114: Nature: Buddha vs Human

SUBSCRIBE TO UNMIND:

RSS FEED | APPLE PODCASTS | GOOGLE PODCASTS | SPOTIFY

Not what we think, but —
We fall into confusion.
Back to the cushion

We left off last time with a discussion of the relative reality of human, versus corporate, entities — which may seem a bit far removed from the concerns of Zen practice. But, as Matsuoka Roshi would often say, “Civilization conquers us!” One of the ways that so-called civilization interferes with our lives on a daily basis, to such a degree that we become inured to it — “death and taxes” being the only sure things in life — is the imposition of an interface with corporate entities everywhere we turn.

One connotation of my dharma name, “Taiun,” or “Great Cloud,” is that, like a big cloud in the sky, there are no barriers anywhere. This is what comprises the aspirational aspect of a Zen name – that I should find no barriers in daily life. Don’t need to tell you how that is working out so far.

Human entities are naturally given special status in the hierarchy of sentient beings by most philosophical and religious systems, such as the reification of the Self, the immortal Soul of Christianity, and the Hindu equivalent, the Atman. Corporate entities have recently been endowed with personhood by the Supreme Court, which has exacerbated the friction between the two types of entities struggling for dominance in governments around the globe.

My main concern here is that we human members of the harmonious communities (S. sangha) of the Atlanta Soto Zen Center and the Silent Thunder Order avoid confusion as to our priorities in serving the sangha. One of which is the natural tendency to reify the imputed needs of the corporation itself — e.g. to survive in perpetuity — over the needs of the sentient beings that it is incorporated to serve. Let us entertain an “if-then” exercise to examine whether we may be sliding down this particular slippery slope:

IF:

1. You find yourself obsessing over the succession of the leadership of ASZC or STO,

THEN: you are getting distracted from your own practice.

2. You are disappointed because you feel under-appreciated for your efforts on behalf of ASZC or STO or both,

THEN: I have two suggestions for you. One: welcome to the club. Two: remember that you are supporting the organizations because they are propagating Zen practice. And in Zen there is “no self, nor other-than-self.” So your actions, and those of other members, are neither entirely selfish nor unselfish.

3. You feel that you are engaging in activities and making sacrifices for the sake of someone else in the sangha, such as myself,

THEN: Please stop. As Master Dogen reminds us, you should not even imagine that you are practicing Zen for your own sake, let alone the sake of others. You should practice Zen “for the sake of Buddhism itself.” But even this construction reifies Buddhism, or Zen, as if there is such a thing, and you alone have to protect it. The great Master also cautioned his followers not to call it “Zen.” Zen is a term some ancient person made up. Dogen reminded all that this practice is, basically, Buddhism.

But “Buddhism,” like Zen, is also a made-up term. Buddha Shakyamuni was not a “Buddhist,” any more than Jesus Christ was a “Christian.” Buddha comes from a root word that means “awake.” “Buddha” means the “fully awakened one.” What he taught, and what his followers promulgated and propagated — in a largely Hindu cultural context, where one imagines they encountered considerable resistance — in time came to be called Buddhism. Which, like anything and everything else, is not exempt from its own teachings of impermanence, imperfection, and insubstantiality.

4. IF —You are engaging others in the community, expressing your personal doubts and frustrations as to how the sangha is functioning, including concerns about the competence of its leadership, without bringing these concerns to that leadership,

THEN: You may be fomenting confusion and resultant disharmony in the sangha. Which is the closest thing to a cardinal sin in Buddhism.

One of Siddhartha Gautama’s apparently endless cohort of cousins, named Devadatta, was jealous of Shakyamuni’s status and the lavish support he received from patrons, as the story goes, and actually attempted to have Buddha assassinated. Yet Buddha predicted that Devadatta would eventually realize buddhahood.

None of these behaviors are irretrievable, and no one is irredeemable in Buddhism, but all of us, and especially those in positions of leadership in the sangha, are called upon to act with discernment and an overabundance of caution to ensure that we are embracing the broadest perspective, taking the long view, and not confusing the corporate entity with the human entities that embody it.

These are special, and especially niggling, concerns that arise in the public propagation of Zen, in particular in America, where the corporate versus individual conflict is on display on a daily basis. In this context we once again return to our mission to aspire to buddha-nature over human nature.

IT IS BUDDHA NATURE:

1. To recognize the limits of human nature.

BUT: Buddhism proposes that we are not limited to the constraints of our apparent human nature, but capable of awakening to our original buddha-nature through the Three Bodies, or trikaya: this biological, or Transformation body — nirmanakaya; becoming aware of the Essence body — dharmakaya, resulting in the manifestation of the Joy body — the samboghakaya.

This model of the true body is just a model, of course, and accepting this idea is of-a-piece with the embrace of the Three Minds — sanshin: the Magnanimous — daishin; the Nurturing — roshin; and the Joyous — kishin. That the body-mind of buddha-nature is already the reality goes without saying. Waking up to it is another matter.

2. It is buddha nature to find that all groups of people and individuals are originally like-minded.

BUT: Causes and conditions, such as ideologies and class divisions, bring about differentiation, a kind of social evolution.

3. It is buddha nature to realize that “In this world of suchness there is neither self nor other than self” and that “To come into harmony with this reality just simply say, when doubt arises, ‘Not two.’”

BUT: It is natural to encourage others by expressing appreciation for their generosity.

4. It is buddha nature to manage personal associations with others to meet their needs.

BUT: We cannot be 100% responsible for the lives or behavior of others, we can only do our best. You can lead a horse to water, but…

5. It is buddha nature to remember that nothing lasts forever.

BUT: Hegelian logic assures us that the existent thesis will be challenged by an antithesis, and the two will merge in synthesis, evolving the new thesis, endlessly.

6. It is buddha nature to hold an aspiration to perfecting the paramitas rather than an expectation of perfection.

BUT: An aspiration is by nature open-ended — unknown — expressed as a vow to persist in spite of doubts; whereas an expectation is defined as a goal or objective.

Again, I could go on. It is buddha nature to relinquish any attempt to control the uncontrollable. And to blame ourselves rather than others. Disharmony between others, as well as ourselves, is usually the result of unintended conflict between two points of view — where each person is attempting to defend the sangha, or the dharma, as they see fit. It is buddha nature to see the opposing views as complementary, so that the path to compromise and resolution becomes apparent.

This discussion of human- and buddha-nature is not complete. It will be completed only in your own experience with sangha, and your embrace of buddha-dharma. Good luck with your pilgrim’s progress.