The Frame


Antaiji Temple in Japan was long associated with Kodo Sawaki Roshi. He was abbot there at one time.

Antaiji has a winter session. This is the last talk that was given during that session.

Sabine Timoteo in the "bird cage"


The poem she reads at the beginning is by Jacques Prevert. It is a slightly different translation than this.


First paint a cage
with an open door
then paint
something pretty
something simple
something beautiful
something useful
for the bird
then place the canvas against a tree
in a garden
in a wood
or in a forest
hide behind the tree
without speaking
without moving…
Sometimes the bird comes quickly
but he can just as well spend long years
before deciding
Don’t get discouraged
wait years if necessary
the swiftness or slowness of the coming
of the bird having no rapport
with the success of the picture
When the bird comes
if he comes
observe the most profound silence
wait till the bird enters the cage
and when he has entered
gently close the door with a brush
paint out all the bars one by one
taking care not to touch any of the feathers of the bird
Then paint the portrait of the tree
choosing the most beautiful of its branches
for the bird
paint also the green foliage and the wind’s freshness
the dust of the sun
and the noise of insects in the summer heat
and then wait for the bird to decide to sing
If the bird doesn’t sing
it’s a bad sign
a sign that the painting is bad
but if he sings it’s a good sign
a sign that you can sign
so then so gently you pull out
one of the feathers of the bird
and you write yours name in a corner of the picture

– Jacques Prevert, translated by Lawrence Ferlinghetti

Brad Warner’s “There is no God and He is Always With You”–an incomplete review, notes and rambling

I started writing this a few months ago. Then I had other things to do. It’s too much work for me to complete it as the book is OK but not great and I’ve got a lot of work to do right now.

I likely wouldn’t have read it if the publisher hadn’t sent it to me. Probably wouldn’t have bought it either because I don’t give much of a fuck about God concepts. I think they’re crutches at best and obstacles in general. But it was interesting enough to merit +4K words. So fathom that paradox.

The Review Part of This Post. Also Called The First Part of This Post.

This part is to satisfy the requirement of the email “contract” with the publisher to review this book in exchange for a copy of it.

There is no God and he is Always With You is Brad Warner’s latest book. The reviews so far, some of which are listed at the bottom of this post, are pretty good. Having read them it leaves me wondering what is left to say that has not already been said review-wise. (Plenty actually) So I’ve decided to give the book the “close read” treatment and this post will be mostly to respond to some of the matters brought up within the book.

There’s stuff I liked about the book and stuff I didn’t like.

In short form, I’m taking this from some of his blog posts about the book because they are summaries of some of the positions presented in the book. Note that emphasis. I’ll get to some of the specifics of the actual book in the second part of this post. [OK no I won’t but will discuss the concepts broadly in the third part of this post]

Who the book is for? Brad writes in this blog post, NE Tour Summary & Who I Wrote My New Book For:

So maybe I wrote the book for people who wondered if there might be another way to look at this idea of God apart from True Believers who insist their view of God is the only one and True Non-believers who insist that anyone who believes in God is stupid. After going away from the book I’d like my hypothetical reader to know that there is another way and to understand that she can experience God for herself outside of belief or non-belief….

OK that’s not me. But even though it isn’t a book for me, sometimes it’s good to read such things because it forces one to clarify one’s own viewpoint and objections. That’s often a useful exercise.  I personally don’t care about God-concepts in any form because they tend to get in the way of dealing with life. I do find them interesting in terms of their power, like any ideological construction, to influence people and societies however.

From the same blog post.

I feel like Zen Buddhism has allowed me a way to approach the subject of spirituality without having to view it through the lens of religious dogma and belief. Zazen offers a chance to quietly experience for oneself the deeper layers of human experience both spiritual and not-so-spiritual.

This is the ideology of “no religion”. There is no ideology (religion) here. God-concepts are ideology, non-god concepts are ideology, modified God-concepts are ideology. For ideology we might also use the word “imaginaries”, that is the specific contents of consciousness, collectively or individually. We all have imaginaries. Some of them include God concepts and some of them don’t.

[I’m referencing the word imaginaries in two ways. First in the sense that philosopher Charles Taylor used it in On Social Imaginary [full text] which derives it from Habermas as it pertains to society but also in the Lacanian sense, as it pertains to an individual, not as a fiction but as an ideal construction that has real effects and therefore is very much is or is a part of or at least impinging upon the “real” in Baudrillardian terms or rather like virtuality in Deleuzean terms. I dedicate that sentence to obscuritanist aficionados everywhere. :-D]

Too often in works about God and religion, religion is never defined. I couldn’t find any sort of definition for religion in this book so I don’t know what the author is referring to. It’s some taken-for-granted thing that floats about like a balloon and everybody thinks they know what it means but few ever define it. If they do it’s usually from a reductive perspective that projects a narrow version drawn from a limited experience or exposure on to the entire subject.  It’s like saying “I hate fruit” having only eaten raspberries in childhood. I will write about definitions of religion and the “special case” of Buddhism in the next part.

From the blog post What Do Most People Believe About God?

