A footnote on “On Being a Student”

 

In my recent post “On Being a Student,” I said that the teacher-student relationship, when viewed from a very big picture perspective, is perhaps something of a mutual support society.

 

I want to clarify this point, because it might seem to some to imply that the student is focusing on the teacher’s questions, concerns, dilemmas, needs, etc. as much as the teacher is focusing on the student’s questions, concerns, dilemmas, needs, etc.

 

While, in my experience, a teacher certainly will meet me honestly, exposing something of his or her vulnerabilities, insecurities, questions, and the like from time to time, it’s my experience that these moments of self-revelation are most often, and primarily, part of the teaching. They’re not typically, in my experience, invitations to flip roles — to pass the baton back and forth.

 

I consistently observe teachers keeping the focus squarely on the student. Being wholly present to the student, here, now — truly attending to another human being — is a big part of the practice-gift of teaching, I do think.

 

And, I’m certain it’s also true that students support teachers in their practice in myriad ways. Sure, there is some explicit attending to one’s teacher in the dokusan room on occasion, despite the primary focus on the student during that recurrent feature of the relationship. And there may (or may not) be a broader friendship that sprouts from walking this path together, which, like any friendship, involves supportive listening, speech and action. And, regardless of whether that happens, most teachers I have known do report learning a great deal from their students, as I noted in my prior post.

 

Then there’s the creating and enacting of community, with student-teacher practice being a big component of that in Zen. This is what I meant when I said that, viewed from 40,000 feet, the teacher-student relationship is something of a mutual support society. Teachers support students being students; students support teachers being teachers; teachers support teachers; students support students; and sangha emerges, is sustained, and, we hope, becomes richer and richer through all this.

 

What else is a sangha, or any other religious community, if not a mutual support society? In Zen, it seems to me that the centrality of the student-teacher relationship, and the quality of the teaching, and therefore of those relationships, is the key to the quality of the community and the extent to which people truly experience it as supportive.

 

There, but for the grace of . . .

This post is an approximation of a dharma talk I gave this morning at the Greater Boston Zen Center.

 

These are the first few paragraphs of an article from the front page of the November 30,  2012 edition of the New York Times.  It’s titled “Ethnic Hate Tears Apart a Region of Myanmar.”

 

SITTWE, Myanmar — The Buddhist monastery on the edge of this seaside town is a picture of tranquillity, with novice monks in saffron robes finding shade under a towering tree and their teacher, U Nyarna, greeting a visitor in a sunlit prayer room.
But in these placid surroundings Mr. Nyarna’s message is discordant, and a far cry from the Buddhist precept of avoiding harm to living creatures. Unprompted, Mr. Nyarna launches into a rant against Muslims, calling them invaders, unwanted guests and “vipers in our laps.”
“According to Buddhist teachings we should not kill,” Mr. Nyarna said.   “But when we feel threatened we cannot be saints.”
Violence here in Rakhine State — where clashes have left at least 167 people dead and 100,000 people homeless, most of them Muslims — has set off an exodus that some human rights groups condemn as ethnic cleansing. It is a measure of the deep intolerance that pervades the state, a strip of land along the Bay of Bengal in western Myanmar, that Buddhist religious leaders like Mr. Nyarna, who is the head of an association of young monks, are participating in the campaign to oust Muslims from the country, which only recently began a transition to democracy from authoritarian rule.
After a series of deadly rampages and arson attacks over the past five months, Buddhists are calling for Muslims who cannot prove three generations of legal residence — a large part of the nearly one million Muslims from the state — to be put into camps and sent to any country willing to take them. Hatred between Muslims and Buddhists that was kept in check during five decades of military rule has been virtually unrestrained in recent months.
Even the country’s leading liberal voice and defender of the downtrodden, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, has been circumspect in her comments about the violence.

 

The article goes on to describe how Muslims in Rakhine State have been subjugated by Buddhists, the squalid conditions in which they live, and the humiliation they suffer.   It also describes how the Buddhists there, whose lives generally are better, but which are far from good, fear for their security as the state’s Muslim population grows more rapidly than the Buddhist population.

 

And it describes how all this has generated an escalating spiral of conflict.  After Buddhists recently accused Muslims of the rape of a young girl, Muslims burned Buddhist monasteries and Buddhists destroyed mosques.

