Do Buddhists proselytize?

[threethirty]

Re: Do Buddhists proselytize?

Working for two Christian seminaries I get drawn into religious discussions and while I don't end up proselytizing Buddhism (Well there was the one time but it was asked to) I do end up proselytizing Shikantaza.

There are a lot of people here who "sit in meditation and wait for the lord to lead them" and they all complain about the same stuff we do (mostly how do you shut your mind up).

[disastermouse]

Re: Do Buddhists proselytize?

What is the difference that you see between answering the questions of your co-workers and proselytizing? Aren't both simply the sharing of your knowledge of your religious practice with others?

The difference is that I can offer very little reason to become Buddhist to people who think there is something to achieve and someone to achieve it. Zen is inherently self-selective.

Chet

There is where I usually step in to remind folks that saying "there is nothing to achieve" does not mean "there is nothing to achieve."

Just because there is "not a thing about you in need of change, and anyway, no 'you' to change" does not mean that there are not many things about you you had best change.

"No purpose" is a very great purpose, and so we practice diligently.

Now, back to your discussion.

Gassho, J

But it's the other part that is both harder to understand and rather difficult to 'sell'.

Chet

[doogie]

Re: Do Buddhists proselytize?

Repeatedly people at work ask me what the purpose of meditation is. When I tell them, 'When meditating correctly, there is no purpose.' they give me a very odd look and ask why, then, I do it. I usually answer that it's the only time in life where there is absolutely no purpose. I then note that there are many positive effects of zazen, but those effects are not the purpose of zazen. Zazen is the purpose of zazen - it is a surrender of sorts - except that when done correctly, there is nothing to surrender and nothing to which to surrender.

This can't be the whole answer. Surely it's only part of the answer. Perhaps there is no purpose in zazen as zazen itself is purposeless or goalless, but we are human beings with drives and desires, and some purpose drives everyone to the cushion. Everyone. Maybe it's peace of mind, help dealing with tragedy (past, present, or future), stress reduction, to find something missing from our lives, or even to get closer to God, but something brings people to zen and drives them to sit.

Shikantaza, mindfulness meditation, and other forms, are often used as pills, prescriptions for certain 'ailments of the mind, body, and spirit', but really they're placebos. Empty. People take them for a purpose even though they have no purpose.

Dropping the self in mindfulness or in shikantaza for a few minutes each day can be therapeutic. It can make standing in the line at the DMV easier, or help one deal with obnoxious co-workers. I wonder, does it matter if someone sits for those purposes if those purposes make them sit (as long as they can drop those purposes once their ass hits the cushion)?

I can offer very little reason to become Buddhist to people who think there is something to achieve and someone to achieve it. Zen is inherently self-selective.

Yet there is also something to achieve and someone to achieve it. I don't think we should spend all our time sitting on only one side of the coin.

[alan.r]

Re: Do Buddhists proselytize?

But it's the other part that is both harder to understand and rather difficult to 'sell'.

Chet

Actually, I think both ways are difficult to explain. And in fact, from what I understand of many of friends who are non-Buddhists, people kind of think Buddhism is just a set of beliefs one adopts. A kind of 'inner-peace-man' attitude one simply has. As if one suddenly says, "I'm a buddhist" and they're done. The "nothing to achieve thing," when people ask me, I don't even bring it up. It's so far beyond how some usually think about living. Also, I don't bring it up for this reason: while we understand (to some degree and, at least for me, poorly) that there is nothing to achieve, this is also hard work. And I don't mean that being a Buddhist or Zen Buddhist or whatever is unpleasant; to me, it's the most wonderful thing: I mean that it takes courage and effort even though these things eventually get dropped; it takes a serious (and foolish) person who really cares to look at oneself; it takes sitting every day, twice a day, even more; eating silently some days; fully listening to another with no thought of oneself; immersing oneself in what's happening; letting go. It's often easy for outsiders to look at this practice as some wishy washy hippy crap, which it just isn't: it takes dedication and serious love, and awareness, all the time, all the time, now, now, now. Everything is practice, everything is teaching; this is what is difficult for some people to understand, I think, because it simply means giving up a lot of b.s. (and I say that with plenty of b.s. to give up myself).

