Good morning. Well, it's nice to be back. This is it though. I've been gone for a month and two weeks of which I spent in Japan. And that was a good trip. And today we have our first day of our Labor Day session. What I would like to talk about today is world religion.

[01:02]

In Chicago, there's the 100th anniversary of the World Parliament of Religions, which by 1893 or four, I think it was 93, but yeah, 1893. And Soyin Shaku, who was D.T. Suzuki's teacher, was invited to come. This was kind of a breakthrough, in a way, inviting a Buddhist teacher from Japan to attend this kind of meeting. People were very charmed by him. I think in some way it helped to open up Eastern religion to the West, one factor.

[02:10]

So this is the 100th anniversary of that World Parliament of Religions. I was invited to it, but if I go to everything I'm invited to, I won't be here at all. But there's been newspaper accounts, and this is a particularly interesting one that was in the paper yesterday, because it outlines some of the things that they're dealing with when you get a lot of the world, a meeting of most of the religious practices in the world together. It can be remarkable in one way or another. And some of the problems that they're dealing with are very interesting. One of the problems, the main problem is the problem of God.

[03:15]

The believers and the non-believers, and it doesn't matter one way or the other. But I'll read you a little bit and then I'll make some comment. In Chicago, this is by Don Lattin, by the way, about 250 religious leaders from around the world began deliberations yesterday on an interfaith declaration that condemns hatred in the name of religion and proclaims a new global ethic. I think that's very significant because religion, religious warfare and religious animosities are probably the biggest causes of problems in the world. Some people say, well, is religion necessary?

[04:21]

Or is it something outmoded or outdated? Can we do without it? But religion, in a way, is a little bit like sex. You know, it's like something very vital and intimate. And it can either destroy you or be creative. And so it can go one way or the other. And we have to be very careful with religion. And the position that religion is in now, in the last part of the 20th century, is a pretty bad position, in a way. In that the superstitions and belief systems that make up the people and dogmatic beliefs that people are attached to are pulling the world to pieces, creating animosities and pulling the world to pieces.

[05:40]

But it's also a wonderful opportunity because it means that something very creative and real has to come out of it, out of this conflict, or the world will just destroy itself. So it's kind of a very wonderful and exciting thing. It says, meeting under the auspices of the week-long parliament of the world's religions, the assembly of religious and interfaith leaders will spend the next two days meeting privately in search of common ground. That's very interesting. But it's common ground. Of course, it's very simple for us to say, well, Zazen is common ground. That's kind of a neat answer, which is true.

[06:46]

But that's not so simple. We can have common ground in Zazen, but when we get up off the cushion and start moving around with each other is not so easy. By tomorrow, each must decide whether to sign the proposed Declaration of a Global Ethic, a document that condemns violence, inequality, intolerance, ecological destruction, and economic injustice, but never mentions the word God. That's very far out. Ironically, God has become the most controversial subject at this centennial celebration of the 1893 Parliament of World Religions. Earlier this week, Orthodox Christians walked out of the Parliament, citing the sponsorship of groups which profess no belief in God or a supreme being.

[07:49]

Then the next day, Zen Buddhist representatives complained about efforts to turn the Parliament into an event for the worshippers of Almighty and Creator God. So, it's interesting because these are the two kind of poles, in a way, where reconciliation has to take place. Buddhism is not a religion of God. Buddhism is a religion of wisdom, enlightenment, and compassion. The Zen delegate said in a petition being circulated in the halls of the Palmer House Hotel, we can practice religion with or without God. So this is a very interesting statement. Because sometimes people think that Buddhism is atheistic.

[08:53]

And people refer back to Buddha, who went beyond the Hindu, the Brahman, I would say, concepts of a Supreme Being. Buddha never actually said, there is God or there isn't God. He gave us this little problem. So Buddhists don't proclaim, God is not in the system. It's not in the Buddhist, doesn't play a part in the Buddhist way of thinking. So Buddhists, sometimes there's some Buddhist, philosophies which almost posit a god, but not actually. So, Buddhism talks about interrelatedness and interdependence of one total being, rather than talking about a god.