 

Some of you may know that I’m part of an NGO that helps catalyze and support local stakeholder owned and led peace process to end wars and national dialogue processes to prevent them.

 

I’m also a Buddhist.

 

So reading this article was a bit disconcerting for me.

 

I was in Beirut this time last Saturday.  We’ve been providing assistance to a national dialogue process there, and we’re becoming increasingly involved in emerging peace processes elsewhere in the Middle East.

 

We’ve also recently become deeply involved in the situation in Burma, the subject of this article.

 

I got involved in the international conflict resolution field in grad school almost 20 years ago.

 

I had come to study contemplative spirituality, but another front page New York Times article, this one about the genocide perpetrated against Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica, near the end of the war in the former Yugoslavia, derailed that plan, inspiring me to study the relationship between religion and conflict.

 

I ultimately developed a theory about why religion so frequently appears as the fault line along which violent conflict occurs.

 

Social psychologists have shown how even trivial identity differences — like being randomly assigned to a blue team or a red team in an experiment about group conflict — have a  propensity to generate hostility in environments where tangible and/or social resources are perceived to be scarce.

 

Psychologists also have confirmed what we already know about ourselves, more or less reflectively:  we quite naturally seek physical, mental and social security and stability, and the impulse to develop secure and stable individual and group identities is part of our strategy for doing so.

 

My theory suggests that religions historically have served this identity impulse more comprehensively and effectively than other cultural markers, like language or ethnicity (though these often are tightly intertwined with religious identity), and that this explains why conflict so often occurs along religious fault lines. In 1999 I published an article in the main journal in the conflict resolution and peace studies fields in which I described this theory, and it still gets a lot of play today.

 

More recently, the political scientists Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart have shown, through rigorous statistical analysis of mountains of empirical evidence from the majority of rich and poor countries in the world, that societies where there is a high level of existential insecurity — where people lack basic resources, like sufficient food and clean water; where illiteracy and lack of educational opportunities make it more difficult for them to voice their needs and concerns and better their situation; etc. — are societies that remain deeply and traditionally religious.

 

Their analysis and my theory seem like two sides of a coin:  existential insecurity breeding strong individual and group religious identity, and religious identity supplying the fault line upon which violent conflict often occurs in environments marked by scarcity.  I believe we have a recipe for religious conflict of the type we see in Burma.

 

It’s tempting to judge Mr. Nyarna, the teacher featured in the article from which I read.  Sure, the situation is difficult — more difficult than most of us likely can imagine — but he is a Buddhist teacher.  He seems to sacrifice the precepts so readily, and so unreflectively.  The seeming lack of nuance in his perspective, the seeming inability to consider the other’s perspective; it’s quite arresting, at least to me.

 

One of my mentors from grad school is Herbert Kelman.  Now 85 and still active as a scholar and practitioner, Herb is a famous social and political psychologist and the longest-standing facilitator of dialogues between high-level Israelis and Palestinians.

 

Herb’s class on the psychology of international and intrastate conflict and their resolution was the first class I took in the field.  In one of our early class sessions, I naively said that war is pathological behavior.

 

I got a deservedly blunt reply. War is definitely not pathological behavior, Herb said, even though it is tragic. It’s the product of complex causes, and frequently a response to unmet human needs, and those causes and needs can be understood.

 

I can’t really begin to relate to the conditions in which the people of Rhakine state — Buddhists and Muslims alike — live.

 

I know how difficult it can be to honor the precepts, act compassionately, and not get lost in my own “default mode” certainties, when I feel slighted here in my own secure and comfortable environment.

 

Mr. Nyarna’s perspective and conduct may be as tragic as the conditions in which he lives, but they are not pathological.

 

And I know from my colleagues who have begun to work in Burma that there are many devoted Buddhists and Muslims who are striving to promote understanding, collaboration and reconciliation.

 

I once contributed a chapter on religion and conflict to a book on conflict resolution. My chapter surveyed the dominant attitudes toward conflict within our five largest religious traditions.  Not surprisingly, one finds perspectives and resources for inciting conflict, and also for pacifying conflict, in each of these traditions.

 

Although I gave a few examples of Buddhist perspectives that might contribute to or justify violent conflict, I was somewhat gentler on Buddhism than I was on the other religions. I speculated that features like meditation practice, Buddhism’s distinctive perspective on the self, and the emphasis on interdependence make Buddhism relatively less likely to incite or inflame conflict.