In any case, when people ask me, I tell them that this path takes hard work. I think it important to convey this. Then I say: but beautiful hard work, which, over time, becomes easeful work, then not-work, then just flowing (some days). The hard work is to get a glimpse of the flowing, I think; to learn to flow into it.

Gassho,
Alan

[disastermouse]

Re: Do Buddhists proselytize?

Repeatedly people at work ask me what the purpose of meditation is. When I tell them, 'When meditating correctly, there is no purpose.' they give me a very odd look and ask why, then, I do it. I usually answer that it's the only time in life where there is absolutely no purpose. I then note that there are many positive effects of zazen, but those effects are not the purpose of zazen. Zazen is the purpose of zazen - it is a surrender of sorts - except that when done correctly, there is nothing to surrender and nothing to which to surrender.

This can't be the whole answer. Surely it's only part of the answer. Perhaps there is no purpose in zazen as zazen itself is purposeless or goalless, but we are human beings with drives and desires, and some purpose drives everyone to the cushion. Everyone. Maybe it's peace of mind, help dealing with tragedy (past, present, or future), stress reduction, to find something missing from our lives, or even to get closer to God, but something brings people to zen and drives them to sit.

Shikantaza, mindfulness meditation, and other forms, are often used as pills, prescriptions for certain 'ailments of the mind, body, and spirit', but really they're placebos. Empty. People take them for a purpose even though they have no purpose.

Dropping the self in mindfulness or in shikantaza for a few minutes each day can be therapeutic. It can make standing in the line at the DMV easier, or help one deal with obnoxious co-workers. I wonder, does it matter if someone sits for those purposes if those purposes make them sit (as long as they can drop those purposes once their ass hits the cushion)?

You sound like my coworkers. Why is it so difficult to believe? Comparing shikantaza to a placebo is precisely wrong, IMHO - as you do not do shikantaza for a particular purpose. In fact, that there is no reason is the reason.

Before I sit zazen, I have a goal - which is to sit on the cushion. Only that! I have no ideas of what should take place once I sit and place my hands in the mudra. Once I am sitting on the cushion, there is no goal. People love to argue with me about this, but then again - there are so many people I meet who seem disappointed with their practice - they feel as though they're missing something. I've heard this many times by many people.

If I'm wrong, I would rather be wrong and not disappointed with my practice than correct and striving for something for which you cannot strive.

And yet, still I do it, and sometimes it seems very difficult. It's very odd. Suzuki used to say it was the sort of effort that leaves no trace - an effortless effort or an effort that burns itself up. My main point is to stress that I don't sit zazen to clear my mind, or to de-stress, or to achieve health, or any of those things - although sitting zazen does often 'clear the mind', make me less stressful, and likely improves health.

Chet

[Kaishin]

Re: Do Buddhists proselytize?

It seems like there are two very different-but related- questions that are being conflated in this discussion:

- Why do we practice?

- What is the goal/purpose of zazen?

[doogie]

Re: Do Buddhists proselytize?

You sound like my coworkers. Why is it so difficult to believe? Comparing shikantaza to a placebo is precisely wrong, IMHO - as you do not do shikantaza for a particular purpose. In fact, that there is no reason is the reason.

And this sounds like dualistic thinking, IMHO. But setting that aside, no one has ever done anything for no reason. It's impossible. Our brains aren't wired that way. Even choosing to do something completely by random must have some complicated reasoning and motivation behind it, even though that reasoning and those motivations might be subconscious.

Just as there is no such thing as a selfless act--one always derives something from every act of kindness (even if one suffers in the act), there is no such thing as an unmotivated action. There must, by the fact that we're human beings and not androids be some desire behind our practices (at least there must've been something in the beginning).

(I suppose it could be argued that sitting shikantaza is the one selfless act as one is dropping self in the (non)act, but that's a rather complex metaphysical debate beyond my cognitive abilities.)

[doogie]

Re: Do Buddhists proselytize?

It seems like there are two very different-but related- questions that are being conflated in this discussion:

- Why do we practice?

- What is the goal/purpose of zazen?

