Every Day is a Good Day

I gave this talk at our Sunrise Sit today, the day before Thanksgiving. A recording follows the text.

This is Case 6 in the Blue Cliff Record:

Yunmen gave a teaching, saying, “I’m not asking you about before the fifteenth day of the month. Why not say a word about after the fifteenth day of the month?”

He answered himself, “Every day is a good day.”

The full moon is a metaphor for enlightenment in Zen. In the Chinese lunar calendar, the full moon appears mid-month, so the monks training with Yunmen would have heard him asking them what it’s like to be enlightened. 

They seem confounded, so Yunmen answers his own question, “Every day is a good day.” 

What does he mean? Is he taunting the monks by saying every day is a good day only after the full moon rises; only after one is enlightened? I don’t think so. 

I expect there was a long silence before Yunmen answered himself. He would have known the monks were thinking to themselves, “I have no idea what it’s like after the full moon. Why are you asking me? I can only imagine my life right now, before the full moon.” 

Living in close quarters with Yunmen, the monks also would have seen him getting sick, getting frustrated occasionally, sometimes forgetting things and making mistakes, after the full moon; after enlightenment.

I think Yunmen truly means every day is a good day, including the days before the full moon. These days when the monks think the moon is hidden and they lack enlightenment.

Yunmen’s question simultaneously meets the monks where they believe they’re at and contests their self-understanding. Yunmen is addressing seekers; people seeking enlightenment. They’re sure they don’t have it or haven’t yet found it. More than one of these seekers would have asked Yunmen, “What’s enlightenment like? I want to know. Tell me.”

Yunmen turns this question back at them. “You’re always telling me about your troubled lives before the full moon; before enlightenment,” he seems to be saying. “Tell me something about your life beyond the full moon, right here and now.”

But they’re dumbfounded. 

Yunmen’s question both confirms the monks’ belief that there’s a time before enlightenment and a time after it and challenges that belief. Yunmen implies they can describe the enlightenment experience and invites them to do so.

If Yunmen thinks they can describe life beyond the full moon, then perhaps it’s not the idealized life they imagine. Perhaps it’s still a life with troubles.

If only someone had just groaned about their splitting headache or the lukewarm tea.

Yunmen’s question divides time into before and after, but, as I’ve said, his response doesn’t differentiate between the days before the full moon and the days after it. No before. No after.

Troubled or untroubled. Our awareness attuned to the light that shines within or not. Grateful or not.

Every day is a good day.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Bodhidharma Pacifies the Mind

I gave this talk at our Sunrise Sit on August 14, 2024. A recording follows the text.

This is Case 41 in The Gateless Gate:

Bodhidhama faced the wall. The Second Ancestor stood in the snow, cut off his arm, and said, “Your disciple’s mind has no peace yet. I beg you, Master, please put it to rest.”

Bodhidharma said, “Bring me your mind, and I will put it to rest.”

The Second Ancestor said, “I have searched for my mind, but I cannot find it.”

 Bodhidharma said, “I have completely put it to rest for you.”

I want to speak briefly about meditation practice this morning—about the nuts and bolts of it. The nuts and bolts of meditation practice and the struggles to use them early on that most of us experience point to deeper truths we may discover through our practice.

Bodhidharma is regarded as our first Zen ancestor, as you know. He is said to have brought Buddhism from India to China. His student, Huike, is the Second Ancestor—the second in the line of six early teachers from which the Zen tradition developed.

Huike’s state of mind is troubled as he meets Bodhidharma and asks for help. He’s seeking peace of mind. Huike is so troubled he cuts off his arm, or so the story goes.

Many of us come to Zen practice similarly troubled. We may not be so disturbed that we’re ready to sever a limb, but we do aim to cut off certain streams of thought or psychological or emotional experiences that are agitating us.

And many of us imagine that’s the point of meditation practice. Though experienced practitioners tell us otherwise, we think quieting the mind means stopping thought and other mental experience. Certainly it must at least mean developing perfect concertation; stopping the mind from wandering at all during meditation. Right?

So we set our mind to controlling our mind. But this project is doomed to fail. The state of mind, and the understanding of mind, that we bring to practice initially can’t find its way out of the box it creates. 

Our narrow sense of self, our narrow conception of mind, is about achieving seeming safety—perhaps even about achieving certain real and legitimate forms of safety—by seemingly gaining control of our environment and our experience within it.

But the liberation we ultimately seek, the peace of mind we crave, requires giving up the quest for ultimate personal control. We must give up the pretense of being the center of the universe to experience ourselves centered in the universe. We must open the hand of thought, as Uchiyama Rōshi put it.

As we settle into practice, we’re likely to notice our mental activity attempting to direct our mental activity toward reduced mental activity. That type of noticing is very significant, though it’s often followed at first by further mental activity that’s critical of our mental activity that was trying to direct our mental activity toward reduced mental activity.

Another subtle form of noticing is noticing how we try to control the breath during meditation. Noticing that can be a doorway to liberation. We may realize the breath is doing fine on its own, without our efforts to control it. Then we may simply open the hand of thought and experience the breath rising and falling.

If we can do that, perhaps then we begin to notice the breeze rising and falling, the seasons coming and going, now liberated from the pretense that we can and must control our environment and experience. We can participate. Our participation is an influence, but total personal control is a fantasy. 

