Love and Zen

[Myoku]

I had to sink your original question in for a few days; but it remains the same: Love is only a word; it depends what we mean by that. Love, for me, is appreciation, is saying 'yes', is compassion, is avoiding harm naturally. Naturally is the key, and I think it flows naturally as our practice deepens. Sometimes when I sit or in a moment where I didnt expect it, a tremendous love comes up, a tremendous yes to people or life in general. I'm not sure if one should talk about or emphasise the aspect of love in our practice, but I'm sure its part of it.
_()_
Myoku

[Hans]

Hello,

once more a quick thank you for all the great input. I feel that we Westerners are slowly finding our own way of expressing the teachings of our Zen traditions. My gut was pointing to the fact that there were many experiences I have had in relation to modern Zen practise, that left me bewildered after seeing how little joy and non-selfish aspects of love was being projected by those present. That was not the case during our winter retreat by the way...nor am I saying that "Zen has to be THIS and not THAT"... I still feel that a lot of western Zen is very contrived due to many of us westerners trying to live up to our stereotypical ideas about how practitioners should act, present themselves and come across.

Time will find many answers to these questions.

Gassho,

Hans Chudo Mongen

[RichardH]

Hi Hans. A couple of times here you have mentioned how Zen practitioners can be contrived.... that word, contrived. It is my understanding that the truth of Dukkha.. "Here is Dukkha, Dukkha is like this" is very visceral and uncontrived.. it can only be raw. The containing rituals and manners of Zen when just done..in the the same way as just sitting, are also direct and raw. Where I see contrivance in myself and others is around our loamy ,messy, humanness. It is the contrivance of "having it together" which never works.
The subject of being contrived and uncontrived is impossible for me. How does one be uncontrived? An effort to be uncontrived would be a miserable trap. We is what we is, it seems to me..including our artifice and contrivances.... and edits. Just thinking aloud. Thank you for this topic for reflection.


Gassho, kojip

[alan.r]

Hi Hans. A couple of times here you have mentioned how Zen practitioners can be contrived.... that word, contrived. It is my understanding that the truth of Dukkha.. "Here is Dukkha, Dukkha is like this" is very visceral and uncontrived.. it can only be raw. The containing rituals and manners of Zen when just done..in the the same way as just sitting, are also direct and raw. Where I see contrivance in myself and others is around our loamy ,messy, humanness. It is the contrivance of "having it together" which never works.
The subject of being contrived and uncontrived is impossible for me. How does one be uncontrived? An effort to be uncontrived would be a miserable trap. We is what we is, it seems to me..including our artifice and contrivances.... and edits. Just thinking aloud. Thank you for this topic for reflection.


Gassho, kojip

An effort to be uncontrived would be a contrivance. I think Dukkha is often a contrivance - when something unpleasant happens to us, a broken leg, a car accident, a family member becoming ill, if we lose ourself in ourself, our little self-pitying thoughts, why me, why this, why now, while we may not realize it (though I've always thought we always do realize we're doing this), this is a complete artificiality imposed on the "raw" pain. A kind of contrivance, to me. Though perhaps I misunderstand.

Your story about the Theravadin monk I, well, I love. Just kidding; but yes, it's a wonderful story and completely honest and true. In our Zen practice, probably in most Buddhist practices, love is a term which connotes attachment. And so for the Buddhist - Oh no! Not attachment! Get rid of it! But that's just silly, yeah. To me, hopefully we're all attached in some way to some people, because if we're not, then we're not loving. I don't know what love is, but when it is there it is there. I don't know what zazen is either, but when I'm doing it I'm doing it. Also, I think there is such a thing as wise attachment - relationships that are unselfish, kind, etc. We let go of, more and more, negative thoughts and feelings, negative relationships, but when love comes up are we supposed to think "Oh crap, now I'm loving, better let go" - Nah, probably not. Just to be aware that one is attached to someone is enough, lessens the attachment, makes it easier to love even, easier to go in the flow of loving, to give to them rather than to want from them.

Anyway, lovely discussion here.

Gassho,
a

[Jinyo]

Hello,

once more a quick thank you for all the great input. I feel that we Westerners are slowly finding our own way of expressing the teachings of our Zen traditions. My gut was pointing to the fact that there were many experiences I have had in relation to modern Zen practise, that left me bewildered after seeing how little joy and non-selfish aspects of love was being projected by those present. That was not the case during our winter retreat by the way...nor am I saying that "Zen has to be THIS and not THAT"... I still feel that a lot of western Zen is very contrived due to many of us westerners trying to live up to our stereotypical ideas about how practitioners should act, present themselves and come across.

