Wisdom Beyond Boundaries: A Vedanta Monk in Conversation with a Zen Buddhist Priest

A Vedanta Monk in Conversation with a Zen Buddhist Priest

Transcript

SPEAKER_03 0:09

So, welcome to another of our podcasts. I'm very happy and delighted to introduce to you Mjosen as my guest. Uh Mjössen is um the uh is a Soto-Zen Buddhist priest with a distinguished lineage. And I think that's important. We might even discuss some of that. He's based in Ireland and leads the Zen Buddhist Ireland Songa, where he's the founding teacher and the abbot at the Dublin Zen Center. Now he's also the founding president of the Irish Buddhist Union, and he represents Buddhism on the Dublin City Interfaith Forum, which is where I know him from. He's also a registered teacher with the Soto Zen Buddhist Association. And I think Björsen, you're something of an expert in media because you're a former journalist. I think you still do some of that. And you're a lecturer in the school of media at the Technological University in Dublin. So I think as a formal journalist, uh you worked with distinguished uh uh publications, the Sunday Tribune, Magel magazine, Irish Times, Irish Examiner. Uh I think you were the arts editor there. And even now I think you contribute regularly to the Irish Times um and the Ecumenical Review on Religious Matters. Um I think uh it's true to say that you're one of the champions of greater religious diversity in Ireland. It's something we probably will talk about as well. And I think you're an advocate for reforming religious education curricula and extending the chaplaincy services to other faiths here in Ireland, anyway. And uh you have represented Buddhism on national radio, television, so this is nothing to you, advisory panels for the Taoiseach, National Day of Um uh commemoration in Ireland, and so on. So, with that brief introduction, I hope I've uh managed to include everything that I wanted to. Um welcome.

SPEAKER_00 2:22

Thank you so much, Swami. It's it's a great pleasure to um to be with you. I don't know who the person is you described in your introduction there. Um maybe I'll meet him someday.

SPEAKER_03 2:35

Is that part of the Zen Buddhist uh way of doing things?

SPEAKER_00 2:41

Um possibly, yes. Uh uh, I think selfhood, as we know, is uh uh is a provisional construct, uh uh a flowing stream. Very good, very good.

SPEAKER_03 2:54

Many people know uh or of at least everybody has heard of Buddhism, no doubt. I think there's a lot of uh confusion about because it's not quite as simple as there is one thing called Buddhism. Would that be correct?

SPEAKER_00 3:08

Yeah, I I I think so, Swami. Um Buddhism is uh a long tradition, uh it's a young tradition for for the Vedic faiths for the for what's called Hinduism, but uh and it comes out of that worldview, it comes it grows out of the Hindu soil, uh the Indian soil. But you know, uh whenever a plant is quite old, it has lots of branches and uh lots of different leaves flowering on it, uh, and Buddhism is no different. So I think Buddhism comes out of uh Indian soil as a tree and branches out into various branches. Uh and that has a lot to do with history, it has a lot to do with geography and culture.

SPEAKER_03 4:00

And there are classically, I suppose, uh three main kind of derivative uh branches, uh Theravada being one, uh, following, I suppose, the most ancient Pali canon. And then there's Mahayana that kind of develops. Uh many people might think that that is probably closer to the original Buddha teaching, because uh it strikes me that his teaching was available for everybody and anybody. And then, of course, there's a particular type of Buddhism that comes out of that, which many people call Tibetan Buddhism or Vajrayana. But the Zen Buddhism comes out of the Mahayana tradition, is that correct?

SPEAKER_00 4:44

Yes, it it is correct. Um I think I think sometimes I think the the differences are overestimate, overstated sometimes, I think. Um but there are there are differences in emphasis between the Theravada, the Mahayana, and the Vajrayana, definitely. I mean the Theravadan school uh is the school of the elders. Uh it is the school uh that really leans into the Pali Canon, the canon which is written down a few centuries after after the Buddha's passing in Sri Lanka. Now there were different Pali canons, uh, but we the for the Theravadan school we had the version we have is the one written down in Sri Lanka. And this is consists of three collections of writings. It's the sutras, the the words of the Buddha, the the Vinaya, the moral or ethical code of the Buddha, and the Abhidharma, which is the uh kind of philosophy which develops out of the Buddha's teachings. And these three are collected in what's called the three baskets, and together they make up the Triptaka, the the uh the Pali canon written in the Pali language. So this is very, very important as the text of uh the Theravadan school, which sees the Buddha as a historical figure and as a very, very uh clear pathway from entering the stream of the teachings all the way up to being an enlightened being, an arhat who will not be uh reincarnated again. The Mahayana comes along in the first century uh before the common era and into the first century. Uh Kamin Iran develops, you know, in the same monasteries as as the old Theravadan school. So you had monks making this Mahayana emphasis in the same monastic uh communities. In any case, the Mahayana develops, and many, many new sutras are brought in, and there's a new emphasis on the dharma being for everybody, not just so expanding the definition of what is Sangha. The Sangha isn't just the monastic order, it is beyond that. And I like to think that the Dharma is all living beings, is the birds of the sky, the fish of the sea. Um that's the true Sangha. But in any case, the Mahayana uh emphasizes the bodhisattva path, the path of the awakened being, that one should not seek one's own salvation until the hell realms are empty, until all beings are saved. For how can one truly be saved until all beings are saved? So this emphasis on the bodhisattva path is the emphasis in the Mahayana, the great vehicle, and what used to derogatory in a derogatory way be called the hinayana, the lesser vehicle, the term we don't use anymore, would see uh the the emphasis on uh salvation for the self. Um the Vajrayana then is sees uh it's its emphasis is on practice, it is esoteric in nature, and its practices are handed down through initiation, they're not open and transparent. The Mahayana has everything out in the open. I think I think that's a kind of a a very brief flavor.