I was kind of excited when I saw Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion. Because I thought it was going to be a scientific look at why human beings believe in God. I thought he’d go into the evolution of religious thought or the neurological research into how and why human beings started creating religions in the first place. I though it might talk about why religion was apparently selected by evolution as a useful trait in human beings. It seems to have been strongly favored by evolution. All societies have some kind of religion. Why? Evolution only selects what helps an organism survive and reproduce. How does religion do that? That is interesting to me.

All that stuff is the realm of Religious Studies and/or sociology and/or anthropology, not Dawkins field of expertise which is biology. Also neurology is not biology. There’s no reason for a biologist to know anything about socio-cultural structures that are based on shared ideologies. Religion is not an evolutionary trait. Eye color is an evolutionary trait.

The publisher’s material sent with the book included a quote from Publishers’ Weekly:

Buddhism has long enjoyed baffling ‘crazy wisdom’ teachers and paradoxical koans, and Warner’s punk iconoclasm fits in nicely.”

That’s a fairly common viewpoint about Brad it seems, and it is to some extent true regarding his reported lifestyle, him not being an uber-capitalist type etc [which I will address near the end of this post], but in terms of teachings and the doctrine/commentary he presents to the public in his books, on his blog, on social media and in video talks [I have read/seen ALL of them] it’s pretty conservative stuff. Not much deviation from the official line. Dogen, for example, is presented at face value. It’s not really anything like ‘crazy wisdom’ but pretty straightforward Shobogenzo based Soto Zen Buddhism.

In this book he compares and contrasts various Christian motifs to Buddhist ideas to demonstrate their similarities and more importantly their differences. It’s a recounting of sorts of the development of his own Buddhist education. That could be useful for some people.

One thing I did enjoy a lot was the travel stories throughout the book. He writes very vivid portraits of the places he’s been and the people he’s met. There’s a lot of detail and it’s quite lively writing. The writing about Dogen is pretty interesting and it’s clear Brad has done a lot of study of Dogen. The writing about Christianity seems a little forced sometimes. The discussions of the New Atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris) cover what is common knowledge about them (Harris meditates for example) and the criticisms of them are the usual ones they are often subject to.

The ideas are not that well organized and some of it is repetitive because of that, but the majority of it is interesting reading.

That is my review.

Now the rest of the response to Brad’s argument as contained in the book.

The Close Reading of the Book Part of This Post. Also Called The Second Part of This Post.

These are notes I started to take as I read the book. They are impressions, points of interest, things that made me raise my eyebrows, things I disagree with and things I liked. Take it as you will. Once I’ve completed these, I will discuss the main point of the book, the God and Religion part. It will be comprehensive. There is another small issue regarding transcendence and immanence which I’m tempted to discuss here but I already have another post in the works on it, so will incorporate some comments about Brad’s book in that one on that particular subject.

[The notes will not be comprehensible to most people so I’m excluding them]

The God and Religion Part of This Post. Also Called the Third Part of This Post.

Definitions for the God and Religion Part

Maybe I should have phrased that subtitle the other way since I’m going to start with the religion part and then tackle God. [I’ll probably hurt him when I do.]

I’m putting a bunch of quotes of other people and only a little commentary because they’ve said it better than I could.

Here’s a bunch of stuff about ideology and religion and philosophy. It’s a soup. Terms need to be defined. Brad doesn’t do much of that in the book but for taking a run at the term god and even then it’s either transcendental or immanent or something in between or both. Reads like a rendering of Nagarjuna’s methodology.


  1. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader
  2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices 
  3. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion


  1. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory
  2. Any system of belief, values, or tenets
  3. A system of values by which one lives


  1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena
  2. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment
  3. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.



  1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
  2.  A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

A definition of ideology which is pretty close to what I go with:

– a set of explicit and implicit, even unspoken, ethico-political and other positions, decision, choices, etc., which predetermine our perception of facts, what we tend to emphasize or to ignore, how we organize facts into a consistent whole of a narrative or a theory.

~Slavoj Žižek in Some Bewildered Clarifications

Also important to the discussion of ideology is values. Here’s a take I agree with.

Values have a history.  It is this history which produces them as values.  One of the effects of ideology is to mask the fact that abstract values are born out of immanent historical and material conditions.

~Value, Genealogy, and the Task of Philosophy on Fuck Theory blog.

In the second lecture, Circumscription of the Topic, of the series of lectures that makes up his The Varieties of Religious Experience [free, multiple formats], William James writes:

Religion, therefore, as I now ask you arbitrarily to take it, shall mean for us THE FEELINGS, ACTS, AND EXPERIENCES OF INDIVIDUAL MEN IN THEIR SOLITUDE, SO FAR AS THEY APPREHEND THEMSELVES TO STAND IN RELATION TO WHATEVER THEY MAY CONSIDER THE DIVINE. Since the relation may be either moral, physical, or ritual, it is evident that out of religion in the sense in which we take it, theologies, philosophies, and ecclesiastical organizations may secondarily grow…

~ p. 42-43 (pagination is from a print edition)

As far as definitions of religion go that one is broader than most. The concept of divine though is pretty loaded and something of a value judgment.