Meditation teaches us to meditate. Meditation teaches us to live. To participate. To know we’re a part of it all, to accept our part, to take part.

Meditation helps us align our personal state of mind with the active stillness of Great Mind, which is what it means to find peace of mind. We discover we’re not separate, and never were separate, from all that is, no matter what’s arising in and around us.

Our sense of in and around, of me and all else, becomes more permeable. We discover ourselves and all else as mysteriously and matter-of-factly distinct but not separate.

Nothing Twice

I gave this talk at our Full Moon Zen Sunrise Sit on July 17, 2024. A recording follows the text.

This is a translation of “Nothing Twice” by the late Polish poet Wislawa Szymborska:

Nothing happens twice,
Nor will it ever. For this reason,
We were born without proficiency,
And will all die without routine.

Though we be the most obtuse
Pupils in the school of this world,
We will never be held back to repeat
A single winter or summer.

No day will be repeated;
There is no such thing as two similar nights,
Two identical kisses,
Two equivalent gazes into someone’s eyes.

Yesterday, when your name
Was said by someone as I chanced to overhear,
I suddenly felt as if a rose
Had fallen in through an open window.

Today, when we are together,
I’ve turned my face toward the wall.
A rose? What does a rose look like?
Is it a flower? Or perhaps a stone?

Why are you, O evil hour,
Thus admixed with needless fear?
You are — and therefore you must pass.
You will pass — and therefore you are beautiful.

Smiling, in a mutual embrace,
We will try to find accord,
Although we are as different from one another
As two drops of pure water.

Our group meets most days. Follows the same routine. Bows. Bells. Chants we chant again and again. Sitting still in the same posture as before. Rehearsing familiar forms. Talks and dialogue on familiar themes.

All this seeming sameness is a call to awaken to the reality of nothing twice.

The Greek philosopher Heraclitus tells us no one can step in the same river twice, because it’s not the same river and we’re not the same person. We can take his thought further: no one can step in the same river once.

What is “this river”? What is “once”? Useful constructions, but constructions, nonetheless. All impermanent. Nothing ultimately graspable.

Dōgen equated ungraspable activity with Buddha nature, with emptiness, with realization.

From not one perspective, the perspective of our everyday perspective, ceaseless, ungraspable activity. From not another perspective, absolute stillness. 

Just this not one, not two perspective.

Nothing happens twice,
Nor will it ever. For this reason,
We were born without proficiency,
And will all die without routine.

Though we be the most obtuse
Pupils in the school of this world,
We will never be held back to repeat
A single winter or summer.

No day will be repeated;
There is no such thing as two similar nights,
Two identical kisses,
Two equivalent gazes into someone’s eyes.

Yesterday, when your name
Was said by someone as I chanced to overhear,
I suddenly felt as if a rose
Had fallen in through an open window.

Today, when we are together,
I’ve turned my face toward the wall.
A rose? What does a rose look like?
Is it a flower? Or perhaps a stone?

Why are you, O evil hour,
Thus admixed with needless fear?
You are — and therefore you must pass.
You will pass — and therefore you are beautiful.

Smiling, in a mutual embrace,
We will try to find accord,
Although we are as different from one another
As two drops of pure water.

Enlightenment is Nothing Personal

I gave this talk on May 1, 2024, during our Full Moon Zen Sunrise Sit. A recording follows.

This is part of the Zen teacher Reb Anderson’s guidance to us on shikantaza, which is included in our Sutra Book:

Zazen does not prefer success over failure, or enlightenment over delusion. If we are enlightened, we sit still in the middle of enlightenment, with no preference for it. If we are deluded, we sit still in the middle of delusion, with no aversion to it. This is the Buddha’s zazen.

Zazen practice is selfless. The goal of zazen is the liberation of all living beings from suffering, but the goal is exactly the same as the practice. In realizing this goal, one becomes free of self-concern and person al gain; and becoming free of self-concern and personal gain actualizes the goal. Nevertheless, zazen’s an initiatory awareness: it opens the door to a full understanding of how self and other dependently co-produce each other. This is the samadhi of all Buddhas.

The meaning of zazen, the enlightenment and liberation of all living beings, is not brought forth by the power of personal effort, and is not brought forth by the power of some other. Zazen doesn’t start when we start making effort, doesn’t stop when we stop.

We can’t do it by ourselves, and nobody else can do it for us.

Enlightenment is nothing personal. Many of us come to spiritual practice seeking to attain something personally, but sincere practice will simply help us come to see what’s present everywhere and always.

Yes, this increased clarity of perception may well feel preferable to the experience that preceded it—much like when we’re sitting in the optometrist’s chair and she flips to the lenses that give us 20/20 vision. I’m having a personal experience, but 20/20 vision isn’t especially for me, any more than sunlight or fresh air is especially for me. The signals riding the airwaves to which I tune in when I switch on my radio aren’t especially for me. I’m just tuning into them now. Others also are tuning in, enjoying the music.

If and as I deeply realize that the enlightenment of Buddha, of the universe, of all beings, is nothing personal, then in a certain sense, I realize my life also is nothing personal. My life is the universe’s life, the Buddha’s life. My life is life in and as the universe, in and as Buddha.