[10:17]

Buddhism isn't antithetical or anti-God. It just is not concerned with this kind of thinking, this way of thinking. It doesn't deny or affirm the concept of God. So you could say that Buddhism is non-theistic. It's not atheistic. It isn't anti-God. It just doesn't use the concept. It's not the Buddhist model. So it's actually easier, I think, for Buddhists to accept Christianity and other religions. to be tolerant than it is for someone who uses a God model because the God model becomes so sacred that if you don't believe in this model, then you're blasphemous.

[11:34]

So it becomes very difficult for people, even though people like Buddhists because Buddhists are I hesitate to say enlightened. So the difficult task of drafting a global ethics statement that both Orthodox Christians and Zen Buddhists can sign was handed over to theologian Hans Kuhn, an authority on world religions at the University of Tübingen in Germany. The name of God was avoided because our different understandings of God create problems, said Kung. Everybody had their creeds, but we have to live together whenever our creed. Kung said the Declaration seeks a universal set of standards, values and attitudes for both believers and nonbelievers.

[12:42]

So this is progress, I think. people can actually get beyond the dogmas and go beyond the attachments. Very difficult. Under the rules of the Parliament, The statement will be debated by the religious assembly, but cannot be modified. Most assembly members, including the Dalai Lama of Tibet and Cardinal Joseph Bernadine of Chicago, are expected to sign it at a ceremony tomorrow. We are interdependent, the declaration begins. We must treat others as we wish others to treat us. The Declaration, along with an accompanying document entitled The Principles of a Global Ethic, goes on to condemn abuses to Earth's ecosystems, poverty that stifles life's potential, the insane death of children from violence.

[13:58]

In particular, we condemn aggression and hatred in the name of religion, the document states. I think that religion has not been so concerned with ecology in the past, and the humane treatment of animals. And religion seems to be homo-centered, or person-centered, and mostly uses the earth OKs, the way people use the earth for their own purposes, selfish purposes. So this, I think, is a very new kind of awareness for religion, to actually be aware of the earth, because the earth is a kind of, for most religions, the earth is dirt.

[15:08]

You know, it's not, it's the anti-sacred. It's like sacred is heaven and earth is mundane. So, bringing the sacred and mundane together, even the Buddhists, who should know better, have not really taken that so much into account. I can think of a lot of examples of our Japanese predecessors who were not so much aware of pollution and kindness to animals. So this is, I think, create awareness of taking care of the Earth for religious people is something basically new.

[16:25]

So, and there are often religious partisan, partisan religious people see the earth as just a kind of platform for their aggression. When religion becomes popular, then the state tends to adopt it. And once the state has adopted religion, it's already on the way out. We're very fortunate, actually, in America to have such a primitive spiritual practice for us. We're not connected to the state.

[17:35]

We don't get money from the state or publicity from the state. We don't influence the president and so forth. We're not up there, fortunately. And we can just practice in a very simple, real way without interference. Once the religion becomes involved with the state, then it's very difficult to have a religious freedom because religion is dictated by the state. This is what happened in Japan over and over again. And even today, you know, I just went to Japan and went right in the middle of Japanese and Buddhist politics which I can see how difficult it is for people to do what they want to do.

[18:41]

I think there are a lot of people who would like to feel more open and free and less attached to politics. But it's almost impossible. Because once you do something on your own, you're no longer part of things. And so you have to take care of yourself, which is not so good. You know, we talk about Japanese Zen and American Zen. There is such a thing as Japanese Zen and American Zen. And most Japanese priests are very attached to Japanese Zen. And there are a lot of people in America who are attached to American Zen. But I think that we should forget American and Japanese and just practice.

[19:43]

This is what I've come back with from Japan, is if we can get beyond Japanese and American. Of course, I went with that attitude. Anyway, I just reinforced my feeling about dropping Japanese and American. And that's the only way that people will be able to practice together. But I think little by little that will happen. I think that people on both sides are interested in practicing that way. And hopefully we'll see more practitioners from Japan practicing with us, and some people from here can practice in Japan. But the only way that that will work is if people drop the idea of Japanese and American and leave politics out of it.

[20:45]

So, in particular, we condemn aggression and hatred in the name of religion. Boy, I hope so. Although never mentioning Bosnia or any other specific conflict, the document states that no people, religion, or government has the right to hate, to discriminate against, to cleanse, to exile, much less to liquidate a foreign minority. So other sections. A call for equal partnership between men and women and oppose all forms of domination and abuse. I think that's a big stride forward. That's one of the biggest problems in religion is the difference between men and women. The separation of men and women and the dominance of religion by men. And to bring that up as something to deal with is very good.

