Dogen and Modern Life

Complete English transcript — About transcripts

Editorial note: This transcript of a spoken talk has been lightly edited to read well as written text, keeping the speaker’s voice and meaning; the wording was adjusted with great care. We recommend listening to the original audio recording too.

Roman: It is true.

Mike: You're all talking all the time, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I was at about zero. Sure. Jokes? Oh, really? Nothing spiritual.

Participant: Is that electricity?

Mike: Electricity. LED.

Participant: Really?

Mike: It's interesting. People like birds. Birds are nice.

Participant: Oh, I need it.

Mike: Angry birds.

Boris: It's a game. Angry, it's a mobile phone game.

Mike: Oh.

Boris: You throw some balls at birds and they are angry.

Mike: Really?

Participant: Oh my goodness, that was a present. Oh my goodness.

Mike: Much of the teaching which I learned from my teacher is based on the writings of Master Dogen, Zen Master Dogen. In Japanese, Dogen Zenji, which means Zen Master Dogen. He was the founder of the Soto school of Buddhism, although he didn't ask to be the founder; they made him the founder after he died. My teacher was obsessed with Master Dogen, and maybe it was a very important obsession. He studied him from when he was 18 years old until even now, maybe. And Dogen was an aristocrat.

But not very much is known about him as a man. His writings are very beautiful sometimes. Very critical sometimes. Very poetic sometimes. And he must have been some kind of genius. He could read classical Chinese when he was five years old. And when we read his writings, we have to try and imagine what kind of man, what kind of person he was. It's easy to imagine some very calm, emotionless person who had some special state. Because sometimes his writings are too beautiful.

So he writes very poetically that when we practise zazen, the whole of the universe is practising with us, and the gods in heaven come and practise with us. Very flowery. But how often do we experience practising zazen where the whole universe is practising with us, and the gods in heaven are descending and sitting in front of us, and Gautama Buddha is rising out of the earth, and everything is wonderful? But sometimes his writings are like this.

And he's also very critical of people who say they are Buddhists but do not practise zazen. Some of his writings are very strong. Sometimes he says that monks who are teaching some kind of strange Buddhism are like filthy dogs in the street. He also writes, in at least one chapter, that if we want to find out the truth, we have to leave our family. If we don't leave our family, it's impossible to find the truth. And these kinds of writings are quite difficult for us.

So it's necessary to try to understand, or guess, or imagine what kind of man Dogen was. Otherwise, we will become caught in his beautiful words.

And Dogen was an orphan. Because his father, who was an aristocrat, a very powerful member of the Japanese court, died when he was young, when Dogen was small. I think he may have been assassinated. And his mother, who was not married to his father but was a courtesan, also died when he was very small. So he was without parents from a very young age. And if you imagine the life of an aristocrat in medieval Japan, you didn't do normal things, like cooking food, or sweeping the floor, or sitting down eating food and chatting. Life must have been very formalised.

And what we call normal everyday life was done by servants. Dogen went to live with his uncle, and when he was eleven years old, he ran away to a temple. But the temple sent him back again. And then eventually his uncle agreed to let him go and live in a temple and become a monk. But he was dissatisfied.

Roman: The uncle was dissatisfied?

Mike: No, Dogen was dissatisfied with life in the temple. But although he was dissatisfied, he stayed and trained for some years. I forget, maybe ten years.

And eventually he moved to another temple. But even in that second temple, he couldn't really understand what the point of Buddhism is. So then he went to China, which must have been a very, very expensive trip. So we can imagine that maybe some rich friends or uncles or some relative must have given him money. And he went to China to try and find the point of Buddhism. And after two or three years, he found an answer for himself, through a Chinese Zen master. He stayed with the Chinese Zen master for nearly a year. Then he returned to Japan.

And when he returned to Japan, he felt that he understood what the point of Buddhism was. And he also noticed that many, many other temples in Japan did not understand the point of Buddhism. So he set up his own temple. And slowly people came to live with him, men. And he taught them and wrote and practised zazen until he was 53 years old. And then he became ill and died.

In his fairly short life, by modern standards, he was an orphan, so he didn't experience growing up in a loving family. It seems unlikely that he had any relationship with a woman, because when he was eleven years old, he went to live in a temple, which is only men. And for the rest of his life he lived in a temple environment, only with men. So it's unlikely that he had any relationship with a woman. And he didn't have any children.

He was an aristocrat, and so his life as a young man, a young boy, didn't have the things which the life of a normal person had. So this is the kind of person he was. And for me, without remembering what kind of person Dogen was, it's impossible to understand what he's writing. He never wrote about relationships. He always said men and women should be equal. He wrote about the Buddhist world. He didn't write much about the ordinary world. I guess he didn't have much experience of the ordinary world.

But when he was in China, he realised the very great value of simple, ordinary, everyday things. Like washing, cooking, zazen, cleaning your teeth, sewing, shitting. So he talked about them. He wrote about them in very great detail. But only in the Buddhist context. So, not how to sew on a button on your trousers, but how to sew a robe. Not how to cook food for children, but how to cook food for monks.