SPEAKER_03 8:16

As you as you pointed out before, there has to be these variations. I suppose the way we view it is uh Hinduism, for example, is arguably the most ancient uh of the traditions, and they view it as necessarily being subject to change because it's like a river. The river is always the same, but it has to be adapted, you know, and every every moment in uh historical time presents new diversions and opportunities and contemporary challenges and so on. Yeah. So uh it's good to see that um in our view, anyway, that uh it is good that what we call religions change. Many people feel that Buddhism is not an actual religion. I point out to uh many atheist friends uh that there are atheistic religions, by the way, you know, Jainism, Buddhism, Sankha. Uh, in our uh six approaches, uh philosophical approaches, uh very few are really theistic, you know. So um why is it that some people might say, ah, Buddhism, it's not really a philosophy? By the way, the same thing about Hinduism, it's just a way of life. Hinduism I'll say it, unfortunately. You know, um what would you say about that?

SPEAKER_00 9:44

Oh, this is such an interesting question. Thank you for your for this comment and question. Um yeah, it strikes me that uh language is fraught with difficulty, uh, first of all, and second of all, that uh language is political. Uh language is profoundly political. And uh usually employing a definition has an has an a motivation. So for example, uh to say that Hinduism or Buddhism i are not religions uh is in the context of religion trying to downgrade them. To say, well, we have a religion, but they don't have a religion, they have something like a philosophy.

SPEAKER_03 10:32

Yeah, in fact, they say just a way of life, you know.

SPEAKER_00 10:35

Yeah, yeah, it's just a way of life. Now, if if I was at a convention of atheists who didn't like Buddhists, then they might define us as a religion. So there's always power at play, there's always positioning and jostling for position. And definitions tend by their nature to be reductive. So when someone says you are a religion or are not a religion, they are trying to reduce you to a formula that they can manipulate to their own ends.

SPEAKER_03 11:04

Yeah, yeah. I mean, this uh idea of competitive religion is uh quite a thing. Uh, you often refer to uh my tradition, your tradition as the Dharmic tradition, Dharmic, as opposed to, let's say, Abrahamic. And uh what do you think, in your view, is the difference of emphasis in two kind of streams, if you want to put it that way.

SPEAKER_00 11:33

First of all, I want to express great humility in actually facing questions from such a great uh Swami uh as if as as if I had something to add. So I just want to express that this is very strange that I am presenting as some kind of authority in the company of a Swami such as yourself. So um I could turn the tables and ask you the questions, Swami.

SPEAKER_03 11:59

Well, I'm open to uh to questions as well. You know, this is uh a dialogue, so uh just to stimulate the dialogue, we have questions, you know. But equally you could ask me questions, no doubt. And uh the idea of uh saying that I'm uh this person that you mentioned, I also wouldn't recognize that either. But um this uh idea of Dharmak religions and Abrahamic uh religions as such, uh firstly kind of categorizing things, it's a kind of uh, in my view anyway, it's a kind of propensity, particularly in Western culture, that has seems to have this necessary uh necessary categorization. You're uh Democrat, you're Republican, you're uh you're this, you're that, you have to be this, but you if you're this, you cannot be that, that kind of thing, you know. And uh so uh if I was to contribute a little bit toward the answer to such a question, I might say it's kind of summarized in art that in the uh Eastern traditions, if you like, uh the all the portraits are uh with uh saintly people, with uh uh Buddhas, with uh uh great great saints, sages, mystics are always looking inwards. In Western religions, if we want to put it that way, it's a difficult way of saying it, the art sa the art points the eyes upwards. And so I think both are valid, of course. But I think there's a difference in emphasis, I would say. Yes, exactly. Yes. And when you have a circle, you can't understand where is A, where is B on the circle, point A, point B, you know, which came first, which didn't come first. So um, but I think there is a certain contribution that both can make, probably, in contemporary society. And what would you say that might be?