From the un-attuned perspective Buddhism calls delusion—which also and equally is a feature of the universe’s enlightenment, the Buddha’s enlightenment—what I’m saying may sound rather scary. The so-called deluded perspective very much wants enlightenment to be something personal; something extra special it can attain, contain, and cling to, even as it professes a desire to release itself into it. What we realize through practice is that each of us is an ordinary sort of special—and equally so. As we realize this, experientially, in our bones, not as an idea, personal experience is transformed into something at once intimately personal and nothing personal.

As I was about to begin preparing this talk I walked into our kitchen, in bare feet, to get something from a cabinet. I stepped into a patch of salt left on the floor, and it felt rather gross. Someone had filled a saltshaker or measured salt for a recipe on the counter beneath this cabinet and spilled some on the floor.

My first impulse was to ask whoever made the mess to clean it up. But I paused and thought, well, perhaps that someone was me and I didn’t notice or had forgotten. And even if it wasn’t me, it was me, because I’m part of it all. It’s nothing personal, I thought, then swept up the salt.

This felt like right conduct for me in the moment. I’m often advocating personal responsibility and accountability in our family, perhaps moralizing a bit too much about that at times. Personal responsibility and accountability are important, but for me the universe’s teaching in the moment was to approach the salt on the floor from a different perspective. Nothing personal.

Fran said something to me about koan practice at sesshin that has stuck with me, and which applies to every element of our practice, I think. She said koan work reduces the distance between subject and object. Notice she didn’t say it eliminates the distance between subject and object. Nonduality encompasses duality. They mysteriously co-create each other; are one and the same. Not one, not two.

We exist in subject-hyphen-object relationship. Subject and object without a hyphen implies existential separation. The opposite of separation is fusion, I suppose, and it would imply the complete merger and disappearance of subject and object. We and all else exist as subject-hyphen-object.

Better yet, we exist as connected subjects. The shift in perception we’re talking about, the attunement to the universe’s enlightenment, is mature, abiding awareness of our existence as a connected subject in an enlivened realm full of subjects.

My life is distinct, but not separate. We’re all jewels in Indra’s Net. Enlightenment is a property inherent in the net, not one some of its elements have and others don’t. Some elements may be relatively more awake, or tuned in, to their enlightened nature; others, less so.

But, truly, enlightenment is nothing personal.

On Anger, War and Famine in Gaza, and Reversing Vicious Cycles

I gave this talk at our Full Moon Zen Sunrise Sit on April 10, 2024. A recording follows the text.

This is an excerpt from a sutra in the Pali Canon:

Monks, there are these three kinds of persons found existing in the world.  What three?  The person who is like a line etched in stone; the person who is like a line etched in the ground; and the person who is like a line etched in water.

And what kind of person is like a line etched in stone?  Here, some person often gets angry, and his anger persists for a long time.  Just as a line etched in stone is not quickly erased by the wind and water but persists for a long time, so too, some person often gets angry, and his anger persists for a long time.  This is called the person who is like a line etched in stone.

And what kind of person is like a line etched in the ground?  Here, some person often gets angry, but his anger does not persist for a long time.  Just as a line etched in the ground is quickly erased by the wind and water and does not persist for a long time, so too, some person often gets angry, but his anger does not persist for a long time. This is called the person who is like a line etched in the ground.

And what kind of person is like a line etched in water? Here, some person, even when spoken to roughly and harshly, in disagreeable ways, remains on friendly terms with his antagonist, mingles with him, and greets him.  Just as a line etched in water quickly disappears and does not persist for a long time, so too, some person, even when spoken to roughly and harshly, in disagreeable ways, remains on friendly terms with his antagonist, mingles with him, and greets him.  This is called the person who is like a line etched in water.

These, monks, are the three kinds of persons found existing in the world.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve had a very hard time watching the news lately.  I ate dinner alone in front of the TV the other night.  I could barely manage to nourish myself after seeing images of kids in Gaza dying of starvation.

For so many, their spirits, and now their bodies, have been utterly crushed.  Today is the beginning of Eid al Fitr, the feast marking the end of Ramadan.  There traditionally are celebrations after prayers—prayers in which Muslims pray for peace and mercy.  Like us, they also pray for the wellbeing of all beings.  It’s hard to imagine these prayers and these celebrations in the midst of what Muslims in Gaza and Muslims the world over are experiencing.

It’s so sad that we repeatedly enact these cycles of violence.  It so often seems one person’s or group’s spirits get activated and elevated in an angry way to crush another person’s spirits in response to some real or perceived offense.  That prompts those who’ve been harmed to retaliate.  The vicious cycle goes on and on.

It seems Gautama Siddhartha often was asked by monks in his community, and by others he met, how to deal with anger and conflict.  To be honest, some of his guidance seems a bit too demanding and idealistic to me; unlikely to be accepted and practiced by most people.  In one sutra, for example, he admonished his monks to be tranquil even if someone “were to sever you savagely limb by limb with a two-handed saw.”

To be fair, the Buddha was talking to monks in his community when he said this—advanced practitioners, we might say—and he likely was pointing toward what the Zen tradition later came to call the Absolute: the radical emptiness that escapes everyday sensible awareness for most people most of the time.  The perspective from which there is only non-killing.  The perspective from which “my” life isn’t really “mine.”  From which there is no isolated me and mine; only Life (with a capital L) and, whatever I am, I am one with Life in life (with a small l) and in death.  