We escape much controversial matter by this arbitrary definition of our field. But, still, a chance of controversy comes up over the word "divine," if we take the definition in too narrow a sense. There are systems of thought which the world usually calls religious, and yet which do not positively assume a God. Buddhism is in this case. Popularly, of course, the Buddha himself stands in place of a God; but in strictness the Buddhistic system is atheistic. Modern transcendental idealism, Emersonianism, for instance, also seems to let God evaporate into abstract Ideality. Not a deity in concreto, not a superhuman person, but the immanent divinity in things, the essentially spiritual structure of the universe, is the object of the transcendentalist cult. In that address to the graduating class at Divinity College in 1838 which made Emerson famous, the frank expression of this worship of mere abstract laws was what made the scandal of the performance.

~ p. 42-43 (pagination is from a print edition)

That he mentions Buddhism as well as both the transcendental and the immanent perspectives is useful. I will touch on this briefly now but discuss the whole dichotomy in another post.

Brad rejects the religious label for Buddhism yet accepts the god label. My viewpoint is the opposite in that I accept the religious label for Buddhism [religion somewhat defined above] and reject the god label.

This is the same kind of argument people use when they talk about “culture”. “Those people over there have culture but we don’t.” The spiritual but not religious thing has been discussed to death so I don’t want to take it up. The rejection is either one of rejection of superstition, rejection of alien cultural form (with all it’s implicit racism), rejection of alternate values, rejection of institution, rejection of personal historical trauma by projecting that elsewhere, and a bunch of other things. More often it’s a knee-jerk reaction to one’s own received knowledge concept of what religion is done without investigation or necessary critique to make it a rational choice. The statement “spiritual but not religious” is irrational in the extreme in that way.

Here’s a good point that I agree with.

From sociologist Robert Bellah in an interview in Tricycle magazine (HT Rev. Danny Fisher for posting the pointer on FB):

"The way ‘spirituality’ is often used suggests that we exist solely as a collection of individuals, not as members of a religious community, and that religious life is merely a private journey. It is the religious expression of the ideology of free-market economics and of the radical ‘disencumbered’ individualism that idolizes the choice-making individual as the prime reality in the world."

~The Future of Religion

Yeah that.

Whatever then were most primal and enveloping and deeply true might at this rate be treated as godlike, and a man’s religion might thus be identified with his attitude, whatever it might be, toward what he felt to be the primal truth. Such a definition as this would in a way be defensible. Religion, whatever it is, is a man’s total reaction upon life, so why not say that any total reaction upon life is a religion? Total reactions are different from casual reactions, and total attitudes are different from usual or professional attitudes. To get at them you must go behind the foreground of existence and reach down to that curious sense of the whole residual cosmos as an everlasting presence, intimate or alien, terrible or amusing, lovable or odious, which in some degree everyone possesses. This sense of the world’s presence, appealing as it does to our peculiar individual temperament, makes us either strenuous or careless, devout or blasphemous, gloomy or exultant, about life at large; and our reaction, involuntary and inarticulate and often half unconscious as it is, is the completest of all our answers to the question, "What is the character of this universe in which we dwell?" It expresses our individual sense of it in the most definite way.

~p. 45 James

Primal truth=numinous.

Numinous, taken from the Latin Numen, and used by some to describe the power or presence of a divinity. The word was popularised in the early twentieth century by the German theologian Rudolf Otto in his influential book Das Heilige(1917; translated into English as The Idea of the Holy, 1923). According to Otto, the numinous experience has in addition to the tremendum, which is the tendency to invoke fear and trembling, a quality of fascinans, the tendency to attract, fascinate and compel. The numinous experience also has a personal quality, in that the person feels to be in communion with a wholly other. The numinous experience can lead in different cases to belief in deities, the supernatural, the sacred, the holy and/or the transcendent.

~abridged from the Wikipedia entry for Numinous

Rudolph Otto was one of the guys who did a lot of writing about the numinous. 

Otto was one of the most influential thinkers about religion in the first half of the twentieth century. He is best known for his analysis of the experience that, in his view, underlies all religion. He calls this experience "numinous," and says it has three components. These are often designated with a Latin phrase: mysterium tremendum et fascinans. As mysterium, the numinous is "wholly other"– entirely different from anything we experience in ordinary life. It evokes a reaction of silence. But the numinous is also a mysterium tremendum. It provokes terror because it presents itself as overwhelming power. Finally, the numinous presents itself as fascinans, as merciful and gracious.

Outline of Otto’s concept of the numinous

"Mysterium tremendum et fascinans" (fearful and fascinating mystery):

  • "Mysterium": Wholly Other, experienced with blank wonder, stupor
  • "tremendum":
    • awefulness, terror, demonic dread, awe, absolute unapproachability, "wrath" of God
    • overpoweringness, majesty, might, sense of one’s own nothingness in contrast to its power
    • creature-feeling, sense of objective presence, dependence
    • energy, urgency, will, vitality
  • "fascinans": potent charm, attractiveness in spite of fear, terror, etc.