SPEAKER_00 14:19

Yes, I think well, I think I think that circle, that circle is very important in the Dharmic uh approach, understanding it's uh the circle rather than the linear. Uh, and this of course uh is also an image of karma, and karma is so very important uh in the dharmic uh faiths. Uh and karma is is a is an inescapable law within the realm in which we live, uh within the conditioned realm. And this is very different because it's a law, not a punishment. So another uh difference, I think, in the Dharmic versus the Abrahamic religions is if we sit down and we read the scriptures uh from Christianity, Judaism, and from Islam, uh we can see that uh the personal God is first of all a personality who shows mercy, compassion, or who punishes. And that this punishment is is belongs to a personal God, whereas in the Dermic Fates we have the law of karma, which is not uh the preserve of a personality. So um I think that circularity, that importance of karma, and that and that the ultimate is not personalized, it is beyond attributes, although including attributes. So this is an important understanding for for what the world is and what is this world we are in. So this is not the lower world, and that up there is the higher world. I thought it was very interesting your mentioned of art, the upward gaze, uh, versus the inward gaze. Uh so this dichotomy is a false dichotomy because uh the world, this I think Platonic in Greek philosophy is very important because it feeds into Christianity, this idea that there is a realm of forms, of pure form, that is superior and separate to this form, to this plane of existence, where in fact it's all all true existence. Uh it's illusory and not illusory at the same time. How does this how does this uh uh understanding feed into a into society? Well, the circularity is important in our interconnection uh with all beings, with the environment, and karma rather than having a personal god that that punishes us, karma in engenders responsibility. So we have to take responsibility for our own ethical actions, which is different to a parentalism where we have a father god uh that we have to please. So so this is this is quite important. It changes things profoundly. And also, uh just to finish this point, is that I think that we understand in the dharmic fates, and you opened with this earlier, Swami, that things are fluid and dynamic and alive. They are not chiseled into a stone pillar of dogma. So I think this is an important distinction.

SPEAKER_03 17:38

Yes, and also you see, there are in all religions, I would say there are various levels of understanding, depths of understanding, according to the connection you make with what we might call reality. Uh for example, and I've been under criticism for this, uh, somebody asks me, uh, do you believe in reincarnation? And I say with a twinkle in my eye, I must admit, uh, no, I don't, because I don't believe in disincarnation. Why would I believe in a reincarnation, you know? But that's that that that for practical purposes, that's not really a very good answer. But uh still, you know, there has to be an acknowledgement that there are different approaches. As you say, it's not a linear thing, it's a circular thing. And when we view it in that way, even our cosmology is really a circular thing. We don't think that there is a linear thing going on. Um and uh I suppose one thing that validates our Dharma's approach would be modern science, in my view, anyway, because when you come to where we say modern science, but we're going back to 1905 already, where uh uh already people are trying to figure out what is energy. In the in Newton's time, there was no such thing as energy, it was all force, you know. And energy only became a term much later in the 1800s. So uh I think uh also, of course, the contribution that we have is this fluidity that you mentioned, that there's uh flexibility, that there's no right nor wrong in a certain way. But what is your approach? You know, in the Bhagavad Gita, which is one of our central texts, we would say uh there there's a verse there which actually is in the chapter on meditation, we'll come to that now. But uh Uddha Red Atman Hatwanam, how it goes on like that. It means that uh that you are your own uh you are your own uh uh author of your destiny, that uh you can raise yourself up or lower yourself down. It's entirely up to you. It's not dependent on any extra cosmic being. That's the point. There's a place for that, you know, extra cosmic being as a starting point, I suppose, you know, in our view. And so I think we are very, very inclusive. And I think that probably the contribution that we have to make as coming under the Dharmic label, if you want, is this kind of openness and flexibility which says we incorporate everything in everybody actually. Uh so that is true pluralism. You know, I often say, and you've heard me say it before, I'm sure, you know, there is a position where you say, I will never take tea with my enemy. Well, you have an enemy then. Or I will take tea with my enemy. There's a kind of inclusivism. Um, but you know, you sit in the corner, you're still my enemy, you know. But then I'll take tea with anybody. I don't have any enemies. That's the approach, that's the pluralistic approach. I think that is a wonderful contribution because what we have to say is all religions are true, all parts are true is our Vedantic point of view. Um the approaches may well be different because we're all constitutionally different, you know, and we have to accept that uh validity of this difference, you know. To try and put everything into the same suit, you know, tailored suit would be a difficult thing. Um and uh leads to a lot of difficulties, as we know. To understate it, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 21:49

Yes, no, I think I think it's a dynamic uh this living, breathing, flowing dynamic is true. Um and uh And I think it it's always open to being corrected. One side is always open to be corrected by the other side. When one side of the moon is is dark, the other side is illuminated. So when we say all religions are equally valid, there are also times where we have to stand up and say, no, this is not valid.