[22:05]

oppose any kind of sexual immorality, which the statement defines as degrading others to mere sex objects, and to forsake violence as a means of settling differences, promising never to oppress, injure, torture, or kill other human beings, and to proclaim that every human being must be treated humanely, and to condemn patriarchy. But this is a confusing statement. condemn patriarchy, but say nothing about religions that refuse to ordain women as members of their clergy." It's a funny statement. I kind of understand it, but not completely. Maybe there's something missing there. I think they condemn it, but they're not saying anything about religions they refuse. I think that's what it means. religions that refuse to ordain women.

[23:07]

Well, maybe they can do that a hundred years from now, in the next meeting. Some of the strongest language in the document is directed at those who make war in the name of God. God is on our side. There's a big problem, you know, with religion and God. People say, this is my daddy, not yours. used on our side. Some of the strongest language in the document is directed at those, time and again we see leaders and members of religions incite aggression. Incite aggression, fanaticism, hate, and xenophobia. Even inspire and legitimate violent and bloody conflicts, it states. Religion is often misused for purely power political goals, including war, and we are filled with disgust.

[24:12]

Parliament organizers said the declaration was drafted by Kuhn, then debated and modified by approximately three dozen members of the Parliament Board of Trustees. It is unclear what effect the declaration will have. Few of the actual leaders of American Christian denominations are included in the assembly, and many of the Asian religions represented have no clear hierarchical structure or leadership. The power of this document is in its ability to persuade, said the Reverend Thomas Baima, ecumenical and interfaith officer for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago. Maybe it can persuade people to think differently. Well, I think that's true. I think it's much better than having some kind of document that forces people to think a certain way, or that says they must think a different way, or something like that. Just the very fact that these people can get together and agree on something is a big influence in the world.

[25:23]

I think religion has to survive on influence. not on power. So, for all these people to get together, diverse religions to get together and actually agree on these principles is very significant. And just the fact that that's happening, I think will have a big effect on the progress of religion into the 21st century. So the 21st century is right around the corner. And so significant things should happen to bring us into the 21st century. And definitely the rebirth of religion in One of the problems that we have, I think, with religion is holding on to old beliefs.

[26:38]

Religion is kind of like a tree, you know, it grows and in the beginning it's very beautiful and lively and full of energy and truth. And then as it grows, it gets a lot of dead branches and overgrown. And it has to be pruned from time to time. This tree has to be pruned from time to time to just let the new growth and essence spring out. And unfortunately, religion becomes so overgrown and there's so many dead branches. that people can't see the root and the essence for the dead branches. And people believe in the dead branches rather than in the growth.

[27:44]

If religion doesn't grow, then it's dead. But there's a kind of belief that religion shouldn't grow. that the original or some fixed... people feel that religion is some kind of fixed belief system. I remember Suzuki Roshi saying, Buddhism is not perfect. Thank goodness. Because if it was perfect and fixed, there would be no room for progress or for growth. So, religion has to change with the times and change with people's knowledge and understanding, so that they can be vital and real. If it's not vital and real, then it's worse than if it didn't exist.

[28:49]

It's a vital force that gives us direction. And when it stops giving us direction, it turns the other way and is destructive. So it's just like carrying fire. If you know how to carry it, it will light your way. But if you misuse it or don't understand it, it'll burn you up. But it's... vital and necessary. But it's easy to understand why people turn away or think that it's outmoded and outdated and useless and some old ancient world belief that's no longer necessary. Science has given us many wonderful ways to survive.

[29:59]

But science is only one part, and religion and science have to have a partnership so that there's some direction, so that we have some real direction. Science is not a direction. Science is also both wonderful when we know how to use it and destructive when we don't. So, I think our practice, in the light of all this, I really value our practice and it makes me appreciate how simple and open-minded our practice is, or we can be.

