Hasn't anyone listened to the Podcast? The end of it is really good. It's at this link. The URL is http://hardcorezen.libsyn.com/Here is an odd email I received this morning:
Last August in Finland you had an interview with yoga mag called "Ananda". In the interview journalist asks, "Are you married?" and you answer something like, "No, I'm a monk and that's why I'm not married." (I'm paraphrasing). This caused some debate when people read it because you were married before. And Japanese monkhood is different than Vinaya so a so-called monk can be married. I find your answer also interesting so can you clarify a little bit?
Of course I never said, "I'm a monk and that's why I'm not married." That would make no sense at all. Monks in the Japanese Zen tradition have been allowed to marry since the 1860s. I was married when I was ordained as a monk by the Soto-shu. Obviously the journalist misunderstood what I said. Like when Ron Nasty of The Rutles was supposed to have claimed that The Rutles were bigger than God. He actually said The Rutles were bigger than Rod, meaning Rod Stewart.
This is why Buddhism is not a religion. This is why a lot of Buddhists fail to quote the words of Buddha and instead are more likely to quote the words of more recent teachers like Dogen, for example, or their own teachers. You can't really rely on what's written in books.
I've been reading about the Koran lately and it's fascinating. In some circles it is dangerous to advance the idea that anything in the Koran might be mistaken. So folks who want to try and modernize Islam are forced to stretch and bend what's written in the Koran to make it work in the modern world. Many Christians, Jews, Hindus and even Buddhists feel the same way about their scriptures. But Buddhists who feel that way about the words of Buddha don't really understand the words of Buddha very well.
This is why Buddha, in the Kalama Sutra, cautions people against believing what is written in scripture. And note that I ironically have to refer to Buddhist scripture here. But understand, it's not because the Kalama Sutra is supposed to be the words of Buddha that impresses me. It's because whoever wrote it, it makes damn good sense. This is also why people in the Mahayana tradition often accept words attributed to Buddha that we know damned well Buddha couldn't possibly have said since he was already long dead when those sutras were written.
It's not that scripture is necessarily wrong. But it is necessarily expressed in words. And words themselves are not perfect. The same sentence can mean vastly different things to different people even if all of the words are maintained correctly and even if everyone speaks the same language.
This might be the key for religious people. Perhaps we can say that our scriptures themselves are perfect but that our human interpretation of them can never be perfect. Just puttin' that one out there for what it's worth...
But getting back to Buddhism; I've been thinking lately that the word "Buddhism" is unfortunate. It was created by Western people who didn't understand what they were looking at when they tried to study the religions of Asia. The word Buddhism tends to suggest a religion that worships Buddha. And, no doubt, the folks who coined the term assumed that's what Buddhism was.
But it isn't.
Calling it Buddhism is a bit like calling relativity theory "Einsteinism." To do so would be a nice way to give due credit to the guy who first expounded the basics of the theory. But it wouldn't follow that people who practiced "Einsetinism" worshiped Einstein. Nor would it follow that the theories of Einstein would be held up as the final word for what was absolutely true in relativity theory. If it were found later that Einstein was wrong about some things-- and I think maybe it already has been -- that wouldn't make the whole of relativity theory wrong. It would just indicate a need for revision.
In the same way, Gautama Buddha did not have the final word on Buddhism. He understood himself clearly. But his followers, who memorized his words, may not have actually understood him very well. Nor did later copyists. Nor, in fact, would we have probably understood what Buddha said even if we'd been alive ourselves to hear his words spoken with our own ears.
If we reduce Buddhism to quotations of the accepted authorities on Buddhism we have not understood Buddhism at all.
This leaves us in a very tricky position. We can't even point to the words of Buddha and say that they are perfect. We don't really know what he said. In the case of someone like Dogen, we can be pretty certain the exact words he wrote have been preserved in most cases. But even that doesn't help a whole lot if we don't understand them. And who can say we have understood Dogen? Only Dogen himself and he's not around to ask.
Buddhism is a face-to-face transmission. When Buddhists say that Buddhism is not in books it's because Buddhism cannot be contained in books. Books are a good way of pointing in the direction of Buddhism. But they always fall short. Blogs, by the way, are pretty useless in doing even that much, if you ask me.