SPEAKER_03 22:24

Yes, I I mean on the but that that I I would see as the surface superficial thing. Um I often think of Swami Vivekananda's oft-quoted position, each soul is potentially divine, is the way he puts it. And the goal is to manifest that. Then he says controlling nature internal and external. Then he positions a number of different ways. Do this either by work or worship or philosophy, or um work or worship or philosophy, or or you know, meditation, one or more or all of these and be free. And he's really suggesting all of them actually. Um but then he goes on to say temples, churches, dogmas, doctrines, books, rituals are but secondary details. If we put those as primary details, we have all grounds to disagree.

SPEAKER_00 23:24

Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I think that's very like Master Dogen in uh the Zen tradition, the founder of the Zen tradition in Japan, where he basically says uh, you know, sit, everything else is secondary. Yes. Everything else.

SPEAKER_03 23:40

Now you call that zazen, I think. Is that correct? Yeah. And can you tell me, because uh you are um the the the uh a priest in the uh Soto Zen Buddhist tradition, what is the difference between Soto Zen and any other kind of Zen?

SPEAKER_00 23:59

Yeah, so uh Zen, the word Zen, first of all, means meditation. It comes out of India. I think it's called what dhyana? Dhyana?

SPEAKER_03 24:09

Yes, the the Sanskrit is dhyana. Dhyana. Um and uh yeah, I think the Chinese took it as chan, something like that. Yeah, and then it comes out as zen, you know.

SPEAKER_00 24:20

Yeah, that's it. So it the word means dhyana, it means meditation. And so Zazen, uh the the schools five houses of Zen emerge in in China, and uh the two that really survive are Rinzai Zen and Soto Zen. And uh and they get transplanted to f from China, which is you can imagine at this period in history is the mother culture in Asia, it's a very powerful culture, just like the Indian culture, it's another powerful, influential culture. So Chan Buddhism comes through China into Korea, into Vietnam, into uh into Vietnam, into Japan, etc. Uh, and in Chan in Korea is called Son or Sun, and in uh Vietnam it's called Tian. Uh and Tian in Japan is Zen. So Zen Buddhism. So of the five houses of Zen, the two that really survive are Soto and Rinzai, and Rinzai emphasizes there's a matter of emphasis, they're essentially all Zen. Rinzai emphasizes Koan study or koan introspection.

SPEAKER_03 25:41

Something like that.

SPEAKER_00 25:42

Yeah, what is the sound of one hand clapping? What was your original face before your parents were born? Uh so these type of uh uh teaching instruments, and the there's even within Rinzai a curriculum of uh of Koan uh introspection that you pass through. Soto Zen uh emphasizes uh Shikantaza, just sitting, non in a non-dualistic awareness. Yes. So Soto Zen is in in China is called Sao Dong. It's the Sao Dong school in Japan, it's Soto. So our emphasis in Soto is on just sitting, is on Zazen.

SPEAKER_02 26:26

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 26:27

And uh I I'm gonna ask you a loaded question, I suppose. Um you know, when we talk about uh meditation, our prerequisite for dhyana for meditation, uh and here we employ techniques from the yoga school, and uh meditation formally as uh part of an eightfold process only comes as number seven. In other words, all the others are prerequisites. Um I was impressed, I think, by uh, and I think it came from you in a conversation previously, that even approaching the seat for meditation uh is a mental process, a preparation process, a preparatory process. In other words, preparing the mind for the atmosphere of sitting for meditation. But meditation in our system doesn't begin with the sitting, it begins with working, working life. And what I think you might call, we call it smarta, but what you might call mindfulness, or what has come to in the modern term as mindfulness. And so that seems to me to be reflected in walking, in working in various activities. So I'm asking you this as a loaded question. Is that true?

SPEAKER_00 27:55

Yeah, yeah. So uh so I mean Zen is a complete tradition, you know. So work in Zen is called SAMU, and uh work is very important. So on retreat there's SAMU, and uh the ethical precepts, moral uh ethical discipline and behavior are a necessary condition for practice. Um but there's a famous story of a Zen master who uh there's a there's a s uh there's a series of images called the ten oxerting pictures in in Chinese Zen, and they show the the uh the progression from the a boy hearing a bull to mastering the bull to the bull disappears to it's it's the journey to enlightenment, and it's over ten pictures with ten verses. And there's a famous Japanese Zen uh teacher uh who's who was teaching the Zen the ten oxerting pictures, and he had all the the pictures down, and he gathered all the pictures up and put them like a pack of cards together and says, but really they're like this.