 

While I still believe there’s a measure of truth to this, I now think I was idealizing to a large extent.

 

For me personally, I do think — I do hope — that Zen practice, along with other disciplines, relationships and experiences, has helped me become gentler, more genuinely caring, less reactive when I perceive threat or offense.

 

But I see with some regularity how fragile these qualities are; how dependent they are upon my sense of security; how quickly they can dissolve when I feel threatened or slighted; how vigilant I must be to maintain them, even in this privileged environment.

 

The stories of Ghandi, Aung San Suu Kyi, and others who show great courage and moral leadership in the face of great adversity are deeply moving and inspiring. And, without intending to detract one bit from the amazingness of what they did and the ideals they represent, some figures like this have at least some element of privilege in their backgrounds.  Their “micro context,” if you will, perhaps gave them a somewhat firmer personal footing from which to see the possibilities, and to act in these courageous ways. Ghandi was a lawyer.  Aung San Suu Kyi is the daughter of a once powerful general.

 

Siddhartha Gautama, the historical Buddha, was a wealthy prince.

 

To be sure, others act and lead with great courage and moral vision without the benefit of economic or social advantages.

 

And, yet so many people are just trying to survive in environments they perceive to be zero-sum.  We are so moved by those who exhibit great courage and vision in dire circumstances because we understand how difficult that is to do, and appreciate why it is so rare.

 

Yes, we must stand against prejudice, injustice and violence.  Speaking out against the sort of conduct we’ve just read about no doubt is an important part of what needs to be done. This seems especially true to me when we see intolerance and injustice perpetrated by those who are relatively well off, by any standard, against those who are less so.

 

And we need more than advocacy.  Not just conflict resolution efforts, in contexts like Myanmar/Burma, but also economic development efforts, and public health efforts, and more.

 

As much as I’d like to think that whatever degree of virtue I exhibit, from time to time, when I feel challenged in the comparatively small ways I sometimes feel challenged, is not contingent upon my life circumstances, I can honestly say I’m not so sure.

 

How would I respond if I were Mr. Nyarna?

 

I hope I never face a test so severe.

 

On being a student

 

The student-teacher thing may be one of the strangest features of Zen for many non-practitioners and new practitioners.

 

Every religion has its leaders, and Zen is no different.  But one-on-one interaction between student and teacher is a more prominent and fundamental feature of Zen than it is in many religions (or the Abrahamic traditions, at least).

 

During Zen practice sessions and on sesshin, one has the option of meeting with the teacher to discuss one’s practice (or life or whatever) and/or to work on koans.  These meetings are called dokusan.

 

Meeting with a teacher is not obligatory, but few committed practitioners pass up the opportunity.  I suppose one could be committed to practice long-term without participating in dokusan.  To my thinking, however, one would be missing out on one of the richest things Zen has to offer.

 

Many committed, long-term practitioners also establish a shoken relationship with a teacher.  Shoken translates as “seeing one another.”  This is a primary relationship with a particular teacher, though, in BoWZ, where we’re fortunate to have multiple teachers, it is by no means an exclusive relationship.

 

[Aside #1:  Though the vast majority of practitioners with a shoken relationship will not become Zen teachers themselves, new Zen teachers almost always become teachers by receiving dharma transmission from their shoken teacher – typically after decades of working together one-on-one.  Unlike most other religions, one can’t become a teacher by attending a seminary, a rabbinical school, or whatever.  But producing a Zen teacher is not what a shoken relationship is about.  When that happens – and it happens exceedingly rarely – it seems to me that it’s a byproduct of the shoken relationship (and no doubt a lot of other things, like the student’s willingness to make the huge commitment that teaching requires and, certainly these days, the community’s receptivity to this potential teacher).]

 

Other religions have their traditions of spiritual direction, and that’s essentially what the student-teacher relationship in Zen is about.  I began my sitting practice in the Christian contemplative tradition, which has a long history of one-on-one spiritual direction, particularly in monastic environments.  I am profoundly and eternally grateful to the wise, insightful and compassionate teachers who gave me their sustained time and attention during those years, including Thomas Keating and Martin Smith.  Martin generously met with me weekly while I was a student at Harvard Divinity School (and, later, he was the celebrant at our wedding ceremony).