~from Rudolf Otto’s Concept of the "Numinous"

Even the New Atheists give credence to the idea of the numenous. The numenous is to be distinguished from the supernatural. See video here:


I don’t care for any of these guys because they all became so infatuated with themselves they became insufferable, but in the discussion here, from 6 years ago they’re not so bad. I agree with a lot of what is said in the first 5 minutes, but a lot of the rest is bullshit [another post I don’t have time for].

Calling the numenous “god” isn’t necessary and I don’t think it’s even helpful. I think it obscures more than clarifies.

I was reading quite an analysis of some poetry not long ago and came upon some terms that seemed to me helpful in delineating the numinous experience from the ordinary experience.

Shifting experience from Erlebnis, to Erfahrung

… German, which distinguishes between Erlebnis – or experience as the undergoing of events, one’s mere capacity to register what happens – and Erfahrung – or experience in the emphatic sense, experience from which it is possible to learn and perhaps gain wisdom.It is the latter that Benjamin thinks is destroyed in modernity – and it is no doubt this that Agamben has in mind when he claims that modern man [sic!] is wearied by a jumble of events that cannot be translated into experience.

~Matthew Abbot, The Poetry of Destroyed Experience in 3AM magazine

The first instance is what a lot of Buddhism has become in the context of dominant global culture. Meaningless. It leads to special case Buddhism or Buddhist exceptionalism. Rev. Danny Fisher has a superb post that deals with this.  Rejecting Scientistic and Post-Religious Buddhism

Try to think of the Kalama Sutra as a plea for rational thought rather than either rejection of anything other than the personal phenomenology or an anti-fundamentalist critique of blind faith. I don’t think it’s either of those. 

Or in other words:

credere est cum assensu cogitare
“to believe is to think with assent”

~Thomas Aquinas

Some other reviews online:

Book Review: ‘There is No God and he is Always With You’ by Brad Warner by Tanya McGinnity on Full Contact Enlightenment blog

Review: There Is No God and He Is Always With You by Barbara O’Brien on

A Review of Brad Warner’s There is No God by James Ford on Monkey Mind

Brad Warner’s book by Adam Fisher on Genkaku Again

Reviews and discussion from the Treeleaf Forum

Reviews of There is No God and He is Always With You on Goodreads


Statement of Disclosure and Some Comments About Publishers:

The publisher sent me this book for free to review. They asked me to review it. I did not request a review copy. I agreed because I find Brad’s perspective interesting in general even if I don’t agree with portions of it.

Brad doesn’t have a big organization with a publicity department and a cadre of volunteers to raise funds and he makes a living from what he writes, unlike many other Buddhist teachers who have other, often lucrative professions such as being psychologists or college professors or doctors or magazine editors (yes lucrative compared to waiting tables at a truck stop for example), or well heeled friends in Silicon Valley or at the Oprah show or Davos, nor does he have a spouse (as far as I know, haven’t inquired about that, not my business really, though I think he’d make it known if that were the case) who works to help supplement his income and share expenses so he can write books and make music and art, etc.

Also I appreciate Brad’s anti-capitalist approach to his work, and his dharma practice, even if he has not characterized it in that political kind of way. He does what he does, and if people like it they support it. What he makes goes back into doing what he does rather than buying himself a gilded temple, a couple of Harley motorcycles, a tropical “retreat" spa and meditation center and cultivating a bunch of slathering sycophantic followers. That’s pretty fucking hard to do anywhere and that he does it in Los Angeles is both humorous and makes quite a point if people bother to pay attention to that. It is the same kind of ethic that Henry Rollins uses for his work. He’s not stepping on anyone smaller to make his way in the world, not using people by proffering unrealistic dreams to fill his bank account, not setting himself up as somebody else’s authority. It’s trying to conduct one’s economic affairs symbiotically rather than parasitically. It’s an ethic that goes back to the DIY punk days (and much further back really). So I’ve got some respect for that.

Publishers. Well. I’ve had enough of them.

This is the last book I’m going to review at a publisher’s behest. I’m tired of publishers and their representatives (not only this one but many others) thinking bloggers are their own personal army of free labor just sitting around waiting to do free advertising for them. We’re not. Ease off on the demanding emails.

Some publishers give locked down, time limited, access to un-proof-read books and demand a review be written in the 2 week timeslot they allot. You can’t even copy/paste from these if you want to include a quote of your choice. Some fill your inbox with pages and pages of copy, complete with interviews and talking points to cut and paste into a blog like you’re just supposed to copy it all and stamp “Good” on it. Sorry I’m not your stenographer (unlike the mainstream press). If you just want people to write what you say when you say and mostly regurgitate your copy, pay them. If bloggers have got an audience it is because we have taken the time to develop that. If bloggers have any integrity or believability it is because we don’t simply regurgitate other’s talking points but write original works with original thoughts and often a fair bit of research. So no, you are not doing us a favor by offering books for review. We are doing you a favor if we agree to review one of your books. In this case I consider that I’m doing Brad, not the publisher, a favor.

