Zen and ethics

[dyanaprajna2011]

Where is the ethical dimension of Buddhist meditation in Zen? | Tricycle

It's been pointed out many times before, that the teachings of the precepts, morality and virtue, and compassion and loving-kindness, are nearly non-existent, if not extinct, in the teachings of Zen. This is something that has bothered me to some degree, and is something I've looked into, but have found no real answers on.

The Buddhist path is marked by three trainings: sila/morality, samadhi/concentration, and prajna/wisdom. In the teachings of Zen, it seems like the first, sila, is nearly forgotten, or at least takes a back seat to the other two.

So what I want in this thread, is to post teachings, quotes, links, or anything else, of the teachings on ethics and virtue from the Zen masters.

 

[Ablaze]

It's been pointed out many times before, that the teachings of the precepts, morality and virtue, and compassion and loving-kindness, are nearly non-existent, if not extinct, in the teachings of Zen.

Really? I've found precisely the opposite to be the case in my study and practice of Zen with at least five different Zen sanghas over the years.

The 4 Bodhisattva Vows are taken by all serious practitioners of Zen.

The 10 Grave Precepts are taken by all serious practitioners of Zen.

The 16 Bodhisattva Precepts are taken by all serious practitioners of Zen.

A couple of relevant quotes from the Shōbōgenzō by Dogen:

If you can have compassion for your loved ones, have compassion for them. To have compassion for our loved ones means letting go of them.

Gyoji - 行持

Keep in mind that kindly speech arises from a loving heart, and a loving heart makes compassion its seed. You should explore the idea that kindly speech can have the power to turn the very heavens around, and it is not merely a matter of praising someone’s abilities.

Bodaisatta Shishobo - 菩提薩埵四摂法

There is a very easy way to be a Buddha: Do not do any evil. Do not try to cling to life and death but, with deep compassion, work for all beings. Respect your elders and sympathize with those younger. When you do neither deny things nor seek them or think and worry about them - then you are called a buddha. Don't look for anything else.

Shoji - 生死

 

[crossfire]

Oh gee! I wish I had the 16-17 C Rinzai Zen translation with commentary of the Tao Te Ching by Takuan Sōhō! I'd love to see his commentary on Tao Te Ching 38!

 

[crossfire]

Oh gee! I wish I had the 16-17 C Rinzai Zen translation with commentary of the Tao Te Ching by Takuan Sōhō! I'd love to see his commentary on Tao Te Ching 38!

All right. I've been meaning to get this book, so I just got it on Kindle.

Here's Takuan's commentary on the first few lines of Tao Te Ching 38. I'll hide it to save space.

Spoiler: long quote--hide to save space

TAKUAN’S COMMENTARY If you read it according to the annotations, “Higher virtue isn’t virtuous” should be read “Higher virtue doesn’t consider it virtuous.” That means with higher virtue you don’t think yourself virtuous. But that is the import of Confucian books, and does not accord with Lao-tzu’s meaning. To read it “Higher virtue isn’t virtuous” is Lao-tzu’s intent. The idea is that the very highest virtue is nothing special at all, so it has nothing called “virtue.” For example, a person should just be called a person. There’s no reason there should be a label of “virtue” in addition to that.
Therefore the highest, original virtue has no so-called virtue. So this is called a virtuous person. “Lower virtue does not fail to be virtuous.” Lower virtue does not refer to unexceptional ordinary people; it means there is certainly some so-called virtue there. This is not failing to be virtuous. So, because there is something superimposed on the nothing-special of higher virtue, this has no virtue. “Uncontrived, and has no reason to contrive” means because higher virtue is something that is not fabricated, there’s nothing to contrive with it. “No reason to contrive” means there’s no such thing as doing thus and so for such and such a reason. To have a motive to act is to have intent. To have no motive to act is like hearing due to sound entering because you have ears, like smelling due to scents entering because you’ve got a nose. It means it is not done intentionally. “Lower virtue does something.” To “do something” means there’s something to do. “Has a reason to do it” means doing thus and so because such and such occurred, doing something for a certain reason. “Higher benevolence does something*.*.*.” Benevolence is lower than virtue. Virtue cannot be defined, be it as compassionate or as dutiful. Benevolence is already defined as compassionate, so it is lower than virtue. “Does something” means that when you act compassionately, this is created. However, as long as it is higher benevolence, there is no such thing as doing it for a particular motive. Therefore it has “no motive for acting.”1

*1. That is, no ulterior motive, no personal ambition. In Buddhism this is called objectless compassion.

Lao-Tzu; Soho, Takuan (2011-02-08). Tao Te Ching: Zen Teachings on the Taoist Classic . Shambhala. Kindle Edition.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Mu to ethics
Zazen reveals the truth, which in turn grants us unbounded empathy for all forms.
Treat others how you want to be treated, but without Satori this is an impossible task.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Jundo from Treeleaf Zendo provided this...