So he must have seen life in a family as being something very far away from his own experience. And maybe his limited experience of life in a family was very unusual, because his family was a very unusual family. So his writings, in a way, for modern people, have something missing. And I guess everybody who writes about Buddhism has something missing. Because they only write from their own lives. So that's not a fault.

That is quite natural. But it means that Dogen never talked in simple human terms about desires, emotions, sex, loving, all these things which, for most modern people, are very important. He did write something about sex, for instance. He said that women shouldn't be sexual objects. But that's, I suppose, because he could see women being treated in a certain way from outside. And he talks about loving words. He said, aigo.

Aigo in Japanese, and how loving words are the best way to talk to somebody. But from our perspective in the 21st century, he seems to live in a very different world. So even if we study the Shobogenzo, we can get some feeling that if we practise zazen, we can become balanced and deal with our problems and become stable. But we can't find advice which many people in modern life need. For instance, my partner is driving me up the wall. Why can't I understand her? Or something is not working for me. What is wrong with my character? Or I'm trying very hard to make my life better, but it only seems to get worse. Or what should I do about my strong desires to become rich or powerful? Or to be promoted. Or is it okay not to have a strong ambition? And although Dogen does write here and there about these things, it's very simple. So, for instance, he writes, in one chapter near the end of his writings, that we should have small desire. Because small desire means we won't be disturbed. But what does he mean, small desire?

Does he mean I shouldn't feel very strong sexual urge? I should only feel little bit sexual urge? Or I shouldn't work very hard to get enough money to buy a new house because it's too strong a desire. So I think just to say have small desire is not enough for many people. And he says we should seek a quiet place to live, which is undisturbed. Should we go and find a house deep in the countryside? Does he mean that?

I don't want to do that. I want to live in a city. And so on.

So what I'm trying to say is that although Dogen's explanation of the point of Buddhism is complete, I should call it, his writings from the 13th century are not enough to live in modern society. So where do we get the answers to our questions, which don't come from Buddhism? If we read a book about different kinds of thinking, which Robert found, by Professor Kahneman, should we listen to that?

Should we make that part of our understanding of Buddhism? If we hear about mind mapping, that Caroline was talking about? If things like that seem to work for us, should we accept them, or should we say, Oh no, they're not part of Buddhism. They're different. Or if we're interested in psychotherapy, like Andrew. How does that work with the Buddhist teaching? So how to harmonize the essence of the teachings about zazen with many other teachings in modern life. I remember my teacher Nishijima had a very, very low opinion of psychotherapy or psychology. And many years ago I studied psychotherapy to work as a counsellor in a college. So I had some feeling that it's useful. So when I said to Nishijima, he shouted at me. No, it's not any good. So I wondered, oh, so how do I decide? And there are many things like that. What about what Dogen says about leaving family life? Do we have to leave our family to study Buddhism? I believe that Kaisen, who many of you learned a lot about Buddhism from, said that you must make your relationship with your teacher more important than with your partner.

I heard. So maybe that came from.

Boris: Oh no, it's from Kaisen.

Mike: Okay. Well, anyway, let's take Kaisen out. So the teaching that your teacher should be more important than your partner, for example, where did that come from? Well, maybe it's a misunderstanding of Dogen.

Boris: He said he met a master.

Mike: Really?

Boris: Devotion, devotion, they say.

Mike: So there are many, many questions, and I don't have the answers. I have my answers. But I think it's quite important, because almost all forms of Buddhism came from 1,000 years ago or 2,000 years ago. And Christianity, of course. What should we accept and include, and what should we reject? This is an interesting question. So if you'd like to discuss it.

Participant: I think it's important to do some puzzle, maybe for me, because I really like, for example, the state of zazen, but I really don't like Buddhist ethics, or

Mike: Buddhist ethics.

Participant: I really like, for example, Christian ethics.

Mike: Sorry?

Participant: I like Greek and Buddhist,

Mike: Christian ethics.

Participant: Because Buddhism doesn't have something like love, like sacrifice, like these things. But for me it's important to have it. But I don't like some more things in Christianity, so I stole from there, or from there, or from there, and I think it's a little bit important to make the puzzle of all these things.

Mike: Is that okay, to make your own?

Participant: Yeah, because I

Mike: Have a little bit of this, a little bit of that, and one of those, and one of these. Yes. Is that okay?

Participant: Yeah, for me it's the best way.

Mike: Okay.

Participant: Because I feel it's kind of blindness to have information just for one way, for one part of society. So I try to make some combination, for example for art, for philosophy, for Buddhism, for Taoism, for many, many things, to create something.

Participant: I'm a Christian.

Participant: So you...

Participant: Yeah, I'm a Christian.

Participant: It might not taste good at all, but everybody will be full, so they call it a

Participant: So you think lettuce will work in the dumpling?

Participant: Yes, it's okay. It doesn't feel the shell. So it's a salad.

Roman: Should make it the salad for you.

Participant: We could not make a dumpling salad.

Participant: I want to propose some

Roman: Some people said it's a kind of salad for you. Do you like salad?