From the absolute perspective, there is no birth and death, only Life.  If only we could all grasp this, I imagine the Buddha is saying with this provocative example, perhaps nonviolence, nonkilling, would become the norm from a relative, sensible perspective, too. 

Still, the teaching I read a moment ago seems more approachable for most of us, so perhaps better to emphasize.  Perhaps if each of us can progressively shift from being a person who is more like soft ground than stone, and then from one who is more like water than soft ground, we have some hope of reversing the vicious cycles to which we contribute.  To sparking virtuous interpersonal and cultural cycles in which our hearts are less and less inclined toward violence of any form, to any degree.

So, let’s continue to let our practice soften us.

Precariousness or Suffering: Will the Real Noble Truths Please Stand Up?


I gave this talk yesterday at our Full Moon Zen Thursday evening sit. A recording follows the text.

This is a passage from the Pali Canon:

Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering.

Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to re-becoming accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for becoming, craving for disbecoming.

Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, non-reliance on it.

Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is this noble eightfold path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

These, of course, are the Four Noble Truths Shakyamuni Buddha is said to have shared in his first talk after his awakening experience. So very familiar to us, they obviously focus on the fact of suffering, its cause, the possibility of ending it, and a method for ending it.

A few weeks ago I read an article by Jonathan Gold, a scholar of Buddhism, that asks if the Buddha truly said “suffering” in this sermon. He reconsiders what the Buddha meant if he used a different word, “precarious,” instead of “suffering.”

This isn’t Gold’s idea. It was first proposed by the linguist Christopher Beckwith, who noted that a Greek Philosopher called Phyrro of Elis heard the Four Noble Truths and other Buddhist teachings in oral tradition long before the Sanskrit and Pali word “dukkha” was recorded in the early Buddhist scriptures. Dukkha is the word we translate as suffering.

Phyrro traveled to India in the 4th century B.C.E. with Alexander the Great’s army. The first Buddhist scriptures were written about 300 years later. Phyrro’s much earlier writings that were influenced by his encounter with Buddhism use precarious, not suffering.

Gold’s article examines multiple Buddhist texts, substituting “precarious” wherever “suffering” appears. He thinks this resolves many questions generations of scholars have had about the Buddha’s supposed use of the word “suffering.” I won’t try to summarize all his examples, but here’s one:

Scholars wonder why the Buddha would say the whole of life is suffering when so many of our experiences are pleasant: eating ice cream, holding a baby, smelling the roses. We might feel a sense of loss when these experiences end, but does that mean we were suffering during them? Buddhist teachers have been glossing over this and other problems with the word suffering forever or making rather contorted arguments to dispense with them.

But it’s not so hard to accept the notion that the pleasant experience of holding a baby is precarious, in the sense that it won’t last or that this little love ball might puke in my face while I’m holding her. Pleasant experiences sometimes turn unpleasant. Even when they don’t, they end.

If we substitute “precarious” for “suffering” in the Four Noble Truths, I imagine we get something like this:

One:

Life seems precarious.

Two:

Maybe what makes life seem precarious isn’t so much the obvious fact of impermanence, but the way we tend to respond to it: compulsively chasing after or trying to cling to experiences we find pleasant and compulsively avoiding or trying to push away experiences we find uncomfortable.

Three:

We can end, or at least dial way down, this feeling that we’re riding a rollercoaster with our eyes closed, alternately wishing it would end or begging for more.

Four:

We do that, well, by doing. By orienting differently in and to life. The Buddha embraced eight specific perspectives and practices he found helpful. He thought we might find them helpful, too.

Here’s another way to say the same thing, drawn from modern research on how our minds work, rather than the Buddha’s ancient personal experiment. When focusing on a task, like feeding a baby or washing the dishes, you can either have what researchers call a “state orientation” or what they call an “action orientation.”

If you have a state orientation, you’re focusing primarily on yourself: Do I feel prepared? Does the baby like me? The dishwater feels cold. What if I screw this up?

If you have an action orientation, you’re focused on the task itself, without concern for your emotional or physical state. You’d flinch and do something about it if the baby puked or the water were scalding hot, but you’re not obsessing about that possibility.

You won’t be surprised to hear people with an action orientation are more successful at whatever they’re doing. And I also doubt you’ll be surprised to hear this notion generalizes to the whole of life. If we go around chasing states, constantly asking ourselves whether we’re happy, that’s a recipe for unhappiness.

The Buddha apparently spent years chasing a blissful state. Many of us enter this path looking for a state of existence or nonexistence that feels more reliably pleasant; less precarious. The insights and guidance the Buddha ultimately offered seem more about how to set our intentions and act, and about not separating from our experience, whatever our state.

Perhaps ironically, we tend to find the stability we’re seeking by unifying with the shifting ground of experience, being and doing without fuss.

The Thing Speaks for Itself

I gave this talk today at our Full Moon Zen Sunrise Sit.

This is Case 3 in The Gateless Gate:

Whenever Chu-Chih (J: Gutei) was asked a question, he simply raised one finger. One day a visitor asked Chu-Chih’s attendant what his master preached. The boy raised a finger. Hearing of this, Chu-Chih cut off the boy’s finger with a knife. As the boy ran from the room, Chu-Chih called to him. When the boy turned his head Chu-Chih raised a finger. The boy was suddenly enlightened.