 

[Aside #2:  I once heard Thomas Keating talk about one of the risks inherent in religious communities in which teachers have something of an exalted status.  He was offering his own reflections on what he observed happening in some eastern religions, as I recall, but he no doubt also was shining a light on the risk generally.  That risk exists in any religious community, as I know he appreciates.  It’s the risk that the role will go to the teacher’s head, and so be deleterious for both the teacher and the rest of the community.  This is something of an occupational hazard, he was suggesting.

 

I observed Father Keating conducting himself in ways that discouraged others from projecting “guru” status onto him.  I observe the same conduct in our Guiding Teachers in Boundless Way Zen.

 

To my thinking, a key indicator that one has found a solid, grounded, trustable religious community and teacher is that there is little, if any, idealizing about anything, including the community’s leaders.  Community members hold appropriate ideals as aspirations, but they recognize the need for constant, individual and collective effort and attention in order to put the aspirations into practice, and they don’t delude themselves about the extent to which they are actually doing so.

 

The leaders set the tone.  In BoWZ, our teachers intentionally make it difficult to project wild ass things onto them, onto “Zen,” or onto anyone or anything else.  That’s a healthy thing.]

 

So what happens in a shoken or other spiritual direction relationship?

 

Well, in my experience, you just get to know one another.  Really well.

 

You talk.  About anything and everything.

 

About the deepest stuff in your heart and head.

 

About the deepest stuff in the universe.

 

And, as or more importantly, about the seeming minutea.  The stuff of everyday life.

 

And how all this intersects.

 

The conversation unfolds over many years, through a lot of ups and downs.

 

(Though the focus tends to be on the student, it’s not just the student’s ups and downs that the relationship travels through.  And, as we’re often reminded by BoWZ’s teachers, the learning in these relationships flows in both directions.)

 

This is not therapy, though awareness of psychological dynamics is useful in this context, as it is everywhere else in life.  It’s a kind of mentoring relationship, I suppose, and one that may have many of the qualities of a good friendship.  It won’t necessarily feel chummy all the time, and it probably shouldn’t.  Like any close relationship, it’s going to feel uneven, perhaps even cool, at times.

 

Good friends care enough about us to challenge us.  Good friends are people who are hard to bullshit – and we should know we’re only bullshitting ourselves if we try to bullshit them.

 

In my experience, a teacher will sometimes say something that surprises and provokes, even jostles, me a bit.  This has left me agitated once or twice.

 

(In BoWZ, however, I have detected none of the roughhousing I’ve read about some teachers in other Zen streams visiting upon their students, sometimes with seeming amusement, in the name of prodding them toward “realization.”)

 

At times comments that jostled me a bit seemed well considered; the product of some perspective that developed over months or years.  Others seemed to come from nowhere; an intuition arising in the moment.  Perhaps others were the product of indigestion.

 

Some of these comments seemed brilliantly on-the-mark.  Others seemed just plain wrong – at the moment, and for hours or days afterwards, until I could understand or accept the point.  Some still seem wrong after much time has passed.

 

And even comments that persist in seeming wrong are right.  They’re right because they were offered in a spirit of goodwill.  And they’re right because their wrongness is grist for my mill.

 

In an important sense, it really doesn’t matter whether a teacher gets it “right” or gets it “wrong,” from my perspective, in a given exchange.  What matters is how I receive what he or she offers, and how I receive him or her.

 

Whether I see the rightness-in-the-wrongness, and the neither-right-nor-wrongness.

 

For most of us, teachers are people who both instruct us and evaluate us.  But there ultimately is nothing to learn in Zen (or in life); there is no test we must pass.

 

It’s all right here.

 

And, it’s also true that a good teacher will have useful, insightful things to say that arise out of his or her own experience, and his or her observations and intuitions about a student’s experience.  Pound-for-pound, what I hear BoWZ teachers say (and what I see them do) has more nutritional value – for me, at least – than what I hear from most other people I know.