I think so. It seems to me, and I may be wrong, but even though one sits with no goal (that is, one drops all goals, desires, and seeking--even the seeker--on the cushion,) that doesn't mean one doesn't have goals or desires. We can't polish a tile into a mirror, but that doesn't mean don't stop trying to polish the tile into a mirror, even though the tile is already a perfect mirror. Did I get that right? Hmm, too much thinking for one day. Going to walk the dog.

[alan.r]

Re: Do Buddhists proselytize?

It seems like there are two very different-but related- questions that are being conflated in this discussion:

- Why do we practice?

- What is the goal/purpose of zazen?

Zazen is practice. Why do we zazen? What is the goal/purpose of practice?

I don't think these questions are being conflated; they're both just being answered as best we can. I think you've just asked them and separated them clearly for us, so thanks. We're all trying to describe (or some of us are) how we talk about this stuff to other people. And those two questions come up. Why do you do this? And what is the point of it? Some are answering one, some are answering the other, some aren't answering, some are explaining what the questions are. If you separated these two questions for a non-buddhist and said, the answer to the first is "I practice to be a better person" (or something), and the answer to the second is "No goal," then the person you were trying to explain this to would probably go: "uh, what? You just said there was a goal. To be better."

Anyway, those questions aren't two.

[mr.Lou]

Re: Do Buddhists proselytize?

It seems like there are two very different-but related- questions that are being conflated in this discussion:

- Why do we practice?

- What is the goal/purpose of zazen?

Zazen is practice. Why do we zazen? What is the goal/purpose of practice?

I don't think these questions are being conflated; they're both just being answered as best we can. I think you've just asked them and separated them clearly for us, so thanks. We're all trying to describe (or some of us are) how we talk about this stuff to other people. And those two questions come up. Why do you do this? And what is the point of it? Some are answering one, some are answering the other, some aren't answering, some are explaining what the questions are. If you separated these two questions for a non-buddhist and said, the answer to the first is "I practice to be a better person" (or something), and the answer to the second is "No goal," then the person you were trying to explain this to would probably go: "uh, what? You just said there was a goal. To be better."

Anyway, those questions aren't two.

Excellent summary has been penned by Alan, Doogie and Kaishin in these above posts, and it definitely clarifies what my original question was. Thank you for taking the time to do so.

As a new comer to the Soto Zen tradition, I believe I still have a bit of a unique perspective because much of it still seems very foreign to me. I get excited about new discoveries and I want to share them with people I know by talking about it, but then I realize that I cannot clearly explain it and so then I withdraw from the conversation. I think this happens a lot and it contributes to the overall mystique of Zen.

However, that mystique also, IMHO, does a disservice to the practitioners of this tradition. When you ask a "zealot" what they believe they can very succinctly explain it to you. Agree or disagree, you have no problem understanding exactly who they are, what they believe and where they stand. When you ask a person of casual surface religious affiliation, they tend to give a party-line definition with all kinds of caveats. Through my experience, what the world seems to recognize most about Zen is the Koans and the ascetic practices of some traditions. I understand that most of us here do not feel the need to run out and convert everyone we meet to Buddhism, but I worry that by not being more prolific and ready with explanations for those not of the Soto tradition that we inadvertently weaken our religion and its propensity to continue in its credible form.

Since we do not claim to have some sort of divinity supporting the continued existence of our religion, then doesn't it default to us to be good stewards of the tradition as well as good practitioners?

[pinoybuddhist]

Re: Do Buddhists proselytize?

My take on it is this: how badly does a person want to find out about Buddhism? You know how I became a Buddhist in the Philippines, a country where approximately 90% of the population are Christian, a smaller percentage are Muslim, and an even smaller percentage (I think) are Buddhists, pagans, agnostics and atheists combined? Through the Internet. Nobody proselytized Buddhism to me - I went out looking for it. Dissatisfied with my Catholic upbringing, I looked into other traditions. Nobody came to me and proselytized Wicca, Taoism, Zen, etc. - I went out of my way to look into them. My point is I was a seeker. And seekers do not wait for other people to proselytize to them about their religion - they go out and seek. And the reason they do this - well, maybe I should say the reason I did it was dissatisfaction. For me, if a person is satisfied with whatever religion he has - truly satisfied - then great. More power to him. If that person is not, then he will go out of his way and look around. Based on my own experience, that's the person who will be really open to learning about Buddhism.

