha which was under construction. The abbot took it and broke it apart, rolled it up, and gave it to the poor man, telling him to exchange it for food to relieve his family’s hunger.

The man was very delighted and left.

Eisai’s disciples, however, reproached him [Eisai] saying, “That is nothing other than the halo for the statue of the Buddha. You gave it away to the layman. Is it not a sin to use the Buddha’s property for personal use?”

The Sojo replied, “Yes, it is. Yet think of the Buddha’s will. The Buddha cut off his flesh and limbs and offered them to living beings. Even if we gave the whole body of the Buddha to people who are actually about to die of starvation, such an action would certainly be in accordance with the Buddha’s will.”

He went on, “Even if I fall into hell because of this sin, I have just saved living beings from starvation.”

Gassho, J

STLah

[StoBird]

PPS - If anyone needs any wicked dragons expelled, drop me an e-mail.

Thank you for your detailed answer, it answered a lot of my questions. I agree 100% with your stance on Buddhist activism.

I just want to know what a “wicked dragon” is and then I’ll shut up.

Edit: It’s a joke, sorryI realize that now, I was 100% hoping that it was terminology for a real computer related problem.

Also, shut up. I got there... eventually...

Gassho,
Tom

Sat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Jundo]

I just want to know what a “wicked dragon” is and then I’ll shut up.

You know ... dragons. With the claws and sometimes fire breathing (except that Asian dragons usually don't do fire, only the European kind and on Game of Thrones). In China, Japan and much of Asia, they are usually seen as auspicious and happy creatures, symbols of power. However, sometimes even a dragon has a bad day and needs to be tamed.

There were lots of evil creatures and spirits in old Japan that needing calming sometimes. Here are a few. Often, Buddhist priests would pacify them by administering the Precepts (Jukai) just as we do around here.

Hey, Jukai worked to calm some of the "wild spirits" we have around Treeleaf, yes? (You know who you are! )



Gassho, J

STLah

[StoBird]

It’s fitting what you named this thread. I speak a huge game when it comes to social action but I don’t follow through. Someday soon because if Pema Chodron is right, I’ve sown the seeds and it’s only a matter of time.

Thanks again for the reply to my mistaken question (hey, any excuse to talk about dragons is a good excuse to me),

I’m a huge fan of the ‘Spirited Away’ dragon:

It’s so beautiful. We watched that movie at the ‘Minnesota Zen Meditation Center’ a couple months before the quarantine. I was blown away.

Gassho,
Tom

Sat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[StoBird]

A convoluted question regarding generosity that may be seen as the equivalent of “how many angels can dance on the tip of a pin?”

What are your views on the Tibetan concept of Bodhicitta and how does that aspiration to help others square with the Diamond Sutra’s repeated idea that giving with “lakshana”(thoughts or feelings) of doing good is not right view? To me the Diamond Sutra appears to say, ideally, there should be no feeling of doing good for the giver or recipient.

In other words, Is the Soto Zen view that one should give (or any of the others of the six paramitas) with prior cultivated feelings like in Tibetan Buddhism or is it more of just do good without first cultivating feelings to do good?

In other words, how much time should I spend cultivating an “awakened heart”(an aspiration to do good), if any? My fear is that this will turn into a case of feeling good for doing nothing but sitting around and feeling good about aspiring to help others. A kind of Buddhist slacktivism.

Gassho,
Tom

Sat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Jakuden]

A convoluted question regarding generosity that may be seen as the equivalent of “how many angels can dance on the tip of a pin?”

What are your views on the Tibetan concept of Bodhicitta and how does that aspiration to help others square with the Diamond Sutra’s repeated idea that giving with “lakshana”(thoughts or feelings) of doing good is not right view? To me the Diamond Sutra appears to say, ideally, there should be no feeling of doing good for the giver or recipient.

In other words, Is the Soto Zen view that one should give (or any of the others of the six paramitas) with prior cultivated feelings like in Tibetan Buddhism or is it more of just do good without first cultivating feelings to do good?

In other words, how much time should I spend cultivating an “awakened heart”(an aspiration to do good), if any? My fear is that this will turn into a case of feeling good for doing nothing but sitting around and feeling good about aspiring to help others. A kind of Buddhist slacktivism.

Gassho,
Tom

Sat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

I love this question and am looking forward to hearing the answer myself!

Gassho,
Jakuden
SatToday/LAH

[StoBird]

READ THIS WITH A DUMP TRUCK FULL OF SALT:

I might be doing more harm by throwing around wild speculation.