 

One of the useful things a teacher may do in time, if we invest in developing a relationship with him or her, is to shine a light on places where we tend to get stuck, encouraging us to notice and examine these sticking points.  From a Zen perspective, getting stuck often means clinging to some certainty about ourselves, about others, about “how the world works,” about “the way things are,” about what I should be doing with my life, or whatever.  It can also mean grasping, aversion or anger, as those impulses tend to seize us.  These sticking points may be more or less conscious, and a teacher may help us bring them into view, or into sharper view – not in quite the way, or with the same tools, that a therapist would, but in the course of discussing our experience of the practices and perspectives of the Zen path.

 

Whatever else typifies a “good” teacher to your thinking or mine, a good teacher is one who is present to us here and now in the dokusan room, and who encourages us to be present, as well – and, of course, who is integrated and responsible enough to conduct him- or herself appropriately in the context of an intimate relationship of this particular type.

 

My shokun teacher, Josh Bartok, is, so far as I can tell, really good at being Josh, at meeting his own life, and at meeting me.  That’s a useful example and form of support to me.  It’s encouragement to try to be good at being Jeff, at meeting my life, and at meeting him and others.  To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, “I’d might as well be myself.  It seems everyone else is taken.”

 

The practices, perspectives and stories that the Zen tradition has bequeathed us are touchstones for the conversations between Zen teacher and Zen student.  They help orient us.  Unlike the way practices, perspectives and stories are held within some other religious traditions, however, Zen’s practices, perspectives and stories are taken as reliable pointers, rather than dogmatic Truth.  They point us to our own experience, which is the wellspring of the only truths we can know.

 

And so this tradition of teacher-student relationship practice, viewed from 40,000 feet, is something of a mutual support society, I suppose.  A context in which people help one another strive to show up to their lives fully – with all ten toes submerged, and the hair on their heads, too.

 

(And with their hair on fire, to mix this metaphor.)

 

And this relationship, these conversations, are themselves touchstones that – along with other important relationships, conversations and experiences that both are and are not part of formal Zen practice – help one orient and navigate through the varied moments of one’s life.

 

Meeting with BoWZ’s teachers, with Thomas Keating and Martin Smith, and with other teachers, formal and informal, over many years, and in combination with other practices and experiences (sitting meditation, intensive retreats, koans, various forms of service, marriage and family life, etc.), has helped me in so many profound ways.  For example, all this has helped me:

 

  • Grow to feel more at home in the universe, and in my own skin.

 

  • Become less intense (in ways I didn’t always know I was intense), and so perhaps a bit more gentle and, I also hope, perhaps just a bit more generous and kind.

 

  • Accept the fact of death, so I can accept the fact of life.

 

  • Discover that the life I’m actually living is the life I truly want to be living.

 

Deep bows.

 

Two Must-Read Zen Books

 

James Ford and David Rynick, two of Boundless Way Zen’s four guiding teachers, have new books.  I’ve read both now, and I think they’re fantastic.

 

They also are very different books, even though they’re both spiritual autobiographies of sorts, and even though they have the same basic purpose:  to encourage us to embrace and be embraced by, and to be awake to, life more fully.  James and David each do this by offering us a window on their own experience, and on how Zen practice has helped them meet their own lives.

 

If You’re Lucky, Your Heart Will Break: Field Notes from a Zen Life is James’s book.  It is organized thematically around topics one might care to know something about while walking the Zen path, or while thinking about stepping onto it.  Topics like the following:

  • What “enlightenment” (which James prefers to call “awakening”) is and is not
  • What Zen folk do that makes their practice Zen practice:  sitting meditation, koan introspection, meeting with teachers, etc.
  • Zen’s ethical precepts

 

As James explores these topics, he tells his life story, and the story of his religious development, in particular.  It’s something of an understatement to say that James has covered some religious ground over the years.  He was raised in a Baptist family; he was a hippie in San Francisco in the sixties; he was part of two Zen communities, receiving dharma transmission in the second, before taking a long hiatus from Zen; he flirted with Sufism for a time; he found Unitarian Universalism; he returned to Zen as a student of John Tarrant, from whom he received transmission a second time; and he eventually co-founded Boundless Way Zen, while also serving as a UU minister.

 

Everything James has to tell us about the Zen way is born of and grounded in his own life experience, which he shares generously.  This sharing includes some quite personal details – details about his hippie years, for example, and about the murderous thoughts he had more recently (i.e., as a Zen roshi) after someone offended him in the checkout line of a grocery store.  This is James fully exposed, showing us his joys and struggles, and showing us how Zen practice has helped him understand and meet those joys and struggles.