And no, a free book is not the same as pay. A $15 (retail—wholesale is considerably less) book doesn’t even cover the cost of the time it takes to read the book. If it’s a book you don’t particularly like it’s even worse. Some I’ve been sent I could barely even get through as they were tripe. Didn’t bother doing a review after those and declined works from those particular publishers. Now I’m declining solicited reviews from all publishers. Not a member of your personal PR corps.

I’ll still do reviews when the mood strikes, on books I choose, whether I get them from the library or buy them or receive them as gifts or whatever, just not at the behest of publishers any more.

Non-directed awareness


On Facebook James Ford posted a link to an article Thoughts on Not Thinking about Non-thinking. I have a few comments on it and somewhat related issues.

This is a good explanation of the not versus non-thinking aspect of meditation. Non-directed thinking does not mean you go brain dead. As the author writes:

Last year, for the first time, I heard a different interpretation. It goes like this: “Non-thinking” is not superior to either thinking or not thinking. Instead, they are all necessary, all simultaneously-functioning aspects of mind in zazen. So zazen includes (misdirected) direction of thought. It includes the decision to try not to pursue that directed thought. And it includes a state of mind that isn’t concerned about whether or not to think in the first place. All are present; none are completely inside of our control, or beyond it. Right or wrong, this version is very kind, very sympathetic to the actual experience of zazen.

That is about the phenomena of thinking while doing zazen. I like this interpretation. It avoids a lot of complications that arise from people thinking “I must not be doing this right” which leads to frustration, self- or other-blame and ultimately quitting practice.

Sometimes I have encountered people who use “non-thinking” or Dogen’s “dropping body and mind” as a bludgeon for anti-intellectualism and laziness generally, not just during zazen. “You think too much.” is the refrain there. These “purists” assume that to have any thought at all at any time is a mistake. Such folks are, ironically, very good at hurling tons of decontextualized quotes they’ve memorized when they are reading blog posts on the internet and somehow, without thinking, deciding to make commentary based on (non-?) comprehension of whatever point is being made. It is quite miraculous how that happens. But really this is simply suppression of consciousness or denial of thinking not undirected thinking.

There is a time for directed thought, like when you’re driving a car or teaching a class or writing an essay or arguing on the internet or cooking a meal–you have to think and analyze and judge “What’s next?” “What do I need to avoid here?” “What is my time frame?” etc. One has to notice specific things when one is doing a specific task especially if it has a specific goal.

When an activity is “goal-less” such as shikantaza there is freedom to “undirect” thoughts, that is to unbind attention from those directed thoughts (“What time is my dentist appointment?” “Will I have to go to the grocery store before dinner?” “Do these jeans make me look fat?” “Is my child being bullied at school?” “Should I quit my job?” “Will my thesis be accepted?” “What should I do with my life?” etc.) and just be fully aware.

Some equate this state of open awareness to being stoned. It’s not the same AT ALL. I have experienced both phenomenon—extensively–so it’s not just guesswork. Being stoned closes off or distorts external awareness and subsequent perceptions and directs it towards interior mental phenomenon or mental and particularly emotional reactions to external stimuli. Awareness, stimuli and perceptions are filtered through the soup of chemical cascades induced in the brain, the rest of the neurological system as a whole, as well as with chemicals from other systems such as the endocrine system which is:

…chiefly responsible for releasing hormones in response to stress through the synthesis of corticosteroids such as cortisol and catecholamines such as epinephrine (adrenaline) and norepinephrine

One’s body becomes very busy dealing with all that when one takes drugs. The body becomes weird and often uncanny (in the Freudian way-“The Uncanny” PDF full text) and one’s experience of it (startle reactions, somnolence, paranoia, body hallucination, hyper-vigilance and other psycho-physical reactions) becomes overwhelming to sense perceptions. The psychological and intellectual mechanisms we ordinarily use to make sense of sense perception then tend to go into an over productive mode. This perceptual distortion may be pleasant or even quite thrilling, but it is merely experience, and not often a very clear perception of experience. After the experience one might have memory of it and attribute all sorts of things to it, as history has shown with ergotamine in the middle ages, the ingestion of which caused witchcraft panics, or Huxley’s doors of perception, etc. We interpret these experiences based on our personalities, learning, culture, fantasies, psychological make up, environment and inclinations. Same as any other experience. All perceptual experience is conditioned.

If one believes that such means has spiritual or even shamanic efficacy then that is the interpretation that will follow. Something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. That’s why I don’t believe that entheogens are the best way to go if clarity of awareness is your goal. It adds an extra layer that has to be interpreted.

There are some teachers who advise against drug taking, but have not had such experiences so their advice sounds a lot like moralizing or at least a little bit self-righteous in the moral-purity department. There are some who also start invoking precepts etc. Also moralizing. I disagree with moralizing on just about anything. Moralizing is oppressive and more about control of others than anything else. (Ethics is a different story. Moralizing is about purity. Ethics is about justice. That distinction is a whole post in itself though so I won’t elucidate further.) If you want to see what happens when you take drugs, do some and find out. But know what you are getting into. It can be very deceptive. There may be unanticipated consequences. You may not want to go that far because of legal or other issues like the impurity of sources. In that case just watch yourself get drunk some time. Note the point when your reaction time slows, your speech is difficult, when you start crying about your old high school crush,  when you spill your drink all over your shirt or when you vomit on the bathroom floor because you missed the toilet. Try to be clearly aware at that point. Try to understand the spiritual lesson from that. Different bodily reactions than some drugs sure (all drugs react differently), but it’s the same idea—your body and consciousness try to compensate and often overcompensate for the perceptual distortions.