My gut feeling says the answer for Tibetan Buddhism is something like: Bodhicitta and aspiration are great formal practices up until the point where self and other drops away (ultimate Bodhiccita) and you help others more or less intuitively.

I have nothing to base this gut feeling on other than my readings of the Diamond sutra.

And in Soto Zen the “non gaining”, “mushotoku mind” of Shikantaza precludes any striving but you vow to save all sentient beings which doesn’t necessarily entail striving, it is Ultimate Bodhiccita and relative Bodhiccita rolled into one.

Anyways I have nothing to base this on as I never took notes when reading dharma books and I’m too lazy to search the interweb.

Gassho,
Tom

Sat



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Jundo]

Hi Tom,

Sorry, my answer will be too simple perhaps.

Doing good to help others is good (even though, ultimately, there is no giver, given or gift, thus ultimately no good or bad that can be done. Nonetheless, here in samsara there are hungry mouths to feed and other good things to be done, so good to give.)

Don't just sit around thinking about doing some good: Rather, actually do something!

It is okay for the giver to feel some joy in doing so. I am sure that even the Buddha received some pleasure and satisfaction in the good works he did.

"Non-gaining" mind and dropping "goals" in the ultimate perspective does not preclude our simultaneously having goals to achieve (such as to help somebody) here in samsara. One can experience reality from both aspects at the same time, at once.

Yes, the Tibetans can be a bit too philosophical and analytical about such questions for my taste.

Gassho, J

STLah

[Kokuu]

What are your views on the Tibetan concept of Bodhicitta and how does that aspiration to help others square with the Diamond Sutra’s repeated idea that giving with “lakshana”(thoughts or feelings) of doing good is not right view? To me the Diamond Sutra appears to say, ideally, there should be no feeling of doing good for the giver or recipient.

Hi Tom

Bodhicitta is not an exclusively Tibetan concept, it is woven throughout Mahayana Buddhism.

I believe it would, however, be true to say that Tibetan practice does use compassion and relative Bodhicitta as a dharma door more directly than Zen.


As regards Brad, I spoke to him about his views about Buddhism and race after a video/blog post on the question of whether Zen centres should be having courses on race awareness and attempts to improve the demographic away from a majority of white middle class students. His opinion is that dharma centres are there to teach dharma and nothing else. Personally, I don't think that things are as easily separated and that having dharma centres essentially uphold the inherent structural bias of wider society is not helpful. But, that is his view and many feel similarly.


Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

[Jundo]

As regards Brad, I spoke to him about his views about Buddhism and race after a video/blog post on the question of whether Zen centres should be having courses on race awareness and attempts to improve the demographic away from a majority of white middle class students. His opinion is that dharma centres are there to teach dharma and nothing else. Personally, I don't think that things are as easily separated and that having dharma centres essentially uphold the inherent structural bias of wider society is not helpful. But, that is his view and many feel similarly.

It is funny, because when he was in Japan (same for me), our teacher Nishijima Roshi made special effort to accommodate Zen training for us and other foreigners: in English language, the food served during retreats, creating a residential community just for non-Japanese, and many other ways. So, Brad's stance is rather hypocritical.

I also trained at purely Japanese places (where I was the only non-Japanese), where only Japanese was spoken, Japanese customs had to be followed to the letter (the foreign retreats were looser on demanding that). Fortunately, I spoke Japanese. Many or most foreigners would have struggled in Japan without what Nishijima and others did to make Zen training available for people like Brad and me.

Gassho, J

STLah

[Kevin M]

... many of us believe that the Precepts and our Vows to rescue Sentient Beings means more than just teaching them about "Emptiness" when their stomachs are empty. One can cook for hungry monks or cook in a soup kitchen for the poor, clean temple floors or work to clean the oceans, nurse a sick monk or nurse the sick in Africa. He has been so critical of Zen groups that are trying to do so. I agree with Brad on many things such as Shikantaza, but here he is just plain wrong and unfair to a lot of good people who are trying to sit Zazen, then get up off their asses to do something.

<deep></deep>
Kevin
ST

[Hoseki]

Hi folks,

I thought I might chime in here. I think the idea of a dharma centre only teaching dharma and avoiding social issues could be justified by saying that it could turn people away and the teachings of the dharma should speak to our common humanity. Don't we all have trouble dealing with anger, greed and ignorance or not being able to let go of this or that?