SPEAKER_02 29:10

Yes, yes.

SPEAKER_00 29:11

So that I think is the Zen approach. So the Zen approach is is is quite different. It's closer to Mahamudra in Tibetan Buddhism or to uh Zog Shen. Uh so in other words, it's not climbing the ladder step by step, it's understanding that each step is the ladder, is the entirety of the ladder. Uh so that's really our our approach. So from the very beginning, we practice Shikantaza, we practice uh open awareness. Uh and in our daily life we we practice mindfulness and ethical conduct and behavior. So these are not separate, these are all practice, yeah. Does that answer your question?

SPEAKER_03 29:56

Sure. No, it's what we it's what we kind of think of as meditation with eyes open, meditation with eyes closed, kind of thing, you know. That the mind has to be settled. Otherwise, when we sit for meditation, then uh 99.9% of our troubled day comes in, you know. So we have to prepare ourselves psychologically. And we do that in in our tradition, we can do that in theistic ways and non-theistic ways also, you know. I think the vast majority of people, vast majority of Hindus are dualists. But that doesn't mean to say we can't apply the highest of philosophies. And what you're describing is close to our non-dualism, our advaita. And our advaita is our highest conclusion. And so uh it would be quite difficult to jump into Advaita for non-dualism, as many people have kind of tried, and get it wrong, because uh I bang my head against the wall and a lump comes up, and a non-dualist who doesn't really understand properly says, well, it's all illusion, you know, don't worry about it. No, no, there's a real bump and it's hurting and it's throbbing. Sorry about that, you know. So don't just dismiss it as illusion, you know. But at the end of the day, when we come to that uh what maybe in Buddhism is called nirvana, or what we call samadhi, uh that level of uh meditation where meditation yields to what might even be called emptiness, that particular position, the world has gone, it disappears, you know. There's no relative thing there at all. Um but from the relative point of view, yes, there's our world. We accept each other. Um and it's the relative world will lead us, no doubt, to the to the absolute.

SPEAKER_00 31:56

Yeah, this is very interesting. This is exactly the teachings within our tradition uh coming out of Nagarjana, the great uh second teacher within uh Buddhism.

SPEAKER_03 32:08

Um, Garjana is is really emphasi uh his this uh bhajarmika, I think it is, yeah, is really emphasizing this principle of shunya shunyata, but really not meaning emptiness in in as we we would kind of typical this is the problem of the language, of course, as well, you know. And I think that might be one of the great misunderstandings in Buddhism. Would that be correct?

SPEAKER_00 32:40

Yes, I think so. Even within Buddhist practice practitioners, among Buddhist practitioners themselves. I mean, there is an intoxication with sunyata, uh which you have alluded to. Uh uh when you bang your head, uh you know, you can forget about sunyata and get yourself some medicine, you know, or a plaster if you're bleeding. Um so yeah, there is an intoxication with emptiness which is called Zen drunkenness. And this is has to be corrected within the tradition, uh, just like an overgrasping towards this materiality has to be corrected. So it's for no for a very good reason we're the middle way, Buddhism is the middle way, you know. Uh, and the Majamaka teachings are trying to restate that in a philosophical, much more nuanced way. Uh, Sunyata is seen, it tips over very easily in a mistaken way into nihilism, that nothing matters and nothing really truly exists, which is a mistaken view. Or on the other hand, it is rarefied into almost a theistic soul-like essence, uh beyond the material realm entirely, which is also a mistaken view. So I think this is very important from a Buddhist point of view.

SPEAKER_03 34:09

The Yogacara school would would kind of emphasize consciousness and equate this uh Shunya, this emptiness, with actually consciousness, which is something positive. After all, um Gautama Siddhartha goes into his meditation and comes out as a positive Buddha, enlightened one, one of an enlightened intellect, you know. So it's not an emptiness, it's not a nothingness, it's not an No, emptiness, bandlessness.

SPEAKER_00 34:38

I mean, Tik Nakhan, the great Vietnamese Zen teacher, prefers to use the word bandlessness rather than emptiness. That's it that can be very useful. Uh everything is useful in a provisional way.

unknown 34:52

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 34:52

But it's everything is provisional, even our bousness or our emptiness.

SPEAKER_03 34:56

What do you think some of the uh some of the misunderstandings are uh from people who are not Buddhists about Buddhism?

SPEAKER_00 35:09

Yeah, this is a very good question. The first thing is I think uh the main under misunderstanding is that Buddhism is a very selfish uh spiritual practice, that Buddhism Buddhists seek their own liberation and enlightenment and reject the world. This is entirely mistaken. And maybe it emerges out of a misreading of the Theravadan approach, but I emphasize this is also a misreading of the Theravadan approach. Uh Buddhism is seen as selfish, uh looking after the self. The Mahayana, I think, is a good corrective to that within Buddhism, where the great vehicle, the Mahayana, is seeking the welfare of all sentient beings. I also think that um I think Hinduism gets this too. There's an understanding either that it's polytheistic, which is a mistake, or that it is atheistic, which it is, but it also is not. Yes, yes.