When Chu-Chih was about to die he said to his assembled monks, “I received this one finger Zen from T’ien-lung. I used it all my life but never used it up.”

Surgeons and those who work with them tend to be a close-knit group.  Like all humans, these people make mistakes, and, like many close-knit groups, they tend to circle the wagons when mistakes happen.

Lawyers representing patients harmed by surgical mistakes or representing loved ones after a patient had died from medical malpractice used to have a hard time getting redress.  One common malpractice scenario was leaving the little surgical sponge used to soak up blood during the procedure inside the patient’s body after she was sewed up.  The sponge would cause an infection.  Often, the patient died.

The rules of legal evidence generally require proof of what happened—of who did what when—to assign responsibility and assess penalties.  Members of surgical teams accused of malpractice would simply stay mum, refusing to respond to questions about how an obvious mistake happened.  They maintained a conspiracy of silence.

For a long time, the legal system didn’t quite know how to deal with this.  Plaintiffs’ lawyers lost cases, and victims or their families, some poor already, went uncompensated.

Then some insightful lawyer stated the obvious, arguing in court that the thing simply speaks for itself.  The judge agreed, and now we have the legal doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur, Latin for “the thing speaks for itself.”

This practice-journey we’re on together is our conspiracy of silence.  But it’s a different sort of conspiracy.  We’re not trying to conceal what can’t be concealed.  We’re allowing ourselves to notice and accord with—and as—that which is constantly revealing itself.

For 25 minutes at a time, we loosen our grip on our stories and yield the floor to silence.  Stories are powerful, especially arresting ones like Chü-chih cutting off the finger of a boy who didn’t yet know this life, his life, speaks for itself.  

We know from archeological sources and other evidence that our capacity for storytelling is ancient.  Our interest in story and capacity to understand it seems to be one of the most fundamental and enduring aspects of brain function.  Brain damaged kids with IQs as low as 20 still comprehend stories, even though they comprehend little else.  Kids organize play around stories. Humans of all ages construct their sense of self in narrative terms.

We’re often completely lost in our stories, as if our personal stories or the stories told by the groups to which we belong encompass and make sense of all there is to perceive and experience.  I don’t think we can completely escape our stories, but I do think we can interrupt stories that are too narrow, too partial, too parochial, or too fixed.  We can widen the aperture of the lens through which we let the light of experience in, and through which we channel the light of the world.  We can discover ourselves situated in a story vaster than we had imagined.  

So vast that simply going mum and being it is an appropriate response.

I’m partial to mysteries.  This story we live is a mystery.  A mystery that speaks for itself.  Everywhere and always.

In our meditation practice, we raise a finger to it, and as it.  Like this.  [Raising finger.]  Shhhhhhh.

What is going on in meditation, anyway?

I gave this talk at our Full Moon Zen sit on Thursday, February 1, 2024.

A close friend of mine who began practicing a secularized form of mindfulness meditation a couple of years told me last week that he’s become more curious about what he’s been doing.  He has settled into the practice he took up, but that practice is unrelated to any tradition, any historical or social context, that situates it and offers a broader perspective and supportive scaffolding.  He has questions about what he’s doing and experiencing that his meditation coach, who mainly works with companies and businesspeople, doesn’t seem to be able to answer.  He’s been reading some Dharma books—mostly written by the Americans who popularized Theravadin approaches to meditation, like Joseph Goldstein, Jack Kornfield, and Sharon Salzberg.  I gather he appreciates what he’s finding there, yet he is eager for more, and not just what’s available through reading.  He has signed up for a couple of meditation retreats and is looking forward to them excitedly, if also with a bit of trepidation.

I had recommended a Zen book to this friend about a year ago and sent him a link to my blog, where I post the texts of many of these talks. He thanked me for these resources last week—and said, with a wry smile, that he didn’t understand any of it. I thanked him for the feedback.

This friend is a very smart, deep-thinking person.  I know a Zen teacher who seems to take pride in the fact that his talks have become more and more obscure and elliptical over time.  I suppose there’s a case to be made for being obscure and elliptical, at least as one tool in a Zen teacher’s toolkit.  This Zen teacher wouldn’t be the first to try to describe the indescribable this way.  But that’s not what I’m trying to do most of the time.

Tonight, I’d like to offer one take on what’s going on in meditation.  I hope this talk will seem more approachable, and perhaps useful, to my friend, and that there’s something in it for us, too. 

Let me start by offering a metaphor for our experience of self as we take up meditation. It’s an image of two containers.  I recently ordered a box of Mason jars to make Japanese-style pickled vegetables, so let’s imagine a jar inside a box.  I’m the jar and the universe we inhabit is the box.

There’s activity inside the jar of self that is me; there’s other activity inside the box that is the universe; and these spheres of activity, inside and outside me, often seem to be related.  If something “good” presents itself in the box, in my corner of the universe, like tasty food or a loved one, a “good” feeling arises in the jar of self.  Likewise, if thought of or desire for something I perceive as good arises in the jar, I might take this as a queue to act in relation to something else in the box.  Perhaps I start thinking about my wife, so I text her to say I’m thinking of her or to suggest go out to dinner over the weekend.  We also can imagine examples of activity “inside” and “outside” the jar of self that have a negative valence.