 

I’ve never read a book about the major perspectives and practices of a religious tradition that is this autobiographical, nor, before reading these books, had I read an autobiography that does double duty as a book about the what-and-how of religious practice.  I might have appreciated and enjoyed reading James’s autobiography as such, or reading a further book by him about the perspectives and practices of Zen, but I enjoyed this practice-guide-as-autobiography all the more.  It’s an original approach, and it definitely works for me.

 

Borrowing a line from Torei Enji’s Bhodisattva’s Vow, David titled his book This Truth Never Fails:  A Zen Memoir in Four Seasons.  The book takes the form of a journal written during a particularly big year in David’s life:  the year in which he and Melissa (Blacker, David’s Zen teacher wife) established the Boundless Way Temple in Worcester, Massachusetts, and in which David received dharma transmission from his teacher, George Bowman.

 

But the book doesn’t exactly read like private “notes to self.”  David clearly is aware that he is writing to and for others, even as he writes to and for himself.  (Does anyone ever write a journal without considering possible audiences other than one’s future self?)  On the other hand, the book doesn’t read anything like James’s teacher-to-student practice guide, as personal and self-revealing as James’s book is.

 

David invites us to eavesdrop on his conversations with himself – conversations about his insecurities, about breakfast, about the flowers in the temple garden.  He even invites us to eavesdrop on his conversations with the flowers in the temple garden.  This is a stylized, first person account of passing moments and days during the course of roughly one year, written mainly in the present tense.  It is a book about David’s noticing, and his reflections upon his noticing, written with great generosity toward, but without too much notice paid to, us, his readers.

 

Yet this “my life as it’s happening” approach has everything to do with what David hopes to convey to us.  Roughly halfway into the book, we learn that he tried to write a more conventional practice guide, but that the process and product felt hollow to him.  David wanted the writing process to feel alive and full, and the product to convey the fullness and aliveness he feels (even in the depths of his experience).  He encourages us to notice the stuff of our own experience by sharing his own noticing, up close and personal.

 

If James’s book is more practice guide-as-autobiography, David’s is more autobiography-as-practice guide.  Both books show and tell, but David’s does much more showing than telling.

 

It was a lovely experience reading these books together (and I did, in fact, alternate between them).  Like their authors, the books are excellent companions.  Read them and you’ll get a sense of what this Zen project, as expressed within BoWZ, is all about.  You’ll also glimpse the brilliance of having multiple teachers in one community, and you’ll know how incredibly fortunate we are to have these two guys as two of our teachers.

 

Practice benefits

 

Josh gave a lovely – and, as he put it, somewhat heretical – talk last night about some ways in which Zen practice may be useful to us.  We’re constantly cautioned against having “gaining ideas” and reminded that Zen isn’t principally about the benefits people tend to experience, like becoming less reactive, the health benefits studies have begun to confirm, and the like.  But Josh was saying that it’s okay to appreciate whatever benefits we may experience as byproducts of our practice, even as we practice without seeking them (in theory, at least).

 

Josh opened our discussion after the talk by inviting each of us to share something about the ways in which we have experienced Zen practice as beneficial.

 

I felt this immediate impulse to share – to contribute, to be useful, I suppose.  I had a response percolating, but I couldn’t articulate it at that moment.

 

A couple of other people spoke, saying things I really appreciated, and then I had to leave early to catch a train home.

 

And I’ve been sitting with Josh’s invitation since.

 

And what ultimately came up for me is this:  I experience practice as Jeff Jeff-ing.

 

The bird sings.

 

The burning wood cracks and whistles.

 

I sit.

 

Bow.

 

Wrestle with a koan.

 

Meet with the teacher.

 

I’m not really quite sure why I practice anymore, except that there’s somehow an expressive quality to it.  It’s a response to life.  A way to express the reverence and gratitude for life that I feel (which is a point Josh made, as well).

 

And it’s a communal response, which feels important to me somehow.

 

Beckoning

 

I walked through Boston’s Public Garden on Friday on my way to a lunchtime meeting in Cambridge at MIT.

 

I hardly noticed the stunningly beautiful fall day.  Through most of my stroll through the garden, I was silently lecturing someone who had pissed me off that morning.