No, there are no Zen masters who are perfect as a Buddha, beyond all error and mistake, totally one with the universe, always doing what is to be done in every situation, always speaking with a Buddha's tongue, never possibly to trip or fall, at total peace and harmony and wholeness with all this self-life-world, each and all a Golden Buddha and Perfect Jewel.

But that leads to the last misconception:


For, in fact, ALL Zen masters (even the predators and abusers!) are as perfect as a Buddha, beyond all error and mistake, totally one with the universe, always doing what is to be done in every situation, always speaking with a Buddha's tongue, never possibly to trip or fall, at total peace and harmony and wholeness with all this self-life-world, each and all Golden Buddhas and Perfect Jewels. TRULY I KID YOU NOT!

Basically as Jundo expanded on the above of which Im paraphrasing some of his words here...

Everything is Buddha.

Wisdom and Compassion in action, sees the world with wholeness, peace and equanimity
act Buddha like...transforms to see and make real. ..Buddha in this world.

Greed, anger and ignorance, division, lack, jealousy, violence and such of that tends to bury the Buddha under dirt of which in essence is also Buddha.


Imo, there are no real ethics in Zen yet a manner by which we live and gain insight of which ethics do play a role.

Juno adds here that, "Zen teachers talk out of both sides of a no sided mouth. "

Im taking ethics are not defined in such ways as being one or the other, so as such, follows the apparent and obvious omission in Zen.

 

[Vishvavajra]

It's been pointed out many times before, that the teachings of the precepts, morality and virtue, and compassion and loving-kindness, are nearly non-existent, if not extinct, in the teachings of Zen. This is something that has bothered me to some degree, and is something I've looked into, but have found no real answers on.

I think the problem here is that a lot of the early popularizers of Zen in the West tended to frame it as some kind of detachable thing that was universal and independent of Buddhadharma as a whole. That is a gross distortion of the reality: the Chan school, of which Zen is the Japanese branch, is situated firmly within the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, with all that entails. Chan meditation practices are not designed to be practiced in the absence of the other Paramitas--on the contrary, Dhyana Paramita is the final one, the perfection that serves as the capstone for the others. For that reason historically it was normal for practitioners to come to meditation last, after years of cultivating other aspects of practice. It's also important to understand that all these historical Chan masters were addressing a monastic audience, so most of their normal practice is already assumed and not addressed directly.

I'm affiliated with Dharma Drum Mountain, a Chan organization founded in Taiwan by Master Sheng Yan, who was certified in both the Linji and Caodong lineages. And while the Dharma Drum teachings emphasize meditation practice even for laymen, there is a very strong ethical component. Our refuge ceremony included the Bodhisattva Vow. We do loving-kindness meditation, and at the end of retreats there is always a transference of merit to those who need it. Master Sheng Yan was also big on community outreach, environmentalism, nonsectarian dialog, etc. See also Thich Nhat Hanh, who is a good example of the Vietnamese branch of Chan in practice. The impression I have of a proper Chan master is a loving, engaged, down-to-earth person, but I fear you don't get that impression just reading books.

Is Japanese Zen different these days? I really don't know (a lot has happened to Buddhism in Japan over the past century-and-a-half to make it unusual in some ways), but my instinct is to suspect that mostly it's a case of distortions in popularizing media. The more people try to divorce Zen from its Mahayana context, the more distorted their view of it will become.

 

[bishblaize]

Imo, there are no real ethics in Zen yet a manner by which we live and gain insight of which ethics do play a role.

Juno adds here that, "Zen teachers talk out of both sides of a no sided mouth. "

Im taking ethics are not defined in such ways as being one or the other, so as such, follows the apparent and obvious omission in Zen.

In both Buddhism generally and Zen specifically there are ethics. That is to say killing and cruelty are bad, kindness and compassion are good, and there's a vast middle ground between. However in Zen this seems to simply be a comment on what is. If it were different, it would be different. Its not, so its not. Saying that kindness is good in Zen is a bit like saying that sunlight is warm. Its an obvious truism and worrying about the metaphysical or philosophical justification for such a claim is like worrying about why up is the opposite of down - pointless.

 

[Vishvavajra]

In both Buddhism generally and Zen specifically there are ethics. That is to say killing and cruelty are bad, kindness and compassion are good, and there's a vast middle ground between. However in Zen this seems to simply be a comment on what is. If it were different, it would be different. Its not, so its not. Saying that kindness is good in Zen is a bit like saying that sunlight is warm. Its an obvious truism and worrying about the metaphysical or philosophical justification for such a claim is like worrying about why up is the opposite of down - pointless.

On the contrary, there's a pretty involved philosophical background to Buddhist ethics. It's true that it's pragmatic in nature rather than deontological like most religious traditions, but it's still something that aspiring bodhisattvas ought to familiarize themselves with, if only to know how to teach others. After all, most people begin with morality before they're ready to meditate. And when people ask why this is right and that is wrong, it's best to have an answer besides "because I said so" or "because it just is." Our teacher frequently talks about behaviors people should practice and ones people should avoid, and why.