But this initial image is too simple, static, predictable, and mechanistic.  We need to complicate it a bit.  These containers don’t always feel stable.  The jar of self is moving inside a box that is moving, and things are moving inside each of them.  Our own thoughts and feelings about things shift.  Loved ones aren’t always available and don’t always respond as we wish.  And so we may feel disoriented much of the time; we’re constantly called upon to reorient.

Both we and the world around us are changing constantly, and some part of us wants what’s inside and outside oneself to stay in a fixed state that feels safe, secure, and satisfying.  This part of us responds to the tumult and its desire for stability by acting in ways intended to manage what’s going on inside and outside the jar of self.  Sometimes we can manage things to a point of reasonable satisfaction for a while, but eventually something arises in the current of experience that challenges our capacity to cope.  Something arises inside the jar or inside the box that exceeds the present boundaries of our comfort zone.  Life shows us that our power to control it, to make it conform to our ideals and other wishes, is limited.  Experience is dynamic, partially unpredictable, and not contained or containable.

Meditation is one way we can respond to this situation; to the seeming tumult and our usual ways of responding to the tumult.  Like other potential responses, meditation is an activity.  Even though it looks passive, it’s another form of action.  It’s a period when we choose to sit and simply attend to whatever is going on inside the seeming jar of self and inside this seeming box in which we jars find ourselves.

By the time many of us come to meditation in late adolescence or adulthood, we may have noticed that some of our default responses to the tumult can be rather reactive, even compulsive.  We often respond to activity inside and outside in predictable ways that may be more a product of evolutionary and/or early life conditioning.  Much of the time we act very unlike we’re acting as we meditate.  We act, well, even more actively, in ways we think will stabilize or better our experience, keep us safe and happy. 

But our actions don’t reliably produce desired results; when they don’t, we tend to generate more activity—whether visible to others or just more and more rumination within the jar of self—that never fully or permanently delivers the results we think will satisfy us.  The logic of our thought and actions so often is about trying to contain and control experience, as if we really were jars inside a box.  We want to bottle up and preserve what’s pleasing and to quarantine and cut off what’s not pleasing. 

We can think of all this in terms of Buddhism’s three poisons.  Greed is compulsive grasping for thoughts and feelings inside us and configurations of beings and things in the broader universe that we experience as pleasant.  Hatred is compulsive avoidance or pushing away of thoughts, feelings, beings, and things we experience as unpleasant.  Delusion is about our false thought streams, our false narratives—and all narratives, even our presently most comprehensive narratives, are at least partially false.  They’re incomplete, or they will be soon, as the world continues to turn.  We tend to invest our narratives—even our best ones, even the one I’m offering now—with more explanatory power than they deserve.  We’re really trying to fix ourselves, our identities, as we do.

In meditation, stuff arises: mild pain in a foot, the pleasant smell of a cake baking, my narratives about this or that, boredom.  We’d normally act differently to these stimuli, but, in meditation, we choose just to sit and attend.  We choose that activity instead.  We choose just to abide.  We learn we can abide; that we can cope.  We adopt a stable orientation in this realm of shifting experience. 

As confidence in our capacity to do that consistently grows, interesting things begin to happen.  Our comfort zone during time off the cushion also begins to expand.  Our need to contain and control declines.  We might feel relatively more calm some of the time.  We may become less reactive; more truly agentic.

In meditation, we’re separating from our habitual ways of relating to activity inside us—what we contain, so to speak—and outside us, within the larger container that contains us.  Paradoxically, in this realm as others, we must separate to connect—genuinely connect with our own experience and with others.  As poets and astronomers know, it’s so much easier to connect with the moon and stars than with ourselves and our loved ones, because of their seeming vast distance from us.  Telescopes and poems about stars are efforts to draw them closer.

In mediation, we discover that, for 10 or 15 or 25 minutes at a time, we can endure that discomfort we thought we couldn’t endure; we can resist that temptation we thought we couldn’t resist; we can cope with boredom.  In fact, we start to notice, just sitting here, just being here without trying to distract ourselves, that doing that isn’t boring.

As our experience begins to change, our perspective also may begin to change.  My perspective on myself, on all that’s arising inside and outside me, on life writ large may begin to change.  In one of his books about meditation that I read long ago, Thich Nhat Hahn says something like, “Once we are capable of stopping, then we begin to see.” 

The sense of being a container inside a container, of being and needing to constrain, may begin to dissolve.  We may begin to identify (if that’s the right word) with flow of activity itself.  We may begin to discover ourselves with all beings and things as one thing.  We need a new metaphor at this point.  Maybe we become more like the relatively stable, but still evolving, still slowly shifting, banks and bed of an old river.  But we’re also the water moving through it.  You may know that many rivers are deceptive looking.  They’re not like a bathtub or a pipe.  What we call a river is just the water visible on the surface.  There’s far more moving water in the ground, surrounding, mixing with, and constantly reforming the riverbed.  We become permeable like this through our practice; our boundaries become clearer and more stable feeling in some sense, and yet simultaneously fuzzier and permeable.  The boundary between inner and outer blurs.  The larger container seems boundless.  Our personal experience feels more spacious.  Less confining.