Now I don't put a lot of stock in that argument but its the strongest reading I can give it. That said, isn't part of what we are doing trying to change the world? Even if we are causing changes in our own experiences we are changing the whole world. So I find it hard to believe that we shouldn't push for social change in a way that benefits more people than it harms. These aren't easy discussions and there is a lot of room for conversations about what is and isn't important. But there are some ideas that clearly will causes a lot of harm. e.g. people calling for ethno-nationalism in a country like the US. I can't see that happening without a great deal of blood shed. Even then I suspect it would simply exist with a two tier citizenship of some sort.

The other thing I would say is that many of the values we express are karmic in the sense that they are the product of conflict, struggle, negotiations etc... So much of what seems to be a solid part of the world as we experience it was at some point novel and open to discussion.

As for the Zen being attractive to middle class white people well I can't explain the whiteness (I'm really sure I know what that means) I think it will appear to middle class people because they (on average) have more leisure time that poor people and very wealth people can, if they so choose, to live a rather extravagant hedonistic life style (that's not meant to be a dig. Having loads of money lends itself to having lots of things.) It kind of reminds me about heaven and hell realms.

Anywho just a few thoughts.

Gassho
Hoseki
Satday

[Sharan]

Every talk by Bro. Brad about closing one's ears to the news, about just being concerned about one's own practice, about how wrong it is for Buddhists to engage in social causes as an aspect of their practice, about how there is no need for Buddhist groups to take special steps to welcome sexual, racial or economic minorities, is a political statement and a strong one.

Gassho, J

STLah

... many of us believe that the Precepts and our Vows to rescue Sentient Beings means more than just teaching them about "Emptiness" when their stomachs are empty. One can cook for hungry monks or cook in a soup kitchen for the poor, clean temple floors or work to clean the oceans, nurse a sick monk or nurse the sick in Africa. He has been so critical of Zen groups that are trying to do so. I agree with Brad on many things such as Shikantaza, but here he is just plain wrong and unfair to a lot of good people who are trying to sit Zazen, then get up off their asses to do something.

My thoughts exactly. Every system in the world, including the political ones, has been designed with absentees in mind. The system must continue to function even when people don't want to engage. And we can see that. Ask yourselves: if you don't go out to vote, how come that someone always wins? That's a banal explanation, but a more true one is that you can't really play the 'deaf, dumb, blind' game with everything.

I am a 'fan' of Warner's work. When I first started being interested in Buddhism, back in 2016, I've googled "rock'n'roll and buddhism" and two persons came up: Noah Levine and Brad Warner. Something was off about Noah's attitude and that's why I could never get into stuff he was promoting. Warner's been more approachable, more in my vein, as to say (me being rock'n'roller and stuff). Jundo told about his stuff being 'great introductory read'. I completely agree with that and it basically became my starting point in Zen Buddhism.

However, to sit blindly and refuse to engage when injustice is being done or when you can clearly help the world by your actions - it's not my style. My practice is about integrating zen into my life and my life into zen. Voicing my opinions, holding my ground when necessary, all with utmost respect toward third parties and (lately) to myself.

I can't really point my finger toward past or imagined future and say how someone somewhere did something differently than me. I can only assume that the moment I live in I will not spoil by wrongful actions, meaning I need to work toward helping me and others around me. Standing still (or sitting still) all the time sounds like resting your life in the hands of fate, but "God's willing" is a parameter I was never into.

If you believe in stuff like that, S(H)e gave you life. Now it's time to put it into motion in accordance with love, forgiveness and justice that is not hurting others.

Sharan
SjeoDanas(SatToday)

[Ryumon]

As regards Brad, I spoke to him about his views about Buddhism and race after a video/blog post on the question of whether Zen centres should be having courses on race awareness and attempts to improve the demographic away from a majority of white middle class students. His opinion is that dharma centres are there to teach dharma and nothing else. Personally, I don't think that things are as easily separated and that having dharma centres essentially uphold the inherent structural bias of wider society is not helpful. But, that is his view and many feel similarly.

I agree about this. He does exhibit an extraordinary amount of white privilege. (So do I, but I try to be aware of it; though it's tough living in literally one of the whitest parts of the UK.)

Gassho,

Kirk

sat

[Jundo]

Let me be clear on my position on this ...

Some people can "engage" and make social causes, the environment etc. an aspect of their practice.

Some people can choose not to "engage" and leave social causes etc. out the doors of their Zendo (hopefully, they get involved in such things after they leave the Zendo, but even then ... their choice).

