Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Wild Fox Zen

Home
Buddhist
Manifesting “Ahhh!” Japanese Style (Keep Me in Your Heart – Uncut)

Manifesting “Ahhh!” Japanese Style (Keep Me in Your Heart – Uncut)

Last updated on: January 14, 2009 at 8:48 pm by Dosho Port

Manifesting “Ahhh!” Japanese Style (Keep Me in Your Heart – Uncut) 2009-01-14T20:48:00-06:00 Dosho Port

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

A recent thread here has been about the Japanese Zen tradition – the main source of our practice here at Wild Fox. In my book (Plug! Plug!), in the “Gazing at the Moon” chapter, I wanted to deal some with the history of Zen in Japan. My editor at Wisdom didn’t think that it fit in this book and it is rather a lot for a blog post (there are even footnotes!), but what the heck. Somebody might find this helpful, especially if you’re in the “very crabby with self and other stage.” Then you’ll probably find it helpful like rocks are helpful for slingshots. But like I said, what the heck.

The section that follows was cut from the bottom of p. 67. I’ve been telling a story about visiting Japan with Katagiri Roshi and his wife. While at his home temple, Roshi visited the villagers and drank a lot of tea and maybe even more saki. Here’s what followed in the draft:

A married priest eating meat and drinking alcohol? In rule if not in actual behavior, Buddhist monks throughout Asia express “Ahhh!” through not eating meat, marrying, or drinking alcohol. Japanese priests and their Western descendents are an anomaly.

How did this difference develop? The beginning is elusive, but one important development came when Saicho (767 – 822) rejected the Vinaya as Hinayana (small vehicle) and received imperial sanction [Jeff’s comment below says only after his death]. He gave only the “Bodhisattva Precepts” to his [Tendai] disciples. For Soto Zen an important development came with Dogen-zenji’s transmission of Zen to Japan. Although essentially all of the Zen ancestors in China appear to have been Vinaya upholding monks, Dogen-zenji was not. Records indicate that he took only the “Bodhisattva Precepts” while his teacher Myozen went to some lengths to receive the “Hinayana Complete Precepts.”[1] In his practice and teaching of the “Sixteen Bodhisattva Precepts,” Dogen-zenji seems to have followed Japanese Tendai rather than his Chinese Zen predecessors.[2]

In addition, a powerful inspiration for Dogen-zenji and Japanese Buddhism was the Lotus Sutra and the principle of Original Enlightenment. Following these developments in understanding the dharma, the precept ceremony became very important, perhaps the most important aspect of precept practice.

One root for this may be in the Buddha Shakyamuni’s statement in the Parinirvana Brief Admonitions Sutra (The Last Discourse Sutra), “You should know that the precepts are your teacher. To receive the precepts is the same as if I were to remain in the world.”

To “receive the precepts” (jukai) can be understood as referring to receiving both the practice of the precepts and the precept ceremony. In other words, Buddha’s statement can be read as follows: “The precept ceremony is the same as if (the Buddha) were to remain in the world.” The details of the ceremony thus became really important because the ceremony came to be regarded as the manifestation of Buddha. This may explain why in the four writings by Dogen-zenji on the precepts, three are instructions for the precept ceremony and only one is about the meaning of the precepts.[3]

This appreciation of the precepts led to the development of a two-tiered system – precepts as bodhisattva vows and training rules, many particular to each training place. Here is Shohaku Okumura addressing this difference:

A point we have to be careful about these (Zen) precepts is to know the difference between Vinaya and this Mahayana or bodhisattva precept. Vinaya precept is very concrete set of regulations, rules within a certain group of people. “If you behave like this you have to get out of the sangha, this group of people. There are certain concrete actions we cannot do. If you do, there are certain penalties. The strange thing about our precept, Mahayana precept, is that there is no penalty. That is a problem. In order to make these precepts as a concrete moral code we need to make another version. If we mix up these precept with concrete regulation, we will have some problem.[4]

Our Soto ancestors didn’t mix up Buddhism but put the full moon to use, concretely entering the dialogue between Yangshan and Changsha. “Everyone without exception has that (full moon Buddha nature). They’re just unable to use it.” “Precisely. So let’s see you use it.” The precept ceremony was one primary expression, a tangible manifestation of “Ahhhh!” that the community engaged in together.

For us, in my view, the upside of receiving the precepts as enactment of the formless form of the Buddha, lies in how this perspective can flip our practice from the moral and historical dimension – practice in order to get enlightenment – to immanent Nirvana, or practice as enlightenment, enlightenment as practice. The downside is that it seems to provide an excuse for many of us to not take the karmic consequences of precept violations seriously enough.