Unbinding from directed thinking has value, but so does thinking, day dreaming, imagining, sleeping, creating, enjoying and every other state of mind. Some are of more value than others at different times depending on what you are doing. It is a question of the appropriate state of mind for the activity in question.

An interesting benefit to this I notice is that when you become aware of the process of “undirecting” and practice it on a regular basis (not necessarily in formal meditation, but that is the best way to access this ability initially IMO) your ability to direct thought and avoid mis-direction in other circumstances gets a lot sharper.

At least that has been my experience.

Myoshinji disavows Eido Shimano

On December 19th the Myoshinji Rinzai Zen Temple organization issued this statement in both English and Japanese:

"Myōshin-ji has received many inquiries regarding its relationship with the Zen Studies Society in New York ever since the publication on 20 August 2010 of an article in the New York Times regarding the behavior of the Society’s former director, Eidō Shimano.

On the occasion of establishing the Zen Studies Society, Eidō Shimano stipulated that the Society was to have no relation to Myōshin-ji or any other branch of Japanese Rinzai Zen Buddhism.

As far as Myōshin-ji is concerned, all along it has had no connection with Eidō Shimano, his activities or organizations, including Dai Bosatsu Zendo and all affiliated Zen Studies Society institutions, nor is Eidō Shimano or any of his successors certified as priests of the Myōshin-ji branch of Zen or recognized as qualified teachers.

19th,Dec,2012 Myoshinji school of Rinzai Zen buddhism"

Dances with Power

I have a post in the works about rationalizations people use when confronted with ugly realities of improprieties in their beloved institutions. It’s really long and won’t be finished for a couple of more days. (That’s not a promise as I’m wrestling with it) It started with looking at the current brouhaha going on in the Sasaki situation but it became pretty clear that the issues are way bigger than that so it expanded and still needs some rewriting. There are some parallels with the Shimano situation but it’s not exactly the same. The details of these kinds of situations tend to be rather sordid so I prefer not to go into them and look at the context which allows such behavior to occur. AKA structural issues. In other words there are themes that recur and they recur with such frequency we take them as somehow normal. Normal is just another word for habitual and conditioned in the most popular fashion. So that’s in the upcoming piece as well.

In the meantime I have been noting an interesting back and forth between Brad Warner and Grace Schireson on the Sweeping Zen site recently. The commentary that followed by many others. It has been interesting and the fallout of it pretty ugly.

Additionally Peter Schireson, husband of Grace, wrote a post related to this dialogue. Dude, you’re not as funny or as smart as you think you are. That’s all I’m going to say about his “contribution” to the discourse.

The original debate was about a very critical point. Or rather several points that have been conflated into one. Hence I think Brad and Grace are to some degree talking at cross-purposes. So here are some of the points with my brief responses. I’ll elaborate on some of them after the list.

The big question: Can there be a legitimate emotional/sexual relationship between someone in power and someone not?

My view: Possibly, but with a lot of caveats.

That brings up some tangential questions though:

  • Is it always wrong for a dharma leader to be involved with someone in their own sangha? My view: While both are in a formal teacher/student relationship there should be institutional regulations and escape mechanisms to deal with such an eventuality. And it is an eventuality in many situations. To think otherwise is to either be hopelessly naïve, morally arrogant or willfully blinkered to the human condition. The Boundless Way sangha has actually thought about that in their Code of Ethics with this clause:
  • Any priest, senior Dharma teacher or transmitted teacher who finds a romantic relationship beginning with a member of the sangha should inform the EAR Committee of this relationship and seek guidance as to the most healthful way to proceed.

    If the people involved are in a teacher-student relationship, a choice must be made between either pursuing that personal relationship or continuing the teacher-student relationship, but not both.

  • Can a woman voluntarily and of her own free will enter into a relationship with someone who is in a position of direct power over her? Yes. Caveats.
  • Should women who have been victimized by those in power over them be protected, fought for and expect justice?  Yes. I will always stand up for women who have been victimized. And I hope others would too out of compassion, empathy and solidarity.
  • Doesn’t that infantilize them to have someone else speak on their behalf? Sometimes. Depends who’s doing the “white knighting” and why. (I got on Brad’s case about infantilization in comments on his blog. I was objecting to his use of the word “girls” in a rather facetious way while referring to women who practice Zen. He recognized my objection and stated his reasons for the terminology as well as apologizing for the offense. I’m cool with that.)
  • Is this even “white knighting”? What is white knighting? Usually it’s men who jump at the chance to defend the virtue of women mostly to bolster their own sense of manhood and importance. It tends to be dismissive of the actual concerns of women in favor of what these men think is good for them. Some people, men and women, do “white knight” in situations like this. Others not. It’s exploitative when “white knighting” is done mainly to bolster the egos and sense of moral rectitude of the defenders. Righteous indignation can be such a high! We have to check pretty carefully what’s underneath that particular rock before we pick it up and throw it. I know this because I’ve been bitten a few times by what crawls out of there.
  • What constitutes victimization? Coercion. By individuals, groups, institutions, cultural and sub-cultural morays, economics, gender roles and all the other potentially oppressive factors. I have a lot to say about coercive relationships in the next post.