 

A man playing an erhu snapped me out of it.  The sound of that Chinese string instrument is haunting, almost agitating, yet eerily beautiful.  And the sound beckoned me back — back to the moment, back to the wondrous day that it was.

 

I had never seen this musician before — not anyone playing the erhu — in nearly two decades of walking this path.

 

I passed through the Public Garden again on my way back from Cambridge, this time silently lecturing someone who had pissed me off the day before.

 

Until I heard that sounds again.

 

How tempting the catnip.  How wonderfully, strangely, reliably we’re beckoned back . . .

 

The end of moral superiority?

 

It’s getting harder and harder to be a self-righteous curmudgeon.

 

For years I’ve congratulated myself on being physically active – getting regular exercise and standing, rather than sitting, at work – and been mildly, privately critical of those who let themselves go entirely.

 

Mountains of data confirm that our bodies evolved to move and that the sedentary lifestyle so prevalent in, and, increasingly, beyond, the west is sapping our personal health and vitality.  (The First 20 Minutes: Surprising Science Reveals How We Can Exercise Better, Train Smarter, and Live Longer by Gretchen Reynolds, the fitness writer at The New York Times, provides a very good, very accessible survey of the research, if you’re interested.)  The body is a temple, after all.  Treating it like a clothes rack will be the ruin of our healthcare systems, and so our economies.

 

Turns out there’s a genetic component to liking exercise:  there’s a gene that influences how we respond to fatigue, and one that affects how easy and rewarding exercises feels, and one that influences how the body regulates energy.  Etc.

 

It’s still quite possible to acquire the taste.  Once you do, you won’t want to stop.  The problem is, starting is harder for people whose genes don’t predispose them to enjoy, or at least better tolerate, the work required to become and remain fit.

 

I don’t know whether I have any of these “exercise genes,” but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn I do.  Regardless, the exercise gene notion has bucked me right off my high horse.

 

There is, of course, at least a partial genetic component to many forms of addiction, from alcoholism to overeating.  I suppose that makes it hard for one to be too snooty about being moderate.

 

There’s no single gene for anything, as Richard Dawkins, the famous biologist and atheist, rightly reminds us, but genes apparently have a big influence on many of one’s dispositions and behaviors.

 

Here’s one that completely blows me away:  our genes significantly influence whether we are conservative or liberal!  You heard it:  that idiot, _____________ [Obama or Romney, Maddow or Limbaugh], may view the world the way he or she does at least partially because of his or her genetic makeup.  Same with you, oh you-who-fills-in-blanks.

 

A handful of important values undergird our social landscape, each of which has an opposite: caring/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation, and liberty/oppression.  Conservatives actually are tuned to give each of the positive values their due, whereas liberals tend to pay heed mostly to just two of them (caring and fairness).

 

(As for me, I’ve long been center-left – a compassionate moderate, if I do say so myself – and so I feel well justified in continuing to feel better than the remaining 94% of us – that’s 47% + 47% – who are hopeless ideologues.)

 

I learned about the genetic basis of our morals while reading a fabulous new book by my favorite social scientist, Jonathan Haidt, whose academic research on the psychology of morality I’ve tracked for 15+ years.  It’s called The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.

 

Haidt actually is pretty convinced that moral righteousness isn’t going away anytime soon, and he successfully (in my non-expert estimation) shows how it’s essential to our survival to this point in history and our continuing evolution.  He recognizes the need for people of different orientations/perspectives to be able to talk to one another civilly and work together productively, and the ultimate goal of his book is to help us do just that.

 

I can’t recommend Haidt’s book highly enough.  It’s easily the most important book I’ve read in, well, since I last declared a book “most important” (which I probably do every few years).  You absolutely must read it.  If want one very open-minded, big-hearted, incredibly creative social scientist’s view of what it is to be evolved members of our interdependent physical and social environments, you’ll be well rewarded for reading this short, engaging, insightful book.

 

And if you don’t read it, there can be no excuse.  You’re clearly an apathetic misanthrope.

 

There’s surely no genetic profile for that, is there?  🙂

 

“Look, Ma: No hands!”: Technique and No Technique in Zazen

 

We just removed the training wheels from my son’s bike.  He’s still more than a bit wobbly, but he’s making progress.

