December 16, 2009
- Joshu Sasaki Roshi on God -
From an interview with on New York Times:
But the moment someone says the truth or God is an object or takes it as an object, that is already a mistake. God is neither object not subject. The moment you say any little thing about God, you’re already making an object of God and Buddhism cautions you about that. At that moment you’re making an idiot out of God, you’re making a fool out of God.
Buddhism is Shukyo, which doesn’t include the belief in a world-creating God. When the Buddha died, he didn’t say believe in God. He said make the dharma activity your teacher.
The entire interview is awesome, if a bit esoteric. Highly recommended.
Comment by Ian — December 16, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
Indeed. The man is living on another plane, so to speak.
Comment by jackson — December 16, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
Yeah, seriously.
I was going to post some of his answers to questions about what enlightenment is, but I realized that what I thought he was talking about was not what he was talking about. Still can’t wrap my head around it, so I posted this instead. A little easier to digest, I think, if still a bit koan-y.
God or no god, which is it?
Mu. :)
Comment by Ian — December 17, 2009 @ 10:13 am
Buddhists monks or Zen Masters or whatever always seem kind of smug to me. Maybe its because they are so verbose, while at the same time kind of…saying its bad to talk about this stuff. Dunno.
I guess I like you Ian and you are pretty into Buddhism…
Comment by Ted — December 17, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
Like this at the end of a big long monologue:
“The Way is beyond language, for in it there is no yesterday, no tomorrow, no today.”
I think I get the point though.
Comment by Ted — December 17, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
Thanks Ted, I like you too. Glad to have you around. And yes, I would say that I am very much into Buddhism. :)
That right there IS zen, in a nutshell.
I think the thing is, at the heart the Zen tradition is the idea that the Truth/Absolute/Enlightenment simply cannot be put into words. As soon as its put into words, that description becomes a distraction of the truth which is ever eternally present.
Zen is big on the story of Buddha holding up a flower and blinking, as a teaching. And the age old description of Zen is that it’s “a truth transmitted outside the scriptures, not reliant on words or letters”.
HOWEVER, the problem is that nearly all communication is with words and letters, or at least some kind of form, so Zen masters often have the near impossible task of continually being asked to do the very thing that they understand to be impossible (and I would tend to agree with them on that).
The reason for the smugness is that in order to be effective, they have to point out the truth in one way, and then point out the same truth in exactly the opposite way. This is so people don’t get caught up in one or another specific description. But this confuses people, and they look to the master with an expression of “WTF?”.
The master’s only possible response to that is to adopt an attitude of smugness, or hit them with a stick, or ring the bell that signals an end to the face-to-face interview, or some other nonsensical reply. Not for the sake of smugness, but because the student has to go into the matter for themselves. The smugness is a skillful means, almost way of peer pressuring the student to want to attack the problem more fiercely.
The best Zen teachers give you absolutely nothing (in the sense of giving you an answer). They just point out when you’re wrong; when you’re right, there’s no need to point any more… ;)
Also, that “going into it for themselves” is why the main symbol for zen is the unfinished circle. Its eternally unfinished because you have to go into it for it to be complete.
Comment by Ian — December 17, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
Also, Eihei Dogen Zenji, the founder of Zen, was a big fan of writing as a way of pointing toward the absolute. His texts are some of the most complicated and confusing and beautiful things I’ve ever read. Ever once in a while, I’ll feel I’ve grasped something, and then it changes on me and I’m not sure, and then its something else, which changes my understanding of something previous, and then I go back into that and that changes something else. It’s like this trying to push a basketball underwater. Damn near impossible, and even when you do, it pops back out soooo easily.
Comment by Ian — December 17, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
That was an amazing explanation! I think that clears some of it up. The other question is Are these guys all celibate? ally har
That annoys me too, that they are above sex. These guys better really know the truth! Because otherwise they are just being smug because they aren’t having sex and need to mess with people in order to amuse themselves!
That thing about being “beyond love” seems like it would make it really hard to find a mate to share ones life with.
Comment by Ted — December 17, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
Its probably a productive line of thought to see why these guys irk me, so much!
Comment by Ted — December 17, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
Yeah, I generally find that when something irks me, it’s worth working through it to figure out where that comes from. It means you’ve been hooked by something, you know?
As for celibacy, the zen monks I know have partners, but I don’t know if that’s standard. There is a rule though that they can’t have kids, because having kids means the kids becomes your number one priority, above all else.
I think part of the problem is that, as a monk, you’ve dedicated yourself to spiritual pursuits. It’s not that they’re beyond physical love per se, its just a question of being limited as people. Sex, in a healthy, caring kind of way has a lot of responsibilities attached to it. Spending all day in meditation, prayer, and study is another huge responsibility. Being able to tune into the spirit and be free to move with it is yet another huge responsibility. I think its really more a question of not wanting too much on your plate, and making good use of your energies.
That’s the most important reason, in my opinion, but also, back in the days of Buddha (and not just Asia, world wide) sex meant babies. They didn’t really have birth control, and giving free reign to your physical desires lead to babies much more often than it does now. So allowing sex meant allowing children, and allowing children meant needing a stable community (unless you want a bunch of bastard orphans running around), and while needing a stable community (and income) isn’t exactly incompatible with a spiritual life, they do kind of have different requirements.
I guess one way to look at it is that in the old days, monks giving up sex was a lot like someone in our day and age trying to give up a steady day job. Both have their perks, as far as being able to get your needs met, and both tie you down in certain ways…
Of course, having said all that, I think you have a point here. If there’s any shadow side to renouncing sexuality, it likely involves a certain… irritability.
Comment by Ian — December 17, 2009 @ 7:50 pm