There’s much more we could say about what’s going on in meditation, and how our other practices, like chanting, bowing, reading and reflection, and working with koans and the precepts, complement it.  I also should note that practices outside the Zen tradition, including various forms of therapy and somatic practices, also can contribute to the transformation of our experience and perspective I’ve been describing.  In fact, there’s risk in meditation that we’ll get too good at distancing ourselves from what’s arising; that we’ll use meditation to bypass features of our experience, past and present, that we would be wise to examine more closely through some practice that’s better suited for that.

Anyway, there’s much more we could say about what’s going on in meditation, but let’s leave it here for now. I’m not sure I’ve achieved my goal of making what’s going on more understandable. If not, I hope your reactions and insights will help clarify things for all of us.

Wandering as Path

I gave this talk on November 11, 2023, during our Full Moon Zen sesshin. A recording follows the text.

This is Case 98 in The Blue Cliff Record:

While on pilgrimage, Tianping visited Xiyuan. He was always saying, “Don’t say you have understood Buddhism. There is no one who can have a dharma dialogue with me or examine me.”

One day Xiyuan saw him at a distance and called to him, “Come here, Congyi.”

Tianping raised his head.

Xiyuan said, “Wrong!” Tianping went on for two or three steps.

Xiyuan said, “Wrong!” Tianping turned and came closer.

Xiyuan said, “I have just said, ‘Wrong’ twice. Is it I who am wrong, or is it you?”

“It is I.”

“Wrong.” Tianping was silent.

“Stay here for the summer retreat, and I’ll examine this question of two wrongs
with you.” Tianping, however, departed.

Years later, when Tianping became an abbot, he addressed his assembly and said, “Once in my days of pilgrimage, I visited Xiyuan by chance, and he twice said, ‘Wrong.’ He advised me to stay with him for the summer retreat to examine this question of two wrongs with him. I don’t say I was wrong then, but when I left for the South, I realized for the first time that I had finished saying ‘Wrong.’

The Buddhist tradition begins with the story of one person’s wandering. Gautama Siddhartha leaves home and explores the world and himself, engaging in myriad spiritual experiments and enduring many privations, before finding what he was seeking.

This is an unusual origin story. Origin stories serve as anchors. They solve the “turtles all the way down” problem, among other functions. You know the World Turtle myth, right? We wonder, what anchors or supports the Earth, and so our own existence? It and we rest on the flattened back of a giant turtle, according to the World Turtle myth. So what does the turtle rest on? Another turtle, of course. And that turtle? Another turtle. It’s turtles all the way down. Infinite regress.

Many traditions get around the turtle problem by positing an absolute agent that created everything, gave us all the answers in a foundational text, and is the ultimate truth, authority, and judge on all matters temporal and beyond time. One can see how this sort of construct can be comforting and useful, for both individuals and groups, in this realm of existential vulnerability, change, and uncertainty.

Zen, and contemporary Buddhism generally, take a different approach. No turtle? What’s the problem? Or, as the ever quotable, Chogyam Trungpa said, “Existence is like jumping from an airplane. The bad news is you have no parachute. The good news is you discover there is no ground.”

The Buddha’s wandering yields the Eightfold Noble Path, of course, but that’s about our agency, not superhuman agents, and, well, it’s a path without a clear starting point or final destination. We do speak of the Absolute in Zen, but we also say it and the relative—this cushion on which I’m sitting, the cool morning air—are one and the same.

What are we to make of this tale of wandering at the start, and at the heart, of our tradition? What are we to make of the Buddha’s wandering, Tianping’s wandering, and our wandering with them? Spiritual wandering is a time-honored tradition, and some of us will put a lot of energy into it, wandering along many paths and meeting many adapts as we do.

I wandered in this way for many years. I explored several Christian denominations and multiple strands within one of them. I stepped onto the Buddhist path initially through the Tibetan tradition and also Zen Archery understood and taught as meditation. Along the way, I lived in a Quaker intentional community for two years. I later left law practice early on to study comparative religion. There were more twists and turns as I walked the straight road with 99 curves.

And then there’s the wandering we do inside. I’ve begun reading the work of a young philosopher, Zachary Irving at the University of Virginia, who is developing an empirically grounded theory of mind wandering. He works with cognitive scientists to conduct experiments that shed light on what mind wandering is and the functions it serves.

It turns out to be a rather complicated subject. There are many different types of mental activity scholars have labeled mind wandering: We can direct our minds away from the task at hand or our attention can just drift away from it. We can ruminate anxiously on something. We can be lost in thought. We can wander mentally about pursuit of a goal. And so on.

But Irving and his collaborators are homing in on a more precise concept of mind wandering that aligns with how most ordinary people like us think about it: Mind wandering as dynamically unguided attention. Unguided attention that simply shifts as time passes. Attention that isn’t guided, and which also isn’t ruminative, goal directed, or “lost” in the sense of complete absorption in thought.

It turns out that such dynamically unguided thought is associated with creativity; with the development of important types of personal agency; and with the default mode network, a part of our brain scientists still don’t understand fully but which is involved in things like our perception of beauty, feeling connected to others, and construction, maintenance, and dissolution of the boundaries of the self, or our sense of personal identity. Interestingly, scientists have found that meditation causes structural changes in parts of the default mode network.

Our practice of shikantaza sounds a lot like Irving’s notion of mind wandering. In shikantaza, we don’t focus on anything in particular, such as our breath. We gently disengage when we find ourselves ruminating, reasoning, plotting our way toward some goal, or just lost in thought. Dynamically unguided attention seems like an apt description of the state our minds are in much of the time we’re on sesshin.

