|
Newest This site and its contents, unless otherwise noted,
|
2004-06-21 // 11:58 p.m. Right now, I'm reading The World of Zen, edited and with an intro by Nancy Wilson Ross. This is the first anthology on Zen Buddhism that was published in this country; it is nearly 45 years old. Today, I read the text of a lecture on Zen, given by Ruth Fuller Sazaki, at that time director of the First Zen Institute of America in Japan. The Buddhist sect that she follows is the traditional Japanese Rinzai Zen which, to its practitioners at least, is the original Zen school of thought, and the closest remaining structure of what Prince Sadartha actually said. Sazaki's lecture left me a bit turned off. For the first time, I've now read a piece of Buddhist literature that is slightly encoded with the "our way or no way" mentality that began my journey away from Christianity. It's not that her piece was judgemental, or even authoritarian. Rather, it simply stated that in order for a serious Zennist to achieve attainment (i.e. enlightenment), he must solve each of his master's koan's (riddles solved by lengthy periods of meditation) with one, and only one, accepted answer. It seems odd to me that a practice that celebrates maintaining an open heart would encourage such rigid guidelines for truth. It's not that I don't understand the concept behind this - I do. Arriving at the traditionally acceptable answer is a means of absolving the smaller self, the personal ego, and becoming consciously part of the Ultimate Truth, the one energy that is all existence. I get that. But to have a master literally demand an exact answer and then, on top of it, require you to go out and find THE one portion of scripture that the koan pertains to...the term that comes to mind is "brainwashing." I wonder if the 45 years that have passed since this book's publication have allowed for any leeway in this area. Doubtful, considering the lecture, written in 1958, speaks of a practice that has been tradition since China and Japan's Buddhisms first merged in the thirteenth century. I like the idea of reading this book, though. My guess is that many of its pages come from first generation American Zennists who, much like early Americans who left Britain for religious freedom but held no container for this basic human right in their own new colony, were eager to uphold tradition and a sense of seriousness that evaded the possibility of "fad" Zennism in the West. My hope is that second and third generation American Zennists have allowed a little bending room. On goes my quest for home within Buddhist structure. What has felt most correct to me in my studies (which are quite limited, to date) is the Burmese approach. Burmese Buddhism shares Zen Buddhism's belief that man inherantly possesses everything needed to become a Buddha himself. Many other Buddhist sects maintain that the highest level most humans can achieve is to become a Boddhisatva, a Buddha of Compassion. This is a truly impressive accomplishment to be sure, but it sits a notch below becoming an actual Buddha. I like to believe that Buddha, Christ, and others like them, came to this earth with the message that each and every one of us can achieve what they demonstrated. We all have a buddha nature, a God-given - if you will - ability to exist as one with the universe. This sifting through the various Buddhist systems feels to me like rummaging through my closet to find an outfit for a highly important event; it all fits, but what garment truly brings out the best of me?
|