This has influenced my attitude on proselytizing: if people want to learn, they will come and they will find us. Maybe they will not find Treeleaf. Maybe they will find some other sangha. Maybe it won't even be a Soto sangha. Maybe it will be Rinzai, maybe it will not even be Zen. Maybe it will be Pureland or Soka Gakkai or whatever. I don't care. I'm not worried about the tradition being weakened. The knowledge is out there and it is available to anyone who really wants to learn. Heck, that this sangha is existing is enough assurance for me that the tradition isn't weakening. If they come here, they are welcome. If somebody asks me about Zen, about Buddhism, I'll answer as best as I can. Meanwhile, I practice. That's about all the proselytizing I do.

[Rich]

Re: Do Buddhists proselytize?

Thanks pinoy. Very clear and agree with you.

[pinoybuddhist]

Re: Do Buddhists proselytize?

For me, if a person is satisfied with whatever religion he has - truly satisfied - then great. More power to him. If that person is not, then he will go out of his way and look around. Based on my own experience, that's the person who will be really open to learning about Buddhism.

Looking back on what I've just posted, this struck me just now as very much rigid, either-or thinking. ops: But the thing is, I don't see the value of sharing beyond a certain point. As I have said, the teachings are out there for anyone with a computer and Internet connection to access. So if somebody asks me about Zen and Buddhism, I'll answer and if he wants to know more, I'll direct that person to the Internet. Probably to Treeleaf if he's really interested. I can also invite that person to sit with me. If he's really interested and we both can find the time. That is the "certain point" beyond which I do not go. Going beyond that feels like I'm selling Zen.

[disastermouse]

Re: Do Buddhists proselytize?

I think that maybe, as Westerners, we may be too attached to the law of the excluded middle. Logic concludes that something either is or is not but cannot be both.

(This thinking is influenced by recent reading.)

But does reality (as lived, not as expressed) truly exist in this way?

A skilled zen teacher, upon seeing a student striving for that which can't be attained could emphasize the goalless-ness of Zen. The same teacher may see a student who is too complacent, who is missing something, and emphasize the effort side of the practice. Neither need be wrong, although BOTH could.

IMHO

Chet

[mr.Lou]

Re: Do Buddhists proselytize?

For me, if a person is satisfied with whatever religion he has - truly satisfied - then great. More power to him. If that person is not, then he will go out of his way and look around. Based on my own experience, that's the person who will be really open to learning about Buddhism.

Looking back on what I've just posted, this struck me just now as very much rigid, either-or thinking. ops: But the thing is, I don't see the value of sharing beyond a certain point. As I have said, the teachings are out there for anyone with a computer and Internet connection to access. So if somebody asks me about Zen and Buddhism, I'll answer and if he wants to know more, I'll direct that person to the Internet. Probably to Treeleaf if he's really interested. I can also invite that person to sit with me. If he's really interested and we both can find the time. That is the "certain point" beyond which I do not go. Going beyond that feels like I'm selling Zen.

It is interesting how this reflects a paradox inherent in much of what I have seen of Zen.

In one breath to say that I have compassion for all beings and then to follow it with but I am only willing to share to a certain point seems to be contradictory. What is compassion if it is not the willingness to share everything with everyone.

The internet is convoluted and contrasting. Answers conflict in wildly rampant ways throughout the entire web and even within individual websites. Telling someone that if they want to know more then they should go to the web is like saying if you're hungry just go to the ocean. Sure, the answers are there just as the ocean holds food, but if you do not already possess the knowledge to understand and discern what you find then the search will be lost.

Zen, in many ways, already has a reputation for being unapproachable and intimidating. Then to couple that with the lack of a willingness to be encouraging to the curious and it begins to make Zen Buddhists look selfish as the product of their own contrived elitism. And ultimately, isn't elitism the reason so many quickly dismiss the doctrines of Christians and Muslims; because they have followers that are stoic, elitist and unwilling to show compassion toward those that do not share their beliefs?