SPEAKER_03 36:15

Well, uh, you're absolutely correct. Um the biggest problem, and uh Hindus don't help this either, because when you say, Oh, we have so many gods, you know. I think there's a the story of uh a Muslim and a Hindu friend, they're friends, and they're having this argument whose God is better, you know, and they have the challenge, we'll jump off a building and we'll both pray. And uh so uh if uh if I survive, then my God's true, obviously. And if you uh get damaged, then you know, it speaks for itself. Anyway, the Hindu gets badly hurt, he ends up in hospital, and the Muslim is saved, you know. And so the Muslim says, You see, I told you Allah's true, and uh, what happened? And the Hindu said, Well, well, I jumped off the building, but before I landed, I hadn't even uh finished my prayers to oh my god, you know. Very good. Very good. So uh but of course it is not, it's a pluralistic religion. It says so many ways, there are many ways, thousands of ways, and uh it depends on your particular concept and your particular approach, and so there's a democracy within it, so that's really misunderstood. And if people read our scriptures properly, our fundamental scriptures are the Vedas, and of that we have the philosophical portion is the Upanishads, and the Upanishads really are called Vedanta, the end or the finality or the final conclusions, dealing with what we might call freedom moksha. And so uh what what might be called in Buddhism Nirvana. But uh again, the philosophy is quite clear, and I think this is true in Zen too. We're not aiming for anything because we already have it, it's already here, you know, and we just have to tune into it and remove the obstacles, really, is what we call spiritual endeavor. But um how we do it, well, you see, so many so many different ways. It's democratic in the sense that your way is true. I have no reason to doubt that. At the fundamental level, your way is true. Um, even the most obscure parts ultimately, because we feel that there's a kind of a push from within as well as a pull from outside. There is a natural gravitation, if you will, toward our own nature, our own fundamental spiritual nature.

SPEAKER_00 38:53

Well, we need others to do this. Yes, absolutely. Yeah, yeah. I mean, we we we tap the egg, we're like the chick that tops the egg from the inside, and we need the mother hen to tap the head egg from the outside.

SPEAKER_03 39:05

Yeah. Well, coming to that, uh in your biography, I saw your lineage. I didn't want to bring it out because it's very complicated. But um what is the importance in both our our religions, if you want to call both our approaches, the idea of guru is in fact that's a characteristic of so-called Dharmic religions. And so uh, from the Zen point of view, how significant is that lineage, if you want to uh lineage are the flesh and blood and bones of the Buddha.

SPEAKER_00 39:42

Uh lineage is uh is important. Uh a teacher without a uh a lineage isn't an authentic teacher in our tradition. Um so the master student, teacher-student relationship is absolutely central. Um we we don't use the word guru. Um uh there's a great other, like for example, in Tibetan Buddhism, there's more of a sense of of guru. Uh, but there is a Zen is very earthy in its approach, it likes to emphasize the humanity of the teacher as well as of the student.

SPEAKER_02 40:22

Yes.

SPEAKER_03 40:23

So well, if I could just interject a little bit, uh I am allergic to the word guru. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, even because it has come with baggage over the years from the 1960s already, and I much prefer the phrase competent teacher. And uh there are qualifications traditionally for that. Sorry, you go ahead. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 40:47

Oh no, so the um so uh I can trace my uh my lineage 96 uh generations back to Shakyamuni uh Buddha. My teacher is Taigu, uh Taigu uh Tulor, he's a French national based in in Osaka. His teacher was Choto Cross, his teacher was uh Nishijima Roshi, his teacher was Rempo Niwa Zenji, the 77th abbot of Heiji, the head monastery of Soto Zen in western Japan. And it goes back and back and back and back, and it goes back to uh Ananda, it goes back to uh Mahakashyapa, who was the first heir from Shakyamuni Buddha, and before Buddha, there are we say seven Buddhas before Buddha, but we really, if you count them the six, because Buddha Shakyamuni is the seventh, yeah, yeah. Uh and and then in so lineage in in this kalpa, in this realm of existence, is the one I'm referring to. But every Buddha, every uh universe within the multi-universe, and every field and every Kalpa or age has its own Buddha. So the Buddha of this age and this universe is Shakyamuni Buddha. And of the incalculable other universes and ages, there are many, many other Buddhas. And this is a very Mahayana understanding. Theravada emphasizes the historical Buddha and the primordial Buddha, which all others are a manifestation of, is Varachana Buddha.