Some folks may be in between. Some folks have different ideas about what "engaged" means (their are both left, right and center Buddhists).

However, neither group should really criticize how the other people choose to practice on this issues inside the Zendo. I think Brad was wrong for saying that the "engaged" folks were wrong, and should not be concerned about social causes as part of their practice. He said it is wrong to do that, that it is not real practice. It is small thinking, although he is free to host his Zendo in the way he sees fit.

That was my objection.

Gassho, Jundo

STLah

PS - Maybe ok to criticize folks who do not engage and care about fixing the world either inside or outside at all.

[bukowski]

Hi all.

Just a quick addition to a really interesting topic. In the zen group I used to sit with, the reverend was often asked complex and multifaceted questions around scriptural teachings of engaged Buddhism from members of the sangha.

He was fantastically patient and would listen intently. However I would notice a small, slightly exasperated sigh before he answered these frequent questions. He would respond by stating, (I paraphrase) don't over think things. Sit when it's time to sit. Help whenever you can. Cultivate kindness and compassion by acting with kindness and compassion for all sentient beings. Trust your instincts.

That really resonated with me. The sitting was a part of this process. Of equal importance was living a kind and compassionate life. This was not two things. This was not complex.

I aim in this direction every day, with varied levels of success.

Metta. b.

[Kyōsen]

My gut feeling says the answer for Tibetan Buddhism is something like: Bodhicitta and aspiration are great formal practices up until the point where self and other drops away (ultimate Bodhiccita) and you help others more or less intuitively.

Bob Thurman (who was, IIRC, the first American to be ordained as a monk in the Tibetan tradition) has said in a few talks that in the Tibetan view (he is speaking largely from the perspective of the Gelug School, I believe), Buddhas experience themselves as being everyone who has ever or will ever live; thus generosity has no special feeling in and of itself any more than throwing off the covers at night when you get too warm and getting relief. You're really helping ""yourself"".

Related: I once read/heard that compassion is more or less considered in this way among some Zen schools - like throwing off the covers at night when you're too warm. The bit of explanation that accompanies this metaphor is: This is done without really thinking about it, it's just recognized as something that needs to be done, and it gets done without thinking or judging or cultivating. It's very practical and not at all fussy.

Curiously, this sentiment (of Buddhas helping ""themselves"" rather than having the thought of helping others) seems to have some connection to the aforementioned Diamond Sutra in which the Buddha advises us that Bodhisattvas do not think of other living beings as other living beings. We could spend many hours and paragraphs diving into what that means, but I like making the intuitive leap to seeing the truth in this rather than taking a more methodical approach; at least these days I do haha!

-----------------------------------------------------

As for DIS-engaged Buddhism... I sometimes feel like a fence-sitter, but not on philosophical grounds. I strongly agree with engaged Buddhism and with Jundo's view that our Vows lead to the reasonable conclusion that we should very much put the Dharma into practice to help eliminate oppression and bigotry and the systems that support them. Where I sit on the fence, however, is very personal - I don't have the emotional energy to do very much of that kind of thing for reasons I won't get into here. Often I feel very overwhelmed by the world and would love to live high in the mountains, away from the world and other people for a while. I think, though, that it is good I'm aware that this results from emotional capacity rather than philosophical leanings. I'm not sure I would want to be the kind of person who hears the cries of the world and thinks "not my problem", but I can live with being the kind of person who hears the cries of the world and thinks "I need to put on my own oxygen mask first, prior to assisting others".

Fortunately, the Dharma gives me many ways to assist others than don't have to include being in protests or engaging in lengthy online discussions. So it's not like I do nothing at all, but that what I do isn't as public or grand as one might aspire their supportive actions to be.

Gassho
Kyōsen
Sat|LAH

[Jundo]

... Where I sit on the fence, however, is very personal - I don't have the emotional energy to do very much of that kind of thing for reasons I won't get into here. Often I feel very overwhelmed by the world and would love to live high in the mountains, away from the world and other people for a while. I think, though, that it is good I'm aware that this results from emotional capacity rather than philosophical leanings. I'm not sure I would want to be the kind of person who hears the cries of the world and thinks "not my problem", but I can live with being the kind of person who hears the cries of the world and thinks "I need to put on my own oxygen mask first, prior to assisting others".

Hi Kyosen,

I would say that there are times to close the door and leave the world behind. One way is the traditional path of going into the mountains, building a hut or entering a monastery, devoting oneself to practice and truly cutting obligations and connections to the world. I think that this is a good choice for those who need, and can be pursued by any of us sometimes, and by some folks for years. It is a good path.

