Love and Zen

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[galen]

I was just thinking about this topic a few days ago myself. I was musing on how I have encountered lamentations that the term "love" is so overly broad, describing everything from a high level of enthusiasm for a particular food to romantic eroticism to selfless spiritual love. I don't find this to be a problem. Actually, I find it to be a boon, and to point toward a deeper truth:, however subtly, I believe all of these different experiences to which we refer with the word "love" are connected. In my spiritual journey, every time I have become lost, whether lost in terms of feeling a lack of direction or enthusiasm or in terms of being overwhelmed by darkness, love has been what has revived me. Love is the one consistent guidepost I have found in navigating a life of practice. When you can trust no one and nothing else, you can trust where love guides you.

I especially find this guiding love in the context of relationships. And in my experience, love comes forth more clearly in non-romantic relationships than in romantic relationships. "Romance" seems to be predominated by more shallow drives and feelings, and to be very self-centered, full of desire and need. It is when the blush and thrill of romance is past or absent from a human connection that the more subtle and transformative phenomenon of love becomes apparent to me. I experience it most in the context of situations that require me to accept and/or forgive something another person I care about has done or is doing that I do not like, that I find personally uncomfortable or hurtful. In that moment when I get past what I want for me, and find it does not matter as much as caring about this other person and wanting them to be happy, I find something far more rewarding and mysterious--love. I am struck by the closeness of these concepts of love and forgiveness in the Christian tradition, and while Christian metaphysics do not speak to me, this expression of Christ's life as an act of love and forgiveness is a very powerful spiritual trope for me. And I think few, if any, have written on love in a spiritual context as powerfully and clearly as Rumi.

I also think of love in a scientific context. I have an avid interest in evolution and find contemplating evolution to be very spiritual and awe-inspiring, increasing my sense of connection to this world, its creatures and its history. And it is very striking to me that the more research that is done into the evolution of the human species, the more clear it becomes that we are what we are because of love: because of our strong social bonds (a common trait among mammals), because of our skill in cooperation, because of our altruism and sense of the importance of the group's survival being greater than an individual's survival. It is striking how scientists describe evidence that deeply ancient human ancestors cared for the crippled and elderly. And neuroscience is showing us that our very consciousness, the very way we experience the world, is rooted in the way we experience others and our place among them. We learn through the activity of mirror neurons that fire when we observe others. We experience the grief of loss with the same brain activity we do when we experience physical pain. I think if any clear "purpose" for our species can be gleaned from our history and our increasing scientific knowledge of who and what we are, it is the expression of love.

As for the absence of this topic in Zen teachings, I think there are likely many reasons. One is very much that the strong power of human-to-human attachment has always been viewed with a skeptical eye in the Buddhist tradition. I think there is a value in this; to see clearly, we must be able to see through the powerful feelings that arise out of our human relationships, even as we still feel them. And most of the traditional teachings we study in Zen were written by monastics, who undoubtedly experienced strong bonds of friendship and spiritual connection with one another, yet all the same saw the typical pattern of human love as problematic, an obstacle in developing a clear eye, to the extent that giving up "family life" was an important part of their path. I do find Buddhist teachings on the "brahma-viharas" to be very inspiring, and to capture how I experience love in its clearest and most potent form. And I think we are already seeing the topic of love become much more common in Zen writings as more and more lay practitioners are contributing significant writings. All the same, I don't think any tradition is perfect--and I certainly tend to look to other traditions when looking for inspiration and guidance on the topic of love.

Although one of my favorite love poems was written by John Daido Loori:

I love you.
This is loving the self,
loving loving,
being loved by loving,
being loved by the Way.
Isn't this the same as loving a mountain,
or a river, a bird or a tree;
loving a person, loving you, loving the self?
My love for you is you;
your love for me is me.
This is true not only for love
but for all activity.
This is true not only for sentient beings
but for the myriad dharmas.
I love you.

Thank you, Stephanie.


_/\_

galen

I was just thinking about this topic a few days ago myself. I was musing on how I have encountered lamentations that the term "love" is so overly broad, describing everything from a high level of enthusiasm for a particular food to romantic eroticism to selfless spiritual love. I don't find this to be a problem. Actually, I find it to be a boon, and to point toward a deeper truth:, however subtly, I believe all of these different experiences to which we refer with the word "love" are connected. In my spiritual journey, every time I have become lost, whether lost in terms of feeling a lack of direction or enthusiasm or in terms of being overwhelmed by darkness, love has been what has revived me. Love is the one consistent guidepost I have found in navigating a life of practice. When you can trust no one and nothing else, you can trust where love guides you.

I especially find this guiding love in the context of relationships. And in my experience, love comes forth more clearly in non-romantic relationships than in romantic relationships. "Romance" seems to be predominated by more shallow drives and feelings, and to be very self-centered, full of desire and need. It is when the blush and thrill of romance is past or absent from a human connection that the more subtle and transformative phenomenon of love becomes apparent to me. I experience it most in the context of situations that require me to accept and/or forgive something another person I care about has done or is doing that I do not like, that I find personally uncomfortable or hurtful. In that moment when I get past what I want for me, and find it does not matter as much as caring about this other person and wanting them to be happy, I find something far more rewarding and mysterious--love. I am struck by the closeness of these concepts of love and forgiveness in the Christian tradition, and while Christian metaphysics do not speak to me, this expression of Christ's life as an act of love and forgiveness is a very powerful spiritual trope for me. And I think few, if any, have written on love in a spiritual context as powerfully and clearly as Rumi.