Time will find many answers to these questions.

Gassho,

Hans Chudo Mongen

Hi Hans - this is an interesting discussion so can I press some more? It would help me to understand better if I could hone down from the general to the particular. Can you give an example of an experience that ran contrary to an expression of non-selfish love? Could you give an example of a stereotypical idea expressed through action?

My understanding of Zen comes mainly from reading - I have never attended a retreat, been in a room (physically, in material time) with other practitioners.

I'm wondering if you feel that in essence we (in the west) need to re-express the teachings of Zen using our own cultural metaphors - not only in word but in action?

I think - if this is the case - you have a strong point. In a way this is what Taigen is attempting in his book - but I'm not convinced this particular book works. Keeping metaphors fresh is very difficult - and though I admire Dylon, love Mary Oliver's poetry, also Rumi - this is still putting Zen through a particular filter that does not feel fresh to me.


This is just my subjective view - but if Zen practitioners want to speak from the heart - and to speak from love - then perhaps they need to speak from their own heart.


We all borrow too many words (IMHO)

Gassho

Willow

[RichardH]

An effort to be uncontrived would be a contrivance. I think Dukkha is often a contrivance - when something unpleasant happens to us, a broken leg, a car accident, a family member becoming ill, if we lose ourself in ourself, our little self-pitying thoughts, why me, why this, why now, while we may not realize it (though I've always thought we always do realize we're doing this), this is a complete artificiality imposed on the "raw" pain. A kind of contrivance, to me. Though perhaps I misunderstand.

Hi Alan. I guess in a sense Dukkha is a contrivance. Though I tend to see it more as errant instinct rather than a conscious effort. More like a bewildered contraction of life. It's definitely something we do, and the buck does stop here.

The rawness (in my experience) is in coming to terms with the fact of Dukkha, the suffering... and how the strategies and compensations of a life-time no longer work.


Gassho, kojip.

[Hans]

Hello Willow,

thank you so much for your questions. Please excuse me being so brief, but I'm at work as it is..... You wrote:
"I'm wondering if you feel that in essence we (in the west) need to re-express the teachings of Zen using our own cultural metaphors - not only in word but in action?"

Well..basically I do not feel "we" or anyone else needs to do anything....but after having sat with a few Zen groups over the years, and having read far too many exchanges over the internet that gave me a flavour of different Zen lineages in my cultural neck of the woods I still feel (and I am sorry I cannot make this more concrete) there is a great deal of samurai-re-enactment going on and in Germany in particular (in many, not all cases) a strain of humourless Zen is being propagated (and I don't just mean a certain AZI current) that seems to try and emulate the strictness of Japanese cultural confucianism...which doesn't really leave a lot of room for laughter and joyful...dare I say even ecstatic expressions of unselfish love.

In many cases the sour faced Zen people I have met are very often fake faces...masks...as if looking like a pissed of patriarch would change anything for the better. The urge to follow a pseudo-orientalist notion of what authentic Zen is is IMHO creating the opposite in many cases.....

The dharma has arrived in the West and it'll take some time for us to "make it ours" (though it belongs to no- and everyone)....so no need to rush anything, but yeah, my gut tells me that ultimately we have to find more of our own expressions. Both on an emotional, poetic and "deed" level. Looking at what the many nuances of unselfish love mean to us and what expressions they might command is part of that (for me....please everyone do what you want, I am not preaching, just sharing impressions )

Gassho,

Hans Chudo Mongen

[kosen]

Hello to all. Here also, in France, we are confronted with a teaching of the Zen which does not know how to speak about the love. It seems to me caused by a very dated and false vision of Japan and traditions of the Zen, by preconceived ideas on Asian cold and deprived of feeling or hiding them. But Eric Rommeluère, who had practiced zazen in zen japanese monasteries said that he has never found nothing else but love in the Zen monasteries of Japan. If I can recommend a book allowing to integrate the love into the practice of the Buddhism, it would be Teachings of Love, by Thich Nhat Hanh: many of your questions are approached there. If I can make reference to the people and teachers whom I met, I would say that the love is born by practicing zazen, at first because we love zazen, then the others, and finally ourself (it is the most difficult, to love ourself). Then the power of the love submerges everything, in the point to be difficult to live and to create difficulties in the relations with the other human beings who do not know that we are in the love for all. It is necessary at this moment to learn to manage the love, and even to hide it, if we want to avoid hurting the others. It is for it that certain Buddhist masters are surly.
Kosen