SPEAKER_03 42:28

So going back to an earlier thing that I mentioned, I I think I began it, but I didn't conclude my thought, and that was you see the Upanishads Divedanta, where uh there is a particular Upanishad called the Brithranik Upanishad. Aranika means a huge forest, huge forest. And uh so the question is asked to one of the sages how many are the deities? And uh in typical teasing fashion, the respondent gives a certain number, but they're categories. Not being a satisfactory answer, the questioner goes again and again and again, eventually comes out as one, you see. But people don't read that and interpret that as you know uh polytheism, and they don't don't bother to go to these original texts. So in terms of this competent teacher, yes, this uh lineage, I often describe it like this because of our own lineage, by the way, goes back to to Ramakrishna, who's the the uh uh a mystic of the nineteenth century, if you call it like that. We have a lovely photograph of him, don't we? Yes, I'm sure we do. Yes, yes. I I think so. But but um oh we have we have a number of photos all the photos of him, he is in a state of ecstasy. But um of course The monastic tradition will go back to Puri, the Puri tradition, which goes back is part of the Shankaracharya tradition. And that goes back to the let's say, we don't know, but let's say eighth century of the current era. But his teachers go back, go back, go back. So that is why Swami Virkananda, the Parliament religion, says that we are the most ancient monastic tradition in the world. And part of that monastic tradition would have been the Sangha that Buddha would have founded, you know. So it goes way, way, way back because the order of sannyasins goes back, we we would say some in this, as you say, in this era, in this cycle, or part of the cycle to uh to about 10,000, uh about 10,000 years ago, more probably, but I don't know. Swami, how how is the Buddha seen within uh within your tradition? That's a good question, because in contrast to Buddhists who don't really see Buddha as a deity, we see Buddha as a deity. So we see Buddha as an incarnation. Now the theology of incarnation says that it comes from what we are calling the cosmic mind. Philosophy calls it Heranya Garbha, a golden womb, from which a womb, yes, yes. But we also would say in contemporary language, it's the cosmic Christ, it's the cosmic logos, it's the cosmic Buddha, we also say. So that means that the cosmic balancing power from age to age manifests itself, something like the bodhisattva idea, manifests it itself from age to age in order to where there is a dharma in in our understanding of the word. For us, dharma comes from a rudder, which means to hold things together in harmony. So when there is obvious disharmony in an era, the cosmic mind manifests itself in order to establish dharma again, re-establish it. And in our line of uh avatars or incarnations, uh we register Buddha as one of them.

SPEAKER_00 46:16

Now is Buddha an incarnation, is he the is he another incarnation of of, for example, Krishna in a different time? No.

SPEAKER_03 46:26

No, he's well, he's the same incarnation. So the same incarnation comes as Rama, as Krishna, as uh Buddha, as Jesus, and that's that's our understanding of it. Now, I have to put a caveat there, it's not a universal understanding in Hinduism, it is a particular understanding because uh here sectarianism comes in. The Shaivites, for example, don't have this concept of incarnation, and so you can't teach that there. In our view, personally, and it's a personal view, uh, there are modern incarnations too, you know, and these are unlimited because, as you know, the world becomes shaky continuously and it requires adjustment, and we see this in nature, that nature has this capacity to adjust, it's continuously in this flux of adjustment and a balancing thing, and nature's doing it. The uh exclusive property of humans is that we have the capacity to transform discord into harmony and we follow the ideal uh ideals of that, the perfect perfect ideals of that, that do it in an expert way. And one of those would be Buddha, you see. So uh we are honor not just honor Buddha, we worship Buddha actually. And that's I think a difference. Uh you might won't find in effect some Buddhists would would would do it and say we we don't think, you know, we Buddha's not a god to us, but in reality they're behaving as if it it is. In any event, it's a perfect ideal. And we can only find these perfect ideals in human form, because how else would you conceive of it? Um puts it this way if we were fish, we'd have a fish god. If we were buffaloes, we'd have a buffalo god. You know, we're humans, we have to have a human god.

SPEAKER_01 48:34

That's it, you know.

SPEAKER_03 48:36

But of course, that's that's just an avenue providing us with a certain way of mobilizing our emotions. And that process is bhakti yoga, is the the process of devotion. And so we become dualists when we do that, but with this provision, and that is that when we uh become united as it were to the ideal, what we might call a mystic union, what presents itself is pure jnana knowledge, and that knowledge is purely non-dualistic.

SPEAKER_00 49:16

Yeah, no, it's interesting. I mean, within Buddhism, Upaya is a very important, particularly in Mahayana Buddhism, uh, Upaya skillful means is very important. So in the Lotus Sutra, for example, uh a teacher, a guide is bringing a group of people towards liberation on a journey, and they get very tired, and he evokes uh he evokes an emerald city and said, This is our destination. But it's an illusion. And once they have had time to rest within the emerald city, then he says, We can go on. So this skillful means this upaya is is seems to be central to both our traditions, actually.

unknown 49:55

Yes.