[31:13]

And I hope we keep our practice simple as long as we can. enlightenment, truth, reality. This is what our practice is about. It's okay if you want to use the model of God. It's okay. But in Buddhism, it's not necessary. But it shouldn't be a cause for conflict. We shouldn't criticize people for their beliefs, even though in Buddhism we have no special beliefs. Buddhism is not a belief system, even though there's much philosophy, much, much philosophy

[32:22]

But it's all talking about the same simple thing. Emptiness. Form and emptiness. Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. And all things are interrelated and continually merging with each other. Existence keeps being created, moment by moment, from causes and effects. Nothing really to worry about, if you just trust yourself and trust this life. Do you have a question?

[33:40]

Or would you like to discuss this? You said at the beginning of your lecture, you said that Zazen is a common ground that we have. And I assume you were referring to all people who are Buddhist or not. is common ground with others who don't practice. I know that Suzuki Roshi in Zen Heart Begins might say, strictly speaking, for a human being, this is the only practice.

[34:48]

And I'm sure that on the surface of it, people who are non-Zen Buddhists Because I feel that this practice is something that I never did before I came here. And so people who have never come to a practice place, I assume have never done it. And so how do they have common ground with us? Well, if everybody said nothing, Right there is common ground. If you stop speaking and stop discursive thinking and stop the action of moving around, right there is common ground.

[35:52]

But I feel, for example, if I would say to someone, try doing that, they might be resistant. Well, that's up to them. I mean, so what? Well, if someone says to me, well, just try believing in God, just try believing in But we're not actually asking anybody to believe in anything. I'm not. Who's asking anybody to believe in anything? I know we're not asking anybody to believe in anything, but we are asking... We're not asking anything. I just said, if. That's common ground. All I said was, that's common ground. I didn't say that people should do it. Or have to do it, or whatever. It's just common ground. That's all. So I actually went and he said, well, when we sit, you know, other people are not involved or something.

[37:12]

Or how do other people know that we're sitting with them? And it seems like it would be irrelevant and, you know, not understandable. To other people, yeah. Well, when we sit, you know, we sit with everyone. whether they're sitting or not. It doesn't matter whatever anybody's doing. We're sitting with everyone, with everything. We're sitting in the midst of everything. It doesn't matter what people think. Right. But I think that someone who is a devout believer in a personal God would simply say, well, it doesn't matter whether those people believe or not. God is common ground. That's okay. God is common ground. If you believe that God is common ground, then God is common ground.

[38:12]

The reason that God is not mentioned in this thing is because everybody has their own idea of what God is. So they leave the word God out because everybody has a different understanding of what that means. If you say God is common ground, then God is common ground. Who's to dispute you? I mean, if people believe that God is common ground, that's pretty good, I would say, even though I'm not the one to judge. I have two points. The first one is, when we read these precepts during the Boise And they were very similar to a lot of the things I was taught as a child. And I think when you look at religions, that very overview, there is a lot of similarities. Like at the very top level, the ultimate goal, I think it's sort of all the other things in between that make them different.

[39:15]

And then the other kind of question is, it seems that, from what I understand, we do sort of deify the Buddha, and with all these rituals and ceremonies and things. And I'm wondering, some of Buddhist readings that I've done, the original ones, I think, said that there was to be no worship of idols, I think, or something along those lines. Worship of idols? The original, like one of the original things that Buddhists had in this first teaching was that he didn't want them to worship him. I'm not sure exactly. And I'm just wondering if you could give me a few words on whether... I mean, I know that the Buddha is sacred, but how does that fit into the tradition? Well, it's not the Buddha. It's Buddha. So, Buddha includes everything, right? And then there's the Buddha, even Shakyamuni Buddha, who is an embodiment

[40:25]

of Buddha. We have dharmakaya, sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya Buddha. And dharmakaya is essence of life. And nirmanakaya Buddha is the person, personification of Buddha as a human being. It's a little bit like Christianity. Not exactly, but a little bit. So, you know, Shakyamuni Buddha is a kind of touchstone for an embodiment of someone who understands Buddha nature. But a Buddha is not a god. Buddha We pay great respect to this embodiment of Buddha nature, but we pay the same respect to each one of us as Buddha, with the same potential.

[41:31]

It's very different than isolating God from man or a person. So, religion means to reconnect. Religion means to rejoin something that you've been separated from, like God in person. But in Buddhism, we don't have that separation, although we can be separated from ourselves and we can have the feeling of separation from our surroundings. But actually, we're never separated. And it's not like God and man are estranged. So even the Buddha, it's just a construction, right?