[galen]

Hello to all. Here also, in France, we are confronted with a teaching of the Zen which does not know how to speak about the love. It seems to me caused by a very dated and false vision of Japan and traditions of the Zen, by preconceived ideas on Asian cold and deprived of feeling or hiding them. But Eric Rommeluère, who had practiced zazen in zen japanese monasteries said that he has never found nothing else but love in the Zen monasteries of Japan. If I can recommend a book allowing to integrate the love into the practice of the Buddhism, it would be Teachings of Love, by Thich Nhat Hanh: many of your questions are approached there. If I can make reference to the people and teachers whom I met, I would say that the love is born by practicing zazen, at first because we love zazen, then the others, and finally ourself (it is the most difficult, to love ourself). Then the power of the love submerges everything, in the point to be difficult to live and to create difficulties in the relations with the other human beings who do not know that we are in the love for all. It is necessary at this moment to learn to manage the love, and even to hide it, if we want to avoid hurting the others. It is for it that certain Buddhist masters are surly.
Kosen

Thank you for a great post, Kosen,

We all have some different views, perceptions, but for the most part they end up in a wash. It seems that love does start and end with zazen as you say, but seemingly; too really, really love other, we must first love ourselves (and yes the hardest), but zazen is there for that. Also, not sure about hiding our love in fear of hurting other (get what you mean though), because it seems that a deep genuine bliss-filled zazen love, can not be hidden. Its overwhelming and comes from grace. Others, including what even could be called a bad person, could not deny this deep empathy and overwhelming love of even them. It seems that is what they need in the form of acceptance and forgiveness, as do others who could to be thought to be this good person. {No good, no bad, only perception.} Thank you again!


_/\_

galen

[Jinyo]

Hello Willow,

thank you so much for your questions. Please excuse me being so brief, but I'm at work as it is..... You wrote:
"I'm wondering if you feel that in essence we (in the west) need to re-express the teachings of Zen using our own cultural metaphors - not only in word but in action?"

Well..basically I do not feel "we" or anyone else needs to do anything....but after having sat with a few Zen groups over the years, and having read far too many exchanges over the internet that gave me a flavour of different Zen lineages in my cultural neck of the woods I still feel (and I am sorry I cannot make this more concrete) there is a great deal of samurai-re-enactment going on and in Germany in particular (in many, not all cases) a strain of humourless Zen is being propagated (and I don't just mean a certain AZI current) that seems to try and emulate the strictness of Japanese cultural confucianism...which doesn't really leave a lot of room for laughter and joyful...dare I say even ecstatic expressions of unselfish love.

In many cases the sour faced Zen people I have met are very often fake faces...masks...as if looking like a pissed of patriarch would change anything for the better. The urge to follow a pseudo-orientalist notion of what authentic Zen is is IMHO creating the opposite in many cases.....

The dharma has arrived in the West and it'll take some time for us to "make it ours" (though it belongs to no- and everyone)....so no need to rush anything, but yeah, my gut tells me that ultimately we have to find more of our own expressions. Both on an emotional, poetic and "deed" level. Looking at what the many nuances of unselfish love mean to us and what expressions they might command is part of that (for me....please everyone do what you want, I am not preaching, just sharing impressions )

Gassho,

Hans Chudo Mongen

Thanks for explaining Hans. It is interesting that the difficulty seems to come more from 'personalities' than perhaps written Zen teachings?

Kosen mentioned Thich Nhat Hahn. Hahn was my first introduction to Zen and I have read many of his books. I like his work very much - there is a lot of compassion
and calm - but sometimes I think he simplifies love - and I have many issues concerning this simplification within Zen in general.
There is not really space to go into it here as it would make this post too long.

Going back to the original question of how Zen is portrayed by certain teachers,(cold, love-less) etc - I don't have any direct experience of this - but it is enlightening to read about the experiences of members who do.

Gassho

Willow

[Kaishin]

I can't seem to construct a coherent response :P I do think I get what you're saying. Have never really considered it before or seen it as a problem, though. But now maybe I do!

Anyway, just a note to say thanks for the topic and responses.

[Nindo]

... there is a great deal of samurai-re-enactment going on and in Germany in particular (in many, not all cases) a strain of humourless Zen is being propagated (and I don't just mean a certain AZI current) that seems to try and emulate the strictness of Japanese cultural confucianism...which doesn't really leave a lot of room for laughter and joyful...dare I say even ecstatic expressions of unselfish love.