 

For many reasons, learning to ride a bike is a terrible analogy for learning to mediate.  Among other problems, it suggests that there are those who are proficient at it, and those who are not; that there are novices and adepts.

 

Our son is an expert at wobbly bike riding.  His wobbly bike riding is perfect just as it is.

 

And, yet, his bike riding form is changing, and changing in a way we recognize as progress, as part of a natural progression in bike riding.  His training wheel-free bike riding likely will become less wobbly; or, rather, the wobbles will become less pronounced.  His instinctive recovery from an endless string of little wobbles will be almost imperceptible to him and to others, and he’ll recover more easily from the less frequent, bigger wobbles.

 

(Except when he doesn’t.)

 

Meditation practice tends to follow a progression, as well.  In our little branch of the Zen family, those new to meditation practice are encouraged initially to use one’s breath as a sort of stabilizing device.

 

The basic instruction for meditation practice, as James Ford is fond of saying, is simply to “sit down, shut up, and pay attention.”  Doing that for 25 minutes can be surprisingly difficult as one takes up this practice.

 

Paying attention suggests paying attention to something, and, for most of us, ordinary “paying attention mode” tends to require a focal point something.  A something we attempt to attend to continuously, or at least that we return to when we feel our attention has drifted.

 

I pay attention to the ball in soccer.

 

I pay attention to the words on the page as I read.

 

I pay attention to you when we’re conversing.

 

Enter the breath in early meditation practice.  We’re not encouraged to concentrate on it, to dissect and discern all its subtle features, but it serves as a point of reference to which we can return when we seem to be drifting away from other features of our experience.

 

(In some Buddhist traditions, one attends to one’s posture, or to the rising and falling of one’s diaphragm with the breath, or to something different still.  Same idea.)

 

Initially, we invite people to count each breath gently until one has counted to ten, and then to repeat.  One might then count only in-breaths for some number of months, and then switch to out-breaths.

 

Eventually one drops the counting altogether.  We’re invited to give up this attentiveness to one’s breath entirely, and not to fill in the blank with some other reference point.

 

To push the bike riding analogy a bit further before exhausting its usefulness, we might think of this transition not as dropping the training wheels, but as letting go of the handlebar.  Letting go of the handlebar, we’re no longer capable of steering toward or away from something with the same decisiveness and agility.  Bike riding becomes a less directed experience, in which we’re more vulnerable to what may come, even if we feel a paradoxical sense of stability poised upright on the seat.

 

Shikintaza, or “just sitting,” as this later approach to meditation is known, is the practice to which one typically progresses within BoWZ and some other Zen streams.  One way to think of it is as meditation without the steering mechanism – or, better yet, meditation without a preference for steering or not steering.

 

Shikintaza is not a technique.  Oh, I suppose there are elements of technique in this practice, but the technique is very spare, and very practical.

 

As with counting-the-breath practice, one sits in a stable position (normally on a meditation cushion, though a chair also is fine, as is standing).  One remains reasonably still.  Eyes are open – mainly so we’re not closing that window on the world, as closing ourselves to the world is the antithesis of what we’re doing in meditation – but one doesn’t look around.

 

That’s pretty much it for technique.

 

So, what if one’s mind drifts while “just sitting”?

 

Well, for starters, now we know we’re human.

 

But, what should one do about it?

 

There’s no need to do anything.  We’re not seeking any particular experience in shikintaza – certainly not an experience of “25 minutes in which my mind doesn’t wander,” as if that were possible, and not even some experience of “not seeking any particular experience.”

 

Noticing our attention was “there” and now it’s “here,” we don’t bring ourselves back to anywhere or anything in particular.  The noticing, and whatever follows it, and whatever follows that:  that’s it.

 

The rain falls.

 

The baby cries.

 

The mind wanders.

 

Life.

 

Here is all there is.  Here isn’t some void we need to fill in anxiously.  (The void is full, in case one hasn’t noticed.)  Even when we’re in “fill in anxiously mode,” we don’t need to overwrite that.

 

Shikintaza, just sitting, is simply being here, now.  Our breath is part of what’s here now, but we don’t privilege it in shikintaza.

 

Shikintaza is simply letting one’s experience be its own reference point – trusting this, wobbles and all.

 

There are wobbles after we let go of the handlebars.

 

And even the wobbles are rock solid.