Let me tell you first how I come to this viewpoint. I have 4 angles of view on it. All from experience. (though activism, Buddhist practice and academic study puts it in further perspective)

  1. I have been violently sexually assaulted in my life.
  2. I have been in situations of gendered coercion.
  3. I have had, quite a few years ago, a non-coercive, fully voluntary beneficial relationship with someone 20 years my senior who was also one of my professors at university.
  4. I have been in several positions of power that I could have easily exploited sexually or otherwise had I chosen to do so.

I’m not going to give out the sordid details of any of it. But it has all been instructive.

Grace wrote a heartfelt piece A Zen Woman’s Personal Perspective On Sexual Groping, Sexual Harassment, And Other Abuses In Zen Centers. She does a good job in capturing the current zeitgeist and the oppression and abuse women face with alarming frequency. Rape culture in all of its manifestations is alive and well, even in the Zen community. Rape culture isn’t just about physical violence or forceful sexual intercourse. It is a psychological, emotional and experiential milieu of coercion, submission, shaming, belittling, dismissal,  fear and intimidation. It was all pretty familiar to me since I’ve experienced it too. Most women have. And she also covers some of the bullshit we are fed, or after while sometimes begin to feed ourselves, about the desirability of men in power, that it is the power that defines male sexuality and desirability, and to become an object of that power by any means necessary defines female sexuality, and in a larger context male-female gender relations in general. Pretty sad state of affairs. So she wrote some important things there. And she is pretty absolute in her moral opinion that under no circumstances should intimate relations develop between teachers and students. In a perfect world that would be…well, perfect. But neither Buddhist practice nor present day society requires people to become eunuchs-male or female*. Alas and alack we have to look around and see things are not always as we think they should be. So we have to deal with that. (*reference to Germaine Greer-the eunuchs of first wave feminism have moved on)

[Side Note: It is unfortunate that Grace dragged in an innocent unaffiliated woman to fling down as some kind of trophy to demonstrate moral and rhetorical superiority in her second piece where she brought up Brad’s former girlfriend, who was not a student, in an attempt to shame him for enjoying a physical relationship. Cheap shot, exploitative and sensationalist and unnecessary to make the point. Also the allusion to that in her husband’s post. Same objection.]

Some men do bad stuff like coercive sexual abuse. More often it is men because men are more often in positions of power. (one of a number of reasons why) We cannot however go so far as to declare all men “the enemy”. They’re not. I am unsure if there even are people in these situations who are “The Enemy.” There are people who are, in various combination, damaged, arrogant, ignorant, selfish, sociopathic, greedy, foolish, entitled, patriarchal, blinkered, rude, self-involved, egotistical and corrupt involved in these kinds of situations. In painting a portrait of male abusers as enemies we run the risk of using an overly broad brush thereby painting all men in the same fashion. Is this not what women, and especially feminists, object to? We also risk distorting situations to fit that enemy narrative and creating scapegoats of all kinds. Or at the very least punching bags upon whom we release our righteous anger.

That too is harm.

Further by jumping on bandwagons to rally troops under a morally righteous banner in order to fight these “enemies”, we invoke notions of superiority and particularly purity, that ultimately serve to exclude, vilify, shame and dehumanize anyone who falls in the shadow of and finally under the wheels of that juggernaut. Ultimately that will include nearly everyone. Nobody’s pure enough to drive that chariot for long. It causes a lot of collateral damage particularly when we lose focus and become blinded by our own rage.

That too is harm.

One thing I’ve always admired about Brad Warner is the transparency he brings to his public face. That’s really unusual in American Zen. The posturing is pretty absurd in that realm sometimes. (see current drama for a whole bunch of that) He might be a bit too much of a smart ass sometimes, use vernacular terminology that gets misinterpreted or not always avail himself of the wonders of Google when fact checking things but there are three things that are consistent with what he writes:his blatant honesty, his courage to put himself and his personal experience out there for scrutiny (with the consent of those he might choose to include-that’s important) and his compassion for just about anyone (except Genpo maybe). Even when I disagree with him vehemently, which is often, it’s never the case that he seems totally unreasonable, unapproachable or unwilling to examine his own position. That’s also pretty rare in American Zen where certitude and inviolability seems to rule.

It is a little dismaying to read some people’s interpretations of what Brad Warner has said. Did they even read it? There’s some serious disconnect with reality to some of the criticism. Almost hallucinatory in it’s warped portrayal. Outrage at imaginary statements is the delicious poison of the day. I’ve read pretty much everything he’s written and do not recognize those portrayals at all. Sure there are some points worth re-examining and some valid criticisms, not so much of the position he takes but perhaps about the way it has been expressed or the tone used. I don’t however see him advocating full scale Caligula inspired orgies in Zendos or anything even remotely similar.