In many cases the sour faced Zen people I have met are very often fake faces...masks...as if looking like a pissed of patriarch would change anything for the better. The urge to follow a pseudo-orientalist notion of what authentic Zen is is IMHO creating the opposite in many cases.....

Hi Hans,

thanks for writing about your experience in Germany (and Kosen in France). I can understand what you mean, that this is somewhat of a cultural phenomenon. Some folks I sat with in Germany and Austria seemed to have this dead-serious, austere look at Buddhism as well. And you can find the same in North-American centres of course. This may come from an effort to "do it right", without really understanding what Zen is about. So it's easy to fall into the trap of copying an image one may have of "sour faced patriarchs".

However, in the talks I read, and listen to via podcast, I would say that mentioning love has very much increased in the last couple of years, mostly in the context of boddhisattva love. Examples would be talks from Upaya, Oregon Zen Centre and Zen Moutain Monastery. Similar thoughts are also contained in Joko Beck's books.

I'd say, if Zen is presented without warmth, joy, empathy in a group, run like hell!

[Risho]

... I still feel that a lot of western Zen is very contrived due to many of us westerners trying to live up to our stereotypical ideas about how practitioners should act, present themselves and come across.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on that. I think this happens in any discipline. When you start something like martial arts, or I don't know... a new job. You want to get it right sometimes so bad that you forget to be natural.

Gassho,

Risho

[Nindo]

... To me, hopefully we're all attached in some way to some people, because if we're not, then we're not loving. I don't know what love is, but when it is there it is there. I don't know what zazen is either, but when I'm doing it I'm doing it. Also, I think there is such a thing as wise attachment - relationships that are unselfish, kind, etc. We let go of, more and more, negative thoughts and feelings, negative relationships, but when love comes up are we supposed to think "Oh crap, now I'm loving, better let go" - Nah, probably not. Just to be aware that one is attached to someone is enough, lessens the attachment, makes it easier to love even, easier to go in the flow of loving, to give to them rather than to want from them. ...

(my highlights)

Since nobody has picked up Alan's statement yet, I will - just to throw it out there, as I'm not quite sure where I stand on this myself.

Is love equal to attachment?
Can it be true love if it is free from attachment?
Is love free from attachment just an ideal?
Does love get "better", "more pure" or whatever when attachment lessens?

My "ideal" love is expressed in this story:

One day some people came to the master and asked ‘How can you be happy in a world of such impermanence, where you cannot protect your loved ones from harm, illness and death?’ The master held up a glass and said ‘Someone gave me this glass, and I really like this glass. It holds my water admirably and it glistens in the sunlight. I touch it and it rings! One day the wind may blow it off the shelf, or my elbow may knock it from the table. I know this glass is already broken, so I enjoy it incredibly.’

Taken to our relationships, this would mean:
I know that my husband, mother, father, sister, friends are already dead, so I enjoy them incredibly...

[galen]

(my highlights)

Since nobody has picked up Alan's statement yet, I will - just to throw it out there, as I'm not quite sure where I stand on this myself.

Is love equal to attachment?
Can it be true love if it is free from attachment?
Is love free from attachment just an ideal?
Does love get "better", "more pure" or whatever when attachment lessens?

My "ideal" love is expressed in this story:


Taken to our relationships, this would mean:
I know that my husband, mother, father, sister, friends are already dead, so I enjoy them incredibly...

Well thrown, Nindo,

You have intrigued me, and alan has offered up a perfect dilemma of what or if, in this so-called ideal love, whether attachment is necessary and/or even real. Also, your response to the `master seemingly was a smash hit.

Is love equal to attachment?...... Is attachment equal to love? Is anything equal to love, or need to be? It seems if so-called love is real in the `world of phenomena, it would thrive more with nothing to ad, and esp clinging or even what could be called a healthy attachment.

Can it be true love if it is free from attachment?....... It seems so, even more so. Is it necessary to attach to any`thing?

Is love free from attachment just an ideal?...... Is anything ideal in the real sense, or is that a human construct, as even love seems to be? It seems if there is this so-called feeling of love, does it need a name or can it just be a felt sense, but maybe deeper then most feelings?

Does love get "better", "more pure" or whatever when attachment lessens?...... It seems so, esp in the `world of phenomena. If this so-called love is real, why would there be any need to attach, does it not speak for itself?