Who Has the Say-So You must say something; All the Ancestors said so – As they said nothing.
Once again, allow me to address the sentiment that the political realm is, and should remain, outside the pale – when it comes to topics appropriate to the scope of Buddhism and Zen. The “tongue of the Buddha” represented by the short, curled ceremonial stick carried by Zen priests (J. nyoi or katsu) is said to be “long and wide,” encompassing all four spheres of influence and action in my semantic model of real world Zen practice: the personal; the social; the natural; and the universal. In the social sphere, the political climate surely played a huge role – in Buddha’s life and his decision to form the original order of Buddhist monastics – as well as in China, Japan, and other countries of origin.
In our present situation, the incoming flack from the campaign is more and more like damaging hail accompanying the record-setting onslaught of tornadoes and hurricanes being visited upon an ever-wider swath of the United States each year, in an ever-lengthening storm season. Unintended karmic consequences on a geologic scale.
Looking into the rear-view mirror of history, we find that this has been a “known issue” throughout the development of Zen. From Taoism’s roots in China, in “The Way of Life, According to Lao Tzu” (Capricorn Books, 1962), translated by Witter Bynner:
17
A leader is best
When people barely know that he exists,
Not so good when people obey and acclaim him,
Worst when they despise him.
‘Fail to honor people, they fail to honor you’;
But of a good leader, who talks little,
When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,
They will say, ‘We did this ourselves.’
Compare to protestations of wannabe leaders competing in the current campaign.
Peering further back into the fog of time, from “The Teaching of Buddha” (Buddhist Promoting Foundation of Japan, 124th revised edition 1986) chapter two, “The Way of Practical Attainment,” section I, “Search For Truth,” we find the Buddha challenging philosophical and astrophysical speculation, as well as questioning the design intent of the optimum social order:
In the search for truth there are certain questions that are unimportant. Of what material is the universe constructed? Is the universe eternal?… In what way is this human society put together? What is the ideal form of organization for human society?
He follows with the admonition that:
If a man were to postpone his searching and practicing for Enlightenment until such questions were solved, he would die before he found the path.
In other words, whatever the political situation in which you may find yourself, get your personal priorities in order. Like everything else in life, politics is impermanent, imperfect and insubstantial, the three marks of dukkha, universal principle of change. Which change we find, more often than not, not to our liking. Then, after relating the famous metaphor of the man pierced with a poison arrow, he reminds us that:
When a fire of passion is endangering the world, the composition of the universe matters little; what is the ideal form for the human community is not so important to deal with.
Consider the various “fires of passion” now threatening our world on all fronts, and demanding a majority of our available bandwidth. Later, putting a fine point on it, the sage focuses squarely on personal training, while not ignoring the social, natural, and universal matrix of problems in which a person, then or now, is firmly enmeshed:
The Buddha’s teaching contains what is important to know and what is unimportant.
Therefore, people should first discern what is the most important, what problem should be solved first and what is the most pressing issue for them. To do all this, they must first undertake to train their minds; that is, they must first seek mind-control.
We have received our marching orders. “Mind-control” in this context does not carry the modern connotation of “brain-washing,” but the “discipline” side of the Eightfold Path: right effort, mindfulness, and meditation. In discerning the “problem that should be solved first,” we can not simply ignore causality – including proximate causes of political influence upon our lives. Perhaps the best way to deal with the repugnant pettiness of partisan politics is to continue comparing to the prescripts of Buddhism and Zen.
The Repentance Verse, as translated by Shohaku Okumura-roshi in the Soto Zen Journal in February of 2004, on the Bodhisattva Precepts, is a good place to begin:
All the twisted karma ever created by me, since of old
Through beginningless greed, anger and ignorance
Born of my body, speech and thought
I now make complete repentance of it all
“Twisted” may have overwrought undertones of neurosis, unlike the translation we usually chant. We repent our “past and harmful” karma – the litany of unhelpful, self-centered actions, and unintended consequences thereof – that we now “fully avow.” In other words, we are ‘fessing up, admitting that “mistakes were made.” Note that all this, however, comes with the territory of being a human being subject to the “three poisons,” various forms of greed, hatred and delusion that, though “born of this body, mouth, and mind,” comprise the “three actions” that can get us into trouble.
