Past Life Haiku

Before this life, what?
Sitting, I see my last face:
Cartoon character

(Impression of "un loco a secas" courtesy of El Filoloco and Wikimedia Commons.)

WW: Seafaring lizard

(My nephew and I went fishing all day a few weekends ago. We loaded the boat in his truck, drove across the county, launched in a large lake, motored about two miles to an anchorage, and fished for several hours. Then we repeated the process in reverse. When my nephew pulled the boat out of his truck that evening, he found this stowaway – a Northern alligator lizard – that must have been there the whole time.

Note typical belligerent pout.)

Effort Kyôsaku

"In Buddhism there is no place for using effort. Just be ordinary and nothing special. Eat your food, move your bowels, pass water, and when you’re tired go and lie down. The ignorant will laugh at me, but the wise will understand."

Lin-ch'i (Rinzai)


(Photo of a Japanese sculptor's summation of existence courtesy of Wikimedia Commons and a generous photographer.)

WW: What kind of rings are these?

(Just collected these fudo rings this week. Anybody recognise them?)

WW: Kitty kryptonite

The Koan of Tradition

An aspect of Meditation in the Wild (Rusty Ring review here) that I greatly appreciated was author Charles S. Fisher's relentless pursuit of verifiable history in our practice models. This, as he points out, is hard to come by, given the piecemeal nature of early Buddhist documentation. Nevertheless, Fisher found many thought-provoking differences between current teaching and historical fact; I listed several in my review.

But I left out the most compelling, for more thorough consideration later:

The Shakyas, Fisher says, had no king.

Let that settle in for a minute. This is the approximate Buddhist equivalent of saying that Christ wasn't poor. It throws shade on a central element of our world view, and poses some provocative questions.

And as it turns out, my brother Charles was precise: not only were Gautama's people – a northern nation called the Shakyas – democratic, they weren't even Brahmins. In other words, the entire Buddhic origin story is false; Gautama was not in fact a prince. Nor was he a member of the immutable, unattainable Indian overclass. He was probably a Kshatriya, that is, an ordinary citizen, albeit at the top of the common heap.

Per Palikannon.com:

The Sākyans evidently had no king. Theirs was a republican form of government, probably with a leader, elected from time to time. The administration and judicial affairs of the gotta [clan] were discussed in their Santhāgāra…

(Note that final word, which clearly shares etymology with "sangha".)

This inconvenient truth may well be a gift, that employing authentic Zen don't-know-mind will smelt into usable gold. Therefore, may I respectfully suggest we question ourselves on this matter – without, as is our practice, answering – in the following vein:

• How does our renewed knowledge of the Buddha's true origins change our understanding of his perspectives and motivations?


• Why did we change the story?


• What does it mean that we changed the story?


• How does the factual version challenge us?


• Scare us?


• Uplift us?


• How about the mythical version?


• Are we required to correct this misconception?


• In what ways might the "enhanced" story endanger authentic practice?


• Can facts endanger authentic practice?


• Can both versions coexist in our practice?


• If so, how?


• If not, what are we called to do, as individual Zenners?


• Is this a problem?

And so on.


Peace and progress to the nation of seekers.

(Photo of morning in Kapilavastu, Nepali city of the Buddha's birth, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons and a generous photographer.)

WW: Concentration