I also think of love in a scientific context. I have an avid interest in evolution and find contemplating evolution to be very spiritual and awe-inspiring, increasing my sense of connection to this world, its creatures and its history. And it is very striking to me that the more research that is done into the evolution of the human species, the more clear it becomes that we are what we are because of love: because of our strong social bonds (a common trait among mammals), because of our skill in cooperation, because of our altruism and sense of the importance of the group's survival being greater than an individual's survival. It is striking how scientists describe evidence that deeply ancient human ancestors cared for the crippled and elderly. And neuroscience is showing us that our very consciousness, the very way we experience the world, is rooted in the way we experience others and our place among them. We learn through the activity of mirror neurons that fire when we observe others. We experience the grief of loss with the same brain activity we do when we experience physical pain. I think if any clear "purpose" for our species can be gleaned from our history and our increasing scientific knowledge of who and what we are, it is the expression of love.

As for the absence of this topic in Zen teachings, I think there are likely many reasons. One is very much that the strong power of human-to-human attachment has always been viewed with a skeptical eye in the Buddhist tradition. I think there is a value in this; to see clearly, we must be able to see through the powerful feelings that arise out of our human relationships, even as we still feel them. And most of the traditional teachings we study in Zen were written by monastics, who undoubtedly experienced strong bonds of friendship and spiritual connection with one another, yet all the same saw the typical pattern of human love as problematic, an obstacle in developing a clear eye, to the extent that giving up "family life" was an important part of their path. I do find Buddhist teachings on the "brahma-viharas" to be very inspiring, and to capture how I experience love in its clearest and most potent form. And I think we are already seeing the topic of love become much more common in Zen writings as more and more lay practitioners are contributing significant writings. All the same, I don't think any tradition is perfect--and I certainly tend to look to other traditions when looking for inspiration and guidance on the topic of love.

Although one of my favorite love poems was written by John Daido Loori:

I love you.
This is loving the self,
loving loving,
being loved by loving,
being loved by the Way.
Isn't this the same as loving a mountain,
or a river, a bird or a tree;
loving a person, loving you, loving the self?
My love for you is you;
your love for me is me.
This is true not only for love
but for all activity.
This is true not only for sentient beings
but for the myriad dharmas.
I love you.

[Graceleejenkins]

I know what you mean, Hans. There is loving-kindness, compassion, the oneness of the loved and lover,and the realization that we all want to be happy and avoid suffering, but the teachings just don’t quite seem to cover everything that the West often loads into the concept of love, do they? It is kind of hard to express. Maybe it’s the Judeo-Christian tradition that makes us miss a certain kind of emphasis: “wither thou goest, I go,”, “He so loved the world. . ., ” “hope, faith and charity, but the greatest of these is love,” and St. Francis of Assisi with his love of animals and “grant that I may not seek to be loved, as to love. ”

I don’t know, but on a gut level, I understand your point. Everyday life, it doesn't really affect me. I still love my husband madly, and I still learn from Zen, but I do know what you mean. If I had the genius to express it, I would. Gassho, Grace.

Mmm, I have a kind of problem with love indead featuring my practise. Some questions arise like "what' love"? (being with someone), would it be easier with a buddhist to live with? what do i have to wait for love? It's like looking for or aspiring in this way like the will to go forward like in the Dharma, a quest even though we don't need to search, there's still this will.
I'm scared sometimes not make difference with non attachement to someone and a lack of love for someone. I mean love here in the sense of love relationship.

That's what I can say if I share my "private" life to you.

Good post Hans, it fits well with what I'm living of wondering

Gassho all

Yang Hsin

[galen]

Hi Hans,

Personally, living about as far west as you can get here in the States, and from my studies in metaphysical and so-called mystical concepts and teachings, to me love seems rather trite, esp romantic love. While I embrace it, can and do fall into these type of relationships, the word love seems small, as a word, in the much larger picture of universal love of all there Is. I know where you are coming from and know your feelings for this one on one personal love or romantic love. I just don’t see the dilemma about Zen having to cover it or get into it, just do it. It has been said from some of the Zen concepts and writings I have read, that words such as love are just ideas, and as you point to early, ‘the notion’ or just a notion, they are human constructs. I do not feel the Oneness concept misses even romantic love or that it needs a discussion. I tend to lean more to the two Zen-women on this thread and their perception. It just seems that this Zen thing is so much bigger and universal, then to get caught up in something that seems more about drama.

Does not the concept of Oneness, cover all aspects of this love from a Zen perspective? This romantic love often seems to be about dramatic and more shallow ideas. Of course it is awesome to fall head over heels, and the romance leading up to and through that type of relationship, but from my perspective it just seems so small, esp in the West. Love is the small mind and ego, which we are all sitting in and communicating right now, and Zen is also about that, but much more in the processing to the big Mind picture. It just does not seem to me that its a subject, even in these modern times, from a very ancient school and teaching, necessary as a subject. But that is just me, and do not feel there is a need for any intellectualizing or conceptualizing it in Zen. Leave that up to the love birds, even those Zen lovers, with their emotions, ideas and 'notions'.

Thank you for your bring forth such a great discussion topic, esp with you being a Priest in training and your supposed discomfort with this in Zen. I just don’t see a problem with it in a Zen Way.


_/\_

galen