Buddhist Sectarianism & My Koan Heresy.

Hi, my name's Harry and I do koans.

I mean I do 'koan contemplation' as we might call it (not sure that term quite explains it, see below); or employing a koan in sitting as opposed to no-koan zazen... (to some, using a koan in this way precludes the act from even being called 'zazen').

This might be considered odd by some in that I sort of come at Zen from the Soto/Dogen Sangha side of things, and that raggle-taggle group more or less conform to the idea of Soto Zen as 'no-koan' Zen in the sense that they don't employ koans in a formal zazen practice way. But, as I continue to clarify my original intention in approaching Buddhism, the more I see that it is not about being part of a sect, pleasing a teacher or a group, or conforming to some orthodoxy or other. So, that's that right out the window for a start, and good riddance.

The reasons I got interested in koans in this way are numerous, but here's the main gist of it: I like words, and I like poetry, and I like humour and irony and insightful and expressive language, and I like to explore... and all that is in the koan literature in abundance.

Also, I wasn't happy to 'take people's word about' koan contemplation. I wanted to experience for myself what it was about and either adopt it or reject it, or whatever. This exploratory attitude took a while to arrive at because I had already made up my mind about koans in a way that was more-or-less consistent with what the Soto orthodoxy said about them and formal 'koan contemplation' (surprise, surprise!) Luckily for me I wasn't happy to loiter in that position for long as I have had some experience of sectarian assumptions: I come from Belfast, Ireland, where I could see only too well how such assumptions were formed, perpetuated, the effects they had, and how such notions were generally unrealistic and highly selective and/or misrepresentative in their portrayal of that 'other crowd'.

It turns out that some of the assumptions I had 'acquired' were pretty flimsy, erroneous, misleading, or are just straight-up constructs of the sectarian 'them and us' mindset.

Anyway, some things I have learned about koan introspection to date are:

1. It's not sitting around thinking or trying to solve a riddle intellectually: Of course our intellect is not excluded, as it is not in Soto-style shikantaza, but we are just 'dropping the koan in there' and seeing what it stirs up (if anything). Even to call it 'koan contemplation' seems a bit off, because I'm generally not sitting round thinking about something as that term may suggest.

2. The answers to koan are not really simple and conclusive 'Aha!' answers that sort everything out in my head and make me cleverer than everyone else: In my experience the answers to the koans (the answers which mean that I'll pass on to the next koan in the sequence) are not some 'be-all-and-end-all' revelations. They are generally some very tangible and practical affirmations of practice, of all valid practice.

3. Koans and shikantaza are only 'opposites' or 'seperate poles' if I make them thus:  Koan practice (in my experience) is remarkably similar to shikantaza except that you 'drop in a koan' from time to time. I don't see the need for making a big inter-sect hullabaloo about it, and about 'who owns what' and what's 'pure' and what isn't... which is quite refreshing.

4. I'm a pretty crappy heretic: Because I still just do my usual half hour of zazen/shikantaza and then do a bit of koan contemplation afterwards. I don't sit 'koan zazen' all the time and don't want to, and I don't know how long I'll keep it going (I've just gone back at it after a longish break).

If any Zen Masters want to weigh in with their Dharmic 2 Cents on what a Bozo I am then feel free, but, do bear in mind that I won't 'take your word for it' for a moment: If the Lord Buddha himself came down on his golden lotus UFO to put me right on the matter then I wouldn't 'take his word for it' either - so it's really not personal.

Regards,

Harrytic.

The 'Emptiness of Emptiness'.

Under a previous post Fred made the interesting comment:

Explain the emptiness of


emptiness to them Harry.

Well, the context I was talking in (a blog about different religions) was not a Buddhist forum; I don't think they are so interested in the finer points of Mahayana philosophy... And it can bore the shit out of me a lot of the time too as an awful lot of it is approached in a very redundant way.

But this concept of 'the emptiness of emptiness' is an interesting one I think *when we can put a sincere, practical slant on it*, and avoid making a philosophical dead weight of it to sling around our necks.

'Shunyata/Emptiness' is an invention of the human mind that seeks to describe the nature of our existence before we think about/conceptualise it. However, in zazen practice we can see clearly that our existence is not contingent on our thinking about or conceptualising it as 'shunyata/emptiness' or as anything else: That is to realise the 'emptiness of emptiness'. From this practical perspective, which acknowledges and realises the nature of our naming things, we can therefore say that it is empty (a constructive view), or that it is not empty (a deconstructive view), or both (...and we can say more, as Master Dogen did in his 'four views' as presented at the beginning of Genjo-Koan for example).

A lot of koan are about this: Such as where the hapless novice will come to the Master and say 'Everything is empty!' and the Master will agree and respond by grabbing the novice's nose and giving it strong yank, or kicking him in the shin, to remind him just how 'empty' empty is... that sort of thing. Zen often gets caught up in the deconstructive 'everything is empty' position it seems, which is a nice recipe for nihilism and anti-intellectual machismo.

As with all aspects of Buddhist philosophy, if we are really interested in doing what the Buddha is said to have done, then we should confirm it or refute it (or both!) through our own direct practice-experience of it.

Regards,

Harry.

"Buddhism is basically humanism".

...So says Gudo Wafu Nishijima. I always liked this idea, and I think it's true.

However, I think there is a bit of practical context to be added as Master Nishijima very likely isn't just talking about 'humanism' as:

1.An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.

...or...

2.A Renaissance cultural movement that turned away from medieval scholasticism and revived interest in ancient Greek and Roman thought.

(as defined at Dictionary.com)

Nishijima  is also quite emphatic on the point that Buddhism is a philosophy of action, of really doing stuff first and foremost; not just thinking about it, or not thinking about the opposite of it, or agreeing or disagreeing with it... we have to encounter humanity directly in Buddhism, as opposed just thinking about it in a particular way.

In the stripped-down activities of zen practice, especially non-thinking zazen (in my limited experience at least), we have the opportunity to 'meet' our selves before we make our selves something other than what we already are, before we start thinking our selves up. We can sort of see how we come about, how we will ourselves into existence in response to various stimuli. We see how personality happens. In a sense we see how people are made, and it's a pretty similar process for everyone I reckon: So in a sense, when we 'meet our self' in this way, we meet everybody, and we can understand everybody in a very direct way. Maybe it'll soften our attitudes towards ourselves and others when we can identify with them in this more fundamental way even, if we can express it in our lives off the cushion or whatever.

I like to think that's the gist of what Master Nishijima was getting at when he said that Buddhism is basically humanism: It is direct humanism, more radical and insightful than any philosophy alone... a human meeting a human, meeting all humans.

...on the other hand maybe Gudo didn't mean that at all, in which case... it works for me for the time being!

Regards,

Harry.

Hey, hadn't heard about this...

Upcoming release... nobody tells me these things. Click on the pic to check it out on Amazon:

What's Yer Man on About...?

Someone interviewed me for their blog regarding my curious take on Buddhism (whatever that is). It's a blog consisting of many such interviews from people of various religions; an interesting project (if you're into that sort of thing).

You can read my bit if you promise not to quote me, or take it at all seriously! I'm a very lacklustre buddhism-ist at the best of times...

http://youmereligion.blogspot.com/2011/09/harry-buddhist-name-hanrei-banzan.html

Regards,

Harry.

Weekend Zen Retreat in Co Tipperary, Ireland, Jan 2012.

Details HERE.

From Melbourne Zen Centre Via Antaiji Website...