[42:36]

We don't bow to this construction as if it was something, had some something, special quality. It does have a special quality, but it's an example. It represents certain qualities. And so, we say, who do you bow to when we bow? Well, you bow to yourself. But it doesn't mean you bow to your ego. When we bow, we bow to ourself. What is our self? That's the big question. What is my self? The big koan. So we bow to the direction of this Buddha, but we can just as easily bow in some other direction. You can bow to the post, or to your dog, who embodies all the qualities. So, and yet it's the shape of a human being.

[43:53]

Yeah, you could say. I mean, it's not empty. It's no... I mean, you could very well have just a post-nothing on it, symbolize nothingness. Yeah, well, you could do that. The problem with that is that then you feel that emptiness is, you know, correct object. In the old days, in the beginning of Buddhism, you see the empty chair as a representation of Buddha, and you see the servants fanning it with fans, but there's the empty chair, but no person. And I think this is characteristic of a lot of the ancient religions, Judaism, Muslims, and and Buddhism in the very beginning, and then the figure came in later. So, when I bow, I don't feel I'm bowing to this figure.

[45:04]

I don't have that feeling. When I bow, I just bow, because it's a wonderful thing to do. It's like letting go of everything and merging with totality. And it doesn't matter. That's just one direction. It could be any direction. It seems like there's a real challenge in that, because our tendency is to want to have something else take care of us. Yeah. Well, that's right. The tendency is to want something else to take care of us. So it means that on the one hand, we have this independence. And on the other hand, we're completely dependent. So, to bow, at one and the same time, expresses our independence and our total immersion, our interdependence with everything.

[46:05]

a statue, too. But as you were talking, it occurred to me that it isn't just a statue, and I guess no one really knows the creator of that lovely piece of art, and it emanates something quite sublime. And I suppose, in a sense, it's not that we're respecting the feeling that was Well, it's not a work of art. I mean it is, on one level it's a work of art. But it's not really a work of art. Primarily.

[47:23]

It's a conveyor of feeling, deep example, exemplary kind of saying, this is an example for human beings. This is a great example for human beings to inspire our highest And then, secondarily, it's a work of art. Just like, you know, religious art is not art, primarily. It's art. But then, I understand what you're saying. There's no difference between art and iconography. But, if we say art, then...

[48:27]

Reminded by a quote from Salvador Dali. Somebody asked him if he believed in God. He said, when I paint, I know He exists. But I really liked your comment about Zazen being the common ground. Because it seems to me we get into trouble when we start talking about this stuff. And I have a fair amount of Christian friends, and I hear a lot of Christian music. And when I hear that music, I know we're all talking about the same thing. You know, I really value Christianity for all the great music they've given us, this whole long tradition. But, you know, I get confused about this business about the Buddhist deities, because we have our practice, which I can understand on some level, and then there's the Tibetan practice, innumerable gods and goddesses, and they say that that's the original practice much closer to the one from Shakyamuni Buddha because it came out of India.

[49:57]

And on some level I understand that a lot of those gods and goddesses, yidams, are embodiments of our own self, but it seems to me that in Tibetan practice they go beyond that. I don't understand that. It's almost kind of deification. There are a lot of Buddhist practices that kind of deify Buddha. And that's what happened. People didn't have this need for deification. They had this need for that. So they create that kind of practice. It sounds sort of like you're invalidating that practice. No, I'm not. I'm just saying this is the way it is. So do you think it's accurate to deify then, or to not deify? I think that people do what they do, as long as it's not harmful and misleading.

[51:07]

So when one begins to deify, doesn't that create separation? Well it can. I also have a feeling for deification. When I listen to Christian music, when the word God is mentioned, I don't think that's bad. I have a very deep feeling about that. But that's not what I practice. The Tibetans have a different kind of practice than the Zen. But I'm not going to criticize the Tibetans for having their practices different from the Zen. I appreciate their practice. I love the Thangkas and all this. And my way of looking at the so-called deities, the gods, the spirits,

[52:15]

are as aspects of our psyche, and aspects of our aspiration, and aspects of our personality, like monjushri is the aspect of wisdom. And we use some of those in our Zen liturgy. But that's been added on to Zen, Zen has no... nothing, actually. There's really nothing. But Keizan, you know, when he developed Soto Zen in Japan, took stuff from the Shingon and Esoteric Buddhism, which is what the Tibetans studied, and added it to our practice, mostly for the benefit of laypeople. Common in Buddhism, monastic religion is more bare, but popular religion has more of the deities and the stuff.