For our Japanese ancestors in the late 19th century, eating meat, drinking sake and engaging in sexual relations were common place for “monks” in many Japanese traditions and had been for a long time.[5] These behaviors, summarized as nikujiki saitai (eating meat and clerical marriage) were officially given state sanction beginning in 1873 as part of the Meiji reforms. Intense debate preceded and followed the government’s action. I summarize some of the key arguments from Jaffe’s Neither Monk nor Layman as follows:

· In the age of the decline of the dharma, very few monks were following the precepts regarding nikujiki saitai and this hypocrisy was very damaging to Buddhism;
· The Buddhist attitude toward sexuality was damaging to women and children as was the practice of monks going to prostitutes, having illicit affairs with women or temple boys and/or producing “illegitimate” offspring;
· People generally lacked the capacity to be celibate and refrain from other “impure” behaviors and even if people could, “pure” behaviors were unhealthy;
· Clerics that married and behaved more like lay people would be of more use to the lay people and the modern state;
· If Japan was to compete with the West and Protestant Christianity, a docile and unproductive clergy seemed of no use.

Apparently, despite sect rules to the contrary and the strong opposition by sect leaders, most priests moved with the powerful current of laicization – a current in the stream of 19th century capitalism that flowed from the West to the East – and married. According to a 1987 survey of Soto Zen, 80% of the clerics were married. Of the 14,000 temples, only 31 “…remain reserved for strict monastic training.” A 1993 Soto survey found that “…only 5 percent of the Soto laity explicitly preferred an unmarried cleric. An overwhelming 73 percent expressed a preference for a married cleric….”[6]

However, “…in monastic denominations like Soto, doctrine has helped ensure the survival of the ideal that stands in stark relief to the lived practice of their clerics.”[7]

Jaffe lucidly concludes his book as follows:

Despite their marriages and the imperative to find an abbatial successor, most non-Jodo Shin Japanese Buddhist clerics continue to view ascetic monasticism as the desired, if unattainable, way of life. Even while marrying, the Buddhist clergy largely have maintained, at least for ceremonial occasions, their distinctive dress and tonsure. Although such practices may be viewed as superficial, they are gestures that also represent continued respect for the ideal those forms represent. The ongoing emphasis on the lives and teachings of the founders of the established Buddhist denominations reinforces this monastic nostalgia (emphasis added) and stands as a normative critique of both local temple and householder life. More than a century after the decriminalization of nikujiki saitai by the Meiji government, many Japanese Buddhist clerics and their families continue to live amidst the tensions arising from the contradiction between the idealization of the monastic, celibate practice that remains at the heart of their sectarian identity and the practical reality of family life at their temples, which have become almost home.[8]

One striking point here is how, given the divergence between the ideal and the practice, our Japanese brothers and sisters (and many American practitioners) practice monastic nostalgia as part of the path. Those of us not living in monasteries often feel that somehow our practice in the world is pseudo-training; those of us living in monasteries often yearn for the “other monastery,” as Chozen and Hogen Bays put it (who as a married couple teaching what they call “family-style Zen” in a monastery embody the dramatic changes occurring in our tradition). The “other monastery” is where the real, pure, authentic practice is imagined to be happening.

Meanwhile, I live in a split-level house in an ex-urb (zendo downstairs, family area upstairs), serve my children as a part-time parent and earn a living by working with adolescents with challenging behaviors. After parenting and working, I shave my head, don my priest robes and open the house for zazen, accompanied in the warm months by an orchestra of birds. My monastic nostalgia is directed toward the next period of my life, when my children are grown, when I hope to live in community like I did when practicing with Katagiri-roshi at Hokyoji.

I imagine that you are in transition too, dear reader. Just as we are all in transition, we are inheriting a tradition that itself has recently gone through a major transformation, dragging along unresolved issues (as do we all), one major matter being priests marrying, eating meat and drinking alcohol.

[1] See Dogen-zenji’s Formative Years in China by Takashi James Kodera, p. 30.

[2] See Going Forth: Visions of Buddhist Vinaya, edited William Bodiford, particularly the editors

“Bodhidharma’s Precepts in Japan” and Richard M. Jaffe’s “The Debate over Meat Eating in Japanese Buddhism;” and Religions of Japan in Practice, edited by George J. Tanabe, Jr., especially “Kokan Shiren’s Zen Precept Procedures,” introduced and translated by William M. Bodiford and “A Refutation of Clerical Marriage,” by Richard M. Jaffe.

[3] From Shohaku Okumura’s talk at Zen Mountain Monastery’s conference, “The Many Faces of Dogen-zenji,” July 2004.

[4] Also from Shohaku Okumura’s talk at Zen Mountain Monastery’s conference, “The Many Faces of Dogen-zenji,” July 2004.

[5] See Neither Layman Nor Monk, by Richard Jaffe for an illuminating and careful historical examination of these developments.

[6] Survey references all from Jaffe, p. 1 – 2.

[7] Jaffe, p. 240.

[8] Jaffe, p. 241.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

January 13, 2009

Pick Up the Newspaper or More Plugging My Book

Next Post

January 16, 2009 Sheep and Wild Fox in Zen Groups

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 November 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 August 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 December 2016 October 2016 June 2016 April 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 August 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was Paul's native language?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Hebrew Aramaic Latin Greek