My take on it is that people are people with real feelings and human longings. This is in contrast to those scenarios of abuse and coercion and non-consent. These are different categories of human experience and conflating them is a mistake. I think that’s a valid point and seems to be what Brad was getting at.

After Grace’s piece Brad wrote in comments:

Abuse is abuse. But not every romantic relationship between a “member of clergy” and a “congregant” is abuse. It would be wrong to make all such relationships illegal.

What is being conflated is roles and people. We are not our roles. If we get rigidly entrenched in and attached to those roles we buy into a socially contrived and supported story about ourselves, and often our own importance. Performing the role becomes the central factor in our being. That is a position that is inherently insecure and leaves someone on the defensive most of the time.We slip into and out of roles all the time. That’s our social nature.  It takes a certain amount of clarity, maturity and wisdom to delineate the differences. Zen practice, all Buddhist practice is in part about developing those abilities, though some people may have missed that page in the Big Book of Buddhism.

I’ll return to that snippet I quoted from Boundless Way that I mentioned above. It seems pretty clear to me this person/role distinction is being recognized.

If the people involved are in a teacher-student relationship, a choice must be made between either pursuing that personal relationship or continuing the teacher-student relationship, but not both.

I think there’s some amount of wisdom there. To attempt to continue in both aspects is a sure fire way to undermine both. So making all relationships “illegal” under every circumstances is not only unduly rigid and unrealistic, it also denigrates the person in favor of the role. It turns them into a shell of a human, easily replaceable by anyone who can learn the proper script. That is the kind of thinking that leads to the kinds of problems under discussion so furiously in the Zen Buddhist corner of the Internet presently.

I agree with both Grace and Brad on a lot of their points. In fact it seems some of their points overlap. That seems to beNew SVG image getting lost in the language being used.  I’m talking a Venn diagram here not a polarity.

There also seems to be a notion that there is only one version of the truth, one acceptable moral stance, one way of expressing that, and one winner out of all of it. In the mean time women who have been negatively affected are the pawns of those who wrestle for moral superiority. And other women, who report no lasting effects or damage from their interactions are similarly being ignored and dismissed.

All these women carry the truth.

To deny any of them their truth is to deny them their humanity and to choose to only view a partial picture. Partial pictures serve particular agendas. Partial pictures objectify. Everybody know how bias works.

It strikes me that from a Buddhist context, truth is a pretty primary thing, the whole truth not only the parts that we want to be true or those that serve our arguments best.

If women have entered into consensual, non-coercive relationships that have brought them benefit then we have to accept that as possible.

If women have been coerced into activity to which they did not consent and which has done harm we have to accept that as well.

In the first instance there is nothing to be done. There is little point in trying to paint a victimhood status on someone who doesn’t view themselves as a victim. There are such things as fully consenting, non-coercive, enjoyable and fulfilling relationships borne out of what may have been at some point a situation of power imbalance. Does it always have to involve exploitation? No. Does it always end badly? No.

One could say, in some circumstances, “Oh they’re just not educated in power dynamics or oppression and so forth” That would be making a big assumption, removing their agency, denying their experience and in effect doing the very thing that an alleged abuser is accused of doing. This is a very tricky area to get into. Where there is no structure in place people in the direct vicinity do the best they can in the abusive situation.There’s a reason why police or the state are often the ones to lay the charges in domestic violence or rape cases rather than the victim. There may well be a condition of denial or shock. Certain outsiders fulfill the role of surrogate victim in those instances. There is a structure, however flawed, in place for that. These surrogates are both authorized and trained to act in that capacity. Random commenters and other do-gooders, no matter how well intentioned are not.

It also strikes me that even if people somehow involved in one way or another are credentialed in some helping profession their proximity to the Zen community precludes any pretext of objectivity. Outside agencies or people without vested interests that may conflict with the best interests of those who have been harmed are the better solution to dealing with the multiplicity of harms lest it become amplified by the echo chamber.

In contrast to the voluntary, consensual relationships that happen, some people’s lives can be altered irrevocably and not for the better when on the receiving end of coercive sexual attention. This is harm. This must be recognized even if there are other cases of not-harm. Cases of not-harm do not mitigate or cancel out cases of harm. It is not a zero sum game. Harm remains until it is addressed. Some women have put their experiences out there for the public to read. Most choose not to. That is a choice that must be honored in light of harmful circumstances which did not allow choice previously.

What we also have to consider is the harm done to those who were also affected as members of a particular sangha and the mahasangha. In this case there are several men who have spoken out about their discomfort with the situation, about trying to stop what had been reported to them as abuse and about their rejection by the community for that activity of conscience. This too is denying harm by denying them their experience, their agency and their opportunity to address the harm that has come to them, not indirectly by hearing women’s stories, though certainly that would be distressing to most caring men, but harm directly administered by other members of the sangha who assisted in enabling the primary harm and silencing those who wished to stop it. In attempting to uphold certain values that are not only implicit in much of American society, but explicit in the Buddhist context, they have been belittled, shunned, shamed and had their characters assassinated.

This too is harm.