[53:35]

And Soto Zen kind of took a lot of that, Keizan did, and added it to the Zen in order to spread the religion among the farmers in Japan. And it's part of what Soto Zen is, but it doesn't have to be. But mostly, but in Tibet it's very monastic, and so that's part of their monastic practice. But for Zen, using those images is more for the lay people. That's why it's extremely useful. Yeah, it's great. I have nothing against it. We use it. Monjushri. I mean, they're great symbols to help us think about our religious life.

[54:41]

When I was living in Tucson, there was a very small Zen group that used to meet at the Benedictine convent and church. And in fact, the front row of the church had zafus. And the nuns used to come to our meetings to treat us to bitches and zafus. It was a real close church. That's right. There are Christians who adapt, who sit Zazen, either with Zen people or by themselves. So Zen really has nothing. You can practice Zen with nothing. You don't need any images. All you need is a cushion, your sleeping bag, or whatever. But we use all these other, you know, we take whatever we want from the rest of Buddhism. and use it to create an atmosphere or help us think about something or, you know, help to create a practice.

[55:46]

And we should realize that. We should realize that these things are just being used by us. The real practice is nothing. You don't need anything. As long as you realize you don't need anything, then you can use all these other things and they're wonderful. And you can appreciate them all. They're useful. But you don't need any of them. A couple of points. I guess this is probably related to your talk about the culture thing. And I have a question about the culture of area. About 30 years ago, when I came to the States for the first time, I remember dating. And due to my lack of English, lack of social skills, there were lots of black moments in the conversations.

[56:50]

And that was fine with me. My date was really clean and comfortable. I had a similar experience this summer up in New York Cemetery, about 10,000 feet high, a group of people who were with me were constantly challenging me, especially young women. And I really loved just to be gifted, I don't know, Zen practice or whatever, silence up in high mountains. So I was comfortable not really engaging in conversation. And that was okay with my people that I was with. or people who are really in a social situation, I want to feel that, you know, that getting to know somebody is really sort of filling that conversational gap. I don't know where else I come from. Another question I have is, you talk about, let's not think about American Zen practice and Japanese practice.

[58:01]

I was in Japan this summer, too, and I went to sit at the right up between Kyoto and the only person who was there is Albert and me and a fellow from Myanmar from Santa Barbara. When I got there, I wasn't sure if I lived there, I would go back there every day, you know, so I just didn't hear what I experienced here, you know, one day in practice. And I'm wondering how Do you think... I was sort of really shocked somehow, when I thought that Zen was practiced somehow. I think that they need rejuvenation. And they, you know, a lot of people look at the West and they say, you know, we know that you people are actually practicing. And they appreciate that.

[59:01]

But it's hard for them. because their karma has put them in this position where it's difficult. They don't know how to change or how to renew their practice so that people will actually see the value in it. That's difficult. So when people from here go and over there that they appreciate that because it inspires other people, you know. So I think that the rejuvenation will partly come from here. And when teachers from Japan come here, they really appreciate this place because It's such a different kind of practice from Japan in that all these people are lay people.

[60:08]

They sit zazen every day. That's unheard of. And they like the kind of intimacy of it. They really appreciate this. A lot of people appreciate this place. But it's hard for them to do it because it's just not part of their... the way they've done things culturally. And in order to shift, something has to happen. But I think it will. Little by little, I think it will. So I think that our practice, without trying to do anything, our practice has some influence. Charlie? I was just thinking that the way to influence the Japanese is sort of to be better at what they're interested in than they are. Our aging ballplayers go over there and

[61:14]

took up, you know, golf and are crazier about it than we are now. So I think there's a lot of hope, a lot of possibility. We have to get more priests to come over here and see what's really live rather than labeling Americans in. then we never will pick up in Japan. That's okay, too. I think that there's great potential in Japan.

[62:17]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