SPEAKER_03 49:56

And uh uh of course if you talk of Maha uh Gakshapa, yeah uh really goes back to a root that means a to uh a tortoise. Ah kashyapa, we say. Kashapa, it's a long eh? Kash and then uh it's a short, yeah. Kashapa, isn't it? Yeah. So uh Kashapa and Maha, of course, is a great, so a great tortoise is also the name of a caste, but it's also the name of a sage in Hinduism as well. So uh why tortoise? Why would that derivation be there? Well, there's a tantric aspect of Hinduism that uses the tortoise as a symbol, um, and the symbol really is the symbol of uh, I suppose, harmony and balance and those kinds of qualities, you know.

SPEAKER_00 50:52

Being at home everywhere.

SPEAKER_03 50:54

Yes, exactly. It's all all good. Um I don't want to extend this too long. I it's been a delightful conversation, but we might wish to extend this to another session.

SPEAKER_00 51:09

What do you think? Yes, yes, yes. Uh it would be a great pleasure. Uh I I think we're only getting going, Swami. We're only getting started. Yeah, I think we haven't even discussed either uh Rhodesian or uh or Indian cricket uh yet.

SPEAKER_03 51:26

So I think there's a lot a lot for us to say. I think in particular we haven't really touched on most people view the world uh in a in a kind of negative, pessimistic way. The the world has always had wars and troubles and difficulties, that's the point. There's always had been adharma in the world. And is our approach uh a kind of panacea? You already touched on this idea of karma, and so we don't have to worry about um a certain theological problem, which is the problem of suffering or the problem of um yeah, problem of suffering. If there's a compassion of God, you know, why is there suffering? Why we could have made a better world ourselves. You know, why did he why is all this? So we have some logical answers really to some of these kinds of questions, you know, uh, in terms of and uh it's not just logical, but I think we can provide good evidences also of our approach as well, you know. Um so there's a lot of things that we haven't touched on. Perhaps we should schedule another time for uh Yeah, um absolutely.

SPEAKER_00 52:52

Um the um so I'm traveling, I'm off to China next week for the uh United Nations Vesak. So which Vesak is a very important Buddhist festival. Uh it relates probably because it's its timing is is calculated by the moon. It I'm sure it's that, sorry. It relates, I'm sure, to a Hindu festival. Yes, what date is that?

SPEAKER_03 53:18

Well it varies the 5th of May, is it?

SPEAKER_00 53:21

Yes, it's in late May. Yes, yes. So actually it's not next week I'm going, it's the 23rd of May. So uh around 25th, 26th of May, they're marking Vesak. That's it, that's it.

SPEAKER_03 53:34

Now you see, yeah, in our tradition we would have celebrated Buddha's birthday on the first of May. And normally I put out a thought in prayer, but I thought I'm gonna leave it till the twenty-fifth, actually, in connection with Buddha, that is.

SPEAKER_00 53:48

Yeah. And just to complicate things, in the Japanese schools of Buddhism, we s we we don't celebrate Vesak at all. We have uh the birthday uh in April, we have his death in February, and we have his enlightenment in December. Whereas in Vesak, they've all been brought together.

SPEAKER_03 54:06

No, the idea of first of May was it is a full first full moon. I think it's celebrated in Nepal as not only the birth of Buddha, but also his enlightenment.

SPEAKER_00 54:18

Right. So but first of May is very important in lots of cultures. In Irish culture, it's Baltana. And Baltana is one of the beginning of summer, is it?

SPEAKER_03 54:28

Yes.

SPEAKER_00 54:28

Yes, it's one of the four main Celtic festivals of ancient Ireland. Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 54:32

Yeah, yeah, yeah. One uh question which was kind of on our agenda, and that is um, how did you, and I'll extend this to me, how did the both of us orient it toward our current uh traditions um away from probably common traditions that we have? And I think we might save that for another day. But um thank you so much for uh this very interesting and wonderful conversation. And I hope people learn from it more about uh Buddhism, particularly Zen Buddhism and that approach, and particularly about the work that you're doing in Dublin and in Ireland as such, you know. And I think this is important work. And I think these leading dialogues are important things because we can only really get uh some kind of communal understanding, human understanding, just through talking, you know.

SPEAKER_00 55:31

Yes, it's uh it's very important to talk to our friends and our so-called enemies. Uh it's important to talk to everybody.

SPEAKER_01 55:40

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 55:41

All good. All right, good. Thank you, Swami. Thank you. I look forward to let's meet again. Fantastic. All good, thank you.