How genuinely are our favorite candidates for public office manifesting this kind of self-awareness, accepting responsibility? How well are we, ourselves, doing in this regard?
Okumura-roshi highlights the next steps in the traditional Precepts ceremony:
The Three Refuges
We then take refuge in the Three Treasures: Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The Buddha is the one who awakened to reality. The Dharma is reality itself, the way things truly are. The Sangha are the people who aspire to study and living according to the teaching of the reality of all beings.
Taking refuge means, literally, returning to our true origins: our awakened nature; the reality in which we find ourselves; and like-minded folks struggling on the path. In today’s political climate, the very notion of a shared reality seems under assault.
The Threefold Pure [Precepts]
Next, we receive the threefold pure precepts: (1) the precept of embracing moral codes, (2) the precept of embracing good deeds, (3) the precept of embracing all living beings. These three points are the direction we walk on the Bodhisattva path.
Morality, as conventionally understood, also seems to be on the chopping block, or at least up for sale, in this election year cycle. Perhaps it was ever so, with one party’s “good deeds” being another’s social injustice. How do we embrace “all living beings,” when there are so many of them, competing for the same resources?
The Ten Major Precepts
The ten major precepts are: (1) do not kill, (2) do not steal, (3) do not engage in improper sexual conduct, (4) do not lie, (5) do not deal in intoxicants, (6) do not criticize others, (7) do not praise self and slander others, (8) do not be stingy with the dharma or property, (9) do not give way to anger, (10) do not disparage the Three Treasures.
We also express these prohibitory precepts with their positive side – “affirm life,” “be giving,” “honor the body,” “manifest truth,” and “proceed clearly” respectively – for the first five above, given to new initiates, for example. The second five are given to those who enter the formal path, with respect to the social consequences of representing Zen to the public, and so bear more scrutiny in the context of our political social servants. How closely are candidates for office at every level adhering to these admonitions, setting aside the Three Treasures, of which they may have little or no awareness.
We could go on, with endless examples from the written record of Buddhist principles. For example, if we look at the Four Great Vows of the Bodhisattva path, we find:
Beings are numberless; I vow to save them
Delusions are inexhaustible; I vow to end them
Dharma gates are boundless; I vow to enter them
The Buddha way is unsurpassable; I vow to realize it
Compare to various positions, platforms and policies proposed by pols and pundits – on immigration; income disparity; education; conventional truth; and the place of religion – in our efforts toward a “more perfect union.” How we doin’ on those fronts?
Jeffrey Lyons, a political science professor at Boise State University, found that “roughly three-quarters of kids who have two parents of the same party will fall on the same end of the political spectrum as their parents. As kids are growing up, their parents have an enormous amount of power in shaping their views.” (From: “Are Politics Hereditary?” – The Atlantic Jun 1, 2018).
If true, this demographic factoid simplifies the picture enormously. We might conclude that the vast majority of voters are going to be biased in favor of their family and social history from childhood – nature and nurture – and not likely to be persuaded by rational or ideological argument, to switch allegiances. So much for independent thinking.
So, once again, we return full-circle to the cushion. Do your own research, draw your own conclusions from your findings, and make your own recommendations to yourself for improving your chances of acting compassionately and wisely in the marketplace of politics, as well as within the community of folks who would rather not have to deal with politics at all. The ability to do so is surely more dependent upon our personal approach to meditation, than upon our social skills. Only if we are independent of the influence of ideology and partisan political pressures can we act interdependently for the good of all.
We will revisit the political scene in July, when we celebrate Jukai, true independence.