I should end this meandering talk at some point, so let’s rest where we began.

Years later, when Tianping became an abbot, he addressed his assembly and said,
“Once in my days of pilgrimage, I visited Xiyuan by chance, and he twice said, ‘Wrong.’ He advised me to stay with him for the summer retreat to examine this question of two wrongs with him. I don’t say I was wrong then, but when I left for the South, I realized for the first time that I had finished saying ‘Wrong.’

What does Tianping seem to learn on his pilgrimage?

He seems to learn there’s no place to go. That wherever you go, there you are. That we are as we wander, and that we can wander in place.

He seems to learn he’s the bottom turtle. Or, rather, that he and all else, including the vast space below, above, and all around, together are the bottom turtle.

Some of us do seem to need to wander a bit to make our way home. I say there’s nothing wrong with that.

The Wheels Have Come Off

I gave this talk on November 2, 2023.

This is Case 10 in The Gateless Gate and its verse:

The priest Yuean (Geban) said to a monk, “Xizhong (Keichu) made a hundred carts.  If you take off both wheels and the axle, what would be vividly apparent?”

The Verse

Where the wheel revolves,

Even a master cannot follow it;

The four cardinal half-points, above, below, 

North, south, east, west.

The prominent Vajrayana (Tibetan) Buddhist teacher Pema Chodron has a popular book titled When Things Fall Apart.  I’m almost certain I read it decades ago, but it’s been so long I honestly can’t recall, much less remember what the book says if I did read it.  I suppose this proves her point:  Things truly do fall apart, like our memories.  

Presently it seems like the world is falling apart.  Wars in Europe and the Middle East are inflaming conflicts here that, so far, are mostly rhetorical.  Let’s hope they stay mostly rhetorical.  January 6th, awful as it was, gave us just a glimpse of how bad things really could get.  Then there is a climate crisis, a teen mental health crisis, an opioid epidemic, global recession fears, migration crises, mass shootings . . . I could go on.  There is always good news, and I suppose each era brings convulsions of some sort, but still it feels like the wheels may have come off the cart for good this time, and the axle with them.

It’s tempting to make this a talk about impermanence.  That’s one too-obvious Dharma point to make.  Things are always falling apart in a sense.  And, of course, there are always highs and lows; no highs without lows; and, viewed from the perspective of the Absolute, ultimately no highs or lows.  True as all these insights may be, they don’t offer much reassurance or other forms of support when things are especially bleak.

What else is there to say in times like these?  And what to do?  It shouldn’t be surprising that we may feel disoriented and uncertain, perhaps even completely lost, when things seem to be falling apart all around us, inside us, or both.

Our practice teaches to and helps us meet experience, whatever it is.  Not to separate from our experience, outside or inside—and there isn’t really a separate outside and inside.  Just this.

One image that comes to mind for me right now is standing in front of one of those maps we find dispersed around cities or shopping malls with an arrow pointing to the spot where I’m standing.  “You are here,” it says.

At times like this I feel the need to acknowledge that things are a mess and I am right here in it, rather than looking away or sugar-coating a bad situation.  Our practice can help us orient and stabilize ourselves even in turbulent times, and acknowledging the turbulence seems like a sane way to begin to find our balance.  I find just connecting to experience—noting and acknowledging what seems broken, without minimizing or amplifying it—can be a helpful place to start.

Then what?  Well, I suppose it depends.   Our practices also helps us to be less reactive, or more appropriately reactive; to sense and respond to what the situation requires.  The situation itself is the map, suggesting where to go next and how to get there.  Maybe we put the wheels and axle back on the cart.  Or we pull the cart like a sled.  Or we build a new cart.  Or we just pause; wait; leave space; do nothing for now. Maybe a cart is not what we’ll need going forward.

Yunmen’s verse accompanying this koan is lovely and wise, as ever:

Where the wheel revolves,

Even a master cannot follow it;

The four cardinal half-points, above, below, 

North, south, east, west.

The master can’t follow the cart—this very being-time, that is—because she’s right here with it, in it, as it.  We are part and parcel of our experience; part of this whole world that’s on fire.  We don’t control all that’s arising in our presence, let alone on other continents, but we often can influence our own and other’s experience at least weakly, and sometimes even strongly.  We also have some agency over our response to what’s arising—to direct our arising response to what’s arising around and within us—or at least the potential to develop some agency.  Practice can help us develop more agency.  

I’m not just talking about meditation practice.  I’m talking about all of it.  Bowing as we enter the Zendo.  Playing instruments and chanting.  Lighting and placing a new stick of incense after the prior one burns down.  Each of these acts is an opportunity simultaneously to meet and respond to and co-create arising experience, and to do so with reverence.  

“Realizing this, our ancestors gave reverent care to animals, birds, and all beings,” we chanted tonight.  We’re not talking about realizing this as an intellectual idea.  Realizing as making it real.  Realizing as manifesting.  Realizing as doing; as offering an appropriate response.  

The Germans have a great way of saying goodbye:  Mach’s gut.  Make it good.

The wheels are off the cart, and the axle, too.  We are here.  What will we do?  What would it mean to make it good at this time?  Can we?