I gave this talk at our Sunrise Sit on June 28, 2024. A recording follows the text.

These are the first two of Bodhidharma’s Pure Mind Precepts as translated by Taizan Maezumi Roshi and reprinted in Nancy Mujo Baker Roshi’s book on the Zen Precepts, Opening to Oneness:

Non-killing

Self-nature is subtle and mysterious. In the realm of the everlasting Dharma, not giving rise to the idea of killing is called the Precept of Non-killing.

Non-stealing

Self-nature is subtle and mysterious. In the realm of the unattainable Dharma, not arousing the thought of gain is called the Precept of Non-stealing.

This list goes on, as you know. There are ten so-called Grave Precepts.

In Zen we approach our Bodhisattva Precepts from three distinct perspectives: the literal (or fundamental) perspective, the relational perspective, and the intrinsic perspective.

The literal perspective means just don’t do it. Don’t kill.

The relational perspective is about considering context. The time, place, people, and purposes this moment presents and suggests. The relational perspective recognizes that a situation sometimes presents a confrontation among multiple right values. We must make a hard decision or even a tragic tradeoff, in which we deeply regret some expected outcomes of our actions even as we act to produce expected outcomes we hope will be beneficial.

These two perspectives are universal in the realm of ethics. We find them in ethical traditions throughout the world. As Baker Roshi explains, both the literal and relational perspectives are what we call relative perspectives in Zen, because, on their own, they’re dualistic. On their own, they take separateness as a given, even as they may try to promote greater cohesion.

The intrinsic perspective is unique to Zen, or at least it was first and is most developed within Zen. It’s why Bodhidharma and Dogen express the Ten Grave Precepts as non-killing, non-stealing, and so on, rather than not killing, not stealing, and so forth.

The intrinsic perspective is not relative in the Zen sense; separateness is not its starting point. It’s the view from the Absolute. There can be no killing from the intrinsic perspective because both birth and death are Life, however death may occur. There can be no stealing because, throughout space and time, there is no loss or gain.

But how do we make the intrinsic perspective more than an abstract idea? What could it mean as a matter of experience and as a guide to action? Practically speaking, we can approach moral decisions through the intrinsic perspective in at least two ways.

Let me make that concrete with an example. I recently had an extended conversation with a close friend. At one point this friend veered in the direction of critiquing the conduct of someone else we know. I felt a tug to affirm what I’d just heard, and I did so, even amplifying it a bit. This exchange didn’t last long. We didn’t pile on the absent party. But we clearly were praising our view and conduct and criticizing the other person’s view and conduct.

From a literal perspective some might say we had violated the precept of non-blaming others and elevating oneself. How might viewing a situation like this from an intrinsic perspective inform one’s response when a conversation partner begins to lead one in this direction?

I find it helpful to do the following two things:

First, to remind myself about the intrinsic perspective. The literal and relational perspectives are more familiar. I don’t know about you, but they often spring to mind readily, and in that order, when I sense a drift into murky ethical waters. Almost at once, discomfort arises or the thought “Don’t” flashes. That’s followed by a weighing of contextual considerations; by analysis from the relational pespective.

Sometimes we can get stuck there, paralyzed or maybe just treading water. I often find it helpful when this happens to remind myself that, intrinsically, from the perspective of the Absolute, no one and nothing is ever elevated; nothing in the Universe is higher or lower. Doing this, it’s easier just to witness what’s arising in and around me, to be spacious and curious about it, including the tug I feel to participate in the critique my friend has invited.

Second, as Baker Roshi recommends, I look at the side of me that does want to elevate itself; to boast, sometimes at others’ expense. I accept that part of myself as non-judgmentally as I can. As I do this, underlying basic human needs often become apparent. The need to be liked and loved by others. To be connected. The need for self-esteem. Even the need for self-actualization, in part by living my highest values. The need to clarify for myself and others what right conduct looks like and doesn’t look like.

Doing these two things helps cast the view from the other two perspectives in a new light.

The view from the intrinsic perspective helps me hold the literal perspective with a lighter touch. If we only view a situation from the literal perspective, our judgments and/or the ways they’re expressed through our words and actions may be too harsh. When I can see the killer, the stealer, and the boaster in myself, it becomes harder to relate and respond to others’ conduct in a polarized way, because I can see how it also may be directed toward the satisfaction of basic human needs—needs I share and am trying to satisfy in my own way. I may see another’s actions as misdirected—but misdirected toward satisfaction of some legitimate need. From the intrinsic perspective, I know I’m not above it all, because there is no above. I’m in the stew with others.

The intrinsic perspective also helps me judge myself less harshly when, in retrospect, some decision I’ve made in good faith from the relational perspective, or even from the literal perspective, doesn’t look so good in retrospect. I may have considered the choice as best I could in the moment, but, in retrospect, not made the best choice I could have made. Viewing this from an intrinsic perspective, I can trust that I won’t be ejected from the Universe. And being gentler on myself in this way may make it easier to apologize and make amends and may help me be easier on others more generally.

Let me hasten to add that the intrinsic perspective can’t be separated from the literal and relational perspectives either. If we think we’re approaching a moral question from the intrinsic perspective, but if we are merely doing so intellectually, in our heads, we get anything-goes moral relativism. If we think we’re approaching a moral question based upon the supposed profundity of our personal insight—if we are overly-assured about the depth of our realization and its integration—we may well be acting out of deluded grandiosity and cause harm.

The Absolute and relative, the intrinsic perspective on the precepts and the two relative perspectives on them, are one, after all.