Then, there is someone who, as you describe, just does not feel emotionally or physically capable of handling some issues right now. They are doing what they need to do, and it is fine. Even then, I always encourage folks to try to face and witness with calm and non-reactivity the things in life which cause us discomfort. However, only do what you truly are capable of doing and handling.

There are those who choose to be involved in their vision of non-violent social causes outside the Zen dojo, but not inside. There are others who chose to make involvement in some social causes part of practice inside the dojo as an aspect of Zen practice. I think those are good approaches for different people too, and both ways should be honored.

Perhaps I would only criticize those who just don't care, who live in society but just are callous toward the problems of the world. That is a different story. I also criticize those who engage in anger and violence.

Related: I once read/heard that compassion is more or less considered in this way among some Zen schools - like throwing off the covers at night when you're too warm. The bit of explanation that accompanies this metaphor is: This is done without really thinking about it, it's just recognized as something that needs to be done, and it gets done without thinking or judging or cultivating. It's very practical and not at all fussy.

I think that the ideal of a Buddha or Bodhisattva who is so beyond self-view that they truly see others as literally themselves is rather a religious ideal. I know and believe in very very generous and altruistic people, true saints, but even then they seem to have a sense of self and self needs. They do what they do because it brings them good feeling. I think there is nothing wrong with that, and I am not so concerned about someone's motivation. There is a realm in which we truly step beyond self/other, it is true. We can experience in our practice this viewless view (beyond viewer and viewed, giver and given), yet in this world we must still live with our own body, brain, mouth to feed, choices, physical and mental needs. Even the Buddha taught as the human Buddha because it felt good and right to the Buddha to do so.

I know social workers who must keep balance among helping others, being concerned, keeping equanimity in heart, seeing all beings as one yet getting personal pleasure from their actions, knowing when to work and when to rest, when to help and when to not help.

That said, we can learn to be so much more giving. Nothing bad about having some good feeling in helping others, and it can come so naturally, like (as the old saying goes) reaching for a pillow in bed at night. I do that because it feels so comfortable too.

Gassho, J

STLah

[Heiso]

To echo want Kirk said, this seems to be a perfect example of white privilege.

I hope he comes around to seeing that silence is part of the problem in this case.

Gassho

Heiso
StLah

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

[Kyōsen]

I think that the ideal of a Buddha or Bodhisattva who is so beyond self-view that they truly see others as literally themselves is rather a religious ideal. I know and believe in very very generous and altruistic people, true saints, but even then they seem to have a sense of self and self needs. They do what they do because it brings them good feeling. I think there is nothing wrong with that, and I am not so concerned about someone's motivation. There is a realm in which we truly step beyond self/other, it is true. We can experience in our practice this viewless view (beyond viewer and viewed, giver and given), yet in this world we must still live with our own body, brain, mouth to feed, choices, physical and mental needs. Even the Buddha taught as the human Buddha because it felt good and right to the Buddha to do so.

Thank you for bringing it back down to Earth, Jundo

I feel like a kid again (in a good way); the most common and frequent constructive criticism I received on my report cards as a child was that I always had my head in the clouds haha! I think the idea of being so selfless you literally see yourself as others is nice as an aspiration, but I don't believe it's literally possible (at least not while we're in these human bodies - I have no idea what happens after death so I'll reserve my judgement on that).

I agree there is nothing wrong with feeling good about doing good things. IIRC, it's encouraged in some of the teachings.

Gassho
Kyōsen
Sat|LAH

[Onkai]

Hi all.

Just a quick addition to a really interesting topic. In the zen group I used to sit with, the reverend was often asked complex and multifaceted questions around scriptural teachings of engaged Buddhism from members of the sangha.

He was fantastically patient and would listen intently. However I would notice a small, slightly exasperated sigh before he answered these frequent questions. He would respond by stating, (I paraphrase) don't over think things. Sit when it's time to sit. Help whenever you can. Cultivate kindness and compassion by acting with kindness and compassion for all sentient beings. Trust your instincts.

That really resonated with me. The sitting was a part of this process. Of equal importance was living a kind and compassionate life. This was not two things. This was not complex.

I aim in this direction every day, with varied levels of success.

Metta. b.

I loved this post. Brad Warner's books have been helpful to me as well as entertaining. I didn't realize he spoke out against Buddhist political engagement.

Gassho,
Onkai
Sat LAH