On Lecture 1

As I've mentioned, I'm reading Three Pillars of Zen, which contains the lectures of Yasutani-roshi, an important contemporary Zen monk, in order to clarify my understanding of the process of zazen. And the first thing I learned (though from the editor's introduction, which I eventually abandonned) is that zazen and meditation are not really the same thing.

Meditation involves putting something into the mind, either an image or a sacred word that is visualized or a concept that is thought about or reflected on, or both. . . . The uniqueness of zazen lies in this: that the mind is freed from bondage to all thought-forms, visions, objects, and imaginings, however sacred or elevating, and brought to a state of absolute emptiness form which alone it may one day perceive its own true nature, or the nature of the universe.

Initially, zazen practictioners do this by counting the breath, which is what I've been doing. Yasutani-roshi goes into detail about how to sit, how to breathe, even how to think:

Since your brain likewise is not asleep, various thoughtforms will dart about in your mind. Now, they will not hamper or diminish the effectiveness of zazen unless, evaluating them as "good," you cling to them or, deciding they are "bad," you try to check or eliminate them. . . . Let random thoughts arise and vanish as they will, do not dally with them and do not try to expel them, but merely concentrate all your energy on counting the inhalations and exhalations of your breath.

I get lost counting and will continue to try to focus on counting and breathing (though, my physical therapist will tell you I'm awful at both, since I never can keep track when I'm working out). But then today, when I was so worked up about the kids, I considered practicing zazen but wondered then if I should only go to it with a quieter mind or if it is exactly an upset mind that most needs to practice. So I blogged instead.

And then, I wondered, is practicing zazen as a non-Buddhist somehow inappropriate? Certainly, much of the first lecture reminds me of my Unitarian Universalist principles of the inherent worth and dignity of every person and the interconnected web of life (which of course are drawn from a variety of sources, including Buddhism), particularly

that all human beings, whether clever or stupid, male or female, ugly or beautiful, are whole and complete just as they are. That is to say, the nature of every being is inherently without a flaw, perfect, no different from that of Amida or any other Buddha.

It's just that I don't privilege Buddha above any other and, while I am looking for enlightenment, I don't think of it with a capital "E." I am cautious of co-opting bits of a religion or culture. The editor's introduction mentions Yasutani-roshi's "emphasis on the religious aspect of Zen Buddhism--that is, on faith as a prerequisite to enlightenment." But it is not my faith. Perhaps I am putting the cart before the horse and should just practice counting my breaths. My Buddhist in-laws intentionally raised their children Catholic, as it was the dominant religion in NYC (and had the best schools) and they felt that there was not one but many paths and that it didn't matter what you called it (which I imagine would have driven the priests and nuns to distraction if they'd ever known). And, wouldn't you know, Mama at least has found her way back to Buddhism, in her own way?