Participant: Yeah, I really like salad. I like chaos a little bit. I don't like sort of systems. So for me, I can better understand if it's really chaos, and I can choose what I feel, not what I have to follow, whether it's...

Participant: Or must it be consistent, and it must be all part of what they want? There must be no chaos.

Roman: It should have some consistency. It shouldn't be just chaos.

Participant: Is it a problem? Yes. It would be it.

Participant: For example, like Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, but they are opposite. They are different, but I like both of them very much.

Boris: In what situation do you think you should use the alphabet and in what situation do you forget?

Roman: There are different situations where you can apply different things.

Boris: No, not like that. Definitely, but I can't.

Boris: Essentially, the whole of Buddhism comes from one head. And then lots of different Buddha students tried to transmit what they learned from him. And that's how the whole salad of teachings became. So if we went back...

Mike: So if we go back, what the essential teachings are, we would come to Buddha's own teaching, to the beginning.

Boris: Let me ask you. May I ask you? They said that Buddha gave eighty thousand, maybe eighty thousand teachings. I don't know the exact numbers, but what do you think about this idea? The idea is to give the teachings to some people; they understand this and don't understand something else. Then this something else is given to other people. And there are so many opinions or so many schools. This is the reason that I read. What is your opinion about this theory?

Mike: Buddha taught different things to different people based on their intelligence or level of... also skilful means, I think they call it. There is a phrase, skilful means. So he taught according to the people.

Participant: Yeah, yeah.

Mike: I don't know what he did. But, you know, when you talk to somebody, you talk to the person. Of course it must be different, but I don't... I wonder if he did it purposely. I wonder. What I'm getting at, I should explain a little bit more my own situation. My teacher was very, very focused on Dogen. Dogen. Anything else? No, no.

But since I left Japan—before I left Japan, but in the last 20 years—I found in myself I'm not like that. He didn't tell me how to be. But my life experience showed me how to be. Initially, after I left Japan, I was teaching. I was trying to teach the same thing. Sometimes exactly the same thing. So, like copying my teacher. And this is a very common thing to do. If you study with a professor at university, and you learn lots of things over a long time, you want to do the same thing. You may even use the same expressions.

So you may talk in the same way. This is true not only of Buddhism, it's true of many different—even in art. But after you leave your teacher for some time, you realise that you can't live his life. So I guess what I'm trying to say is, in my life there are two different ways to teach. My teacher had a very narrow, focused way of teaching, only about Dogen, nobody else, and exactly what he taught. But I'm moving more and more towards embracing lots of things. Which I didn't think that I would be interested in. But I find I'm interested in them.

So I wanted to talk about that situation. You're listening to me talking about Buddhism in a particular way. So we come into this room and you want me to talk. And how are you going to fit together what I'm saying and other experiences and other things which you think are valuable? But maybe you feel a little puzzled because you want me to tell you something clear and exact.

Boris: I can compare because I have, or I have had, two masters. The first master is Kaisen, or Boso Kaisen. And the second is you. For me, this kind of teaching is very living, or lively. I can touch it. I can touch it, not from a book, but I can touch the very big difference of teaching. Maybe it's the same, but it's not important whether it's the same point; it's the teaching that is important. It's coming from the same direction, maybe. But the kind of teaching is very, very different, and this is exciting for me, like going to Antarctica or to the Sahara, or like going to some other planet. It's not so much, maybe, what is true to say, but how you do. That's you, I think. The most important thing is you, not just the teaching, but this is for me the most important. I agree.

Participant: I think it seems to me that you've always taught the same thing, that you're still teaching the same thing that you taught when I first met you. That's how it seems to me. Maybe there's been a change of style, and maybe there's more personal questioning going on. But essentially, I think it's the same thing.

Boris: I met Mike when he probably was already this kind of new Mike, as he is now and not before, after leaving the strict teaching of your teacher. As for Buddhist schools, I have experienced many different Buddhist schools, and even now I sometimes go to a different school—different countries, different teachers. Isn't it that the years have somehow hidden the human teacher? And until now, I don't think I have ever met a Buddhist teacher who would be more humane than Mike.

Mike: Thank you very much. I was more interested not in what you think of me, but what you think of you.

Participant: Or

Mike: For instance, can I see it for a moment?

Participant: Yes, please.

Boris: No, because it's even better. So the best is to understand.

Participant: That it is the easiest to understand just you.

Participant: Okay. All right. Sorry.

Participant: I think it's just a personal thing between two characters, two people. Because there may be some other people who don't like you and like another Kaisen or another. So what I think is that we are still going round and round, and I'm personally not a very analytical person. You know, I can't study Shobogenzo for sixty years, searching for detailed explanations. I'm more synthetical. Do you understand? So, in my life, I usually search for principles or rules, you know, how things work generally. So I usually generalize. When I read a book, I almost completely forget what the book is about. I just extract the principle that I found in the book or in the teaching. So, for example, for me personally, I can't find any difference between Zen or other different schools of Buddhism or Gnostic teachings of early Christians or whoever. It's a different language, different people, different atmosphere, different region, different time. But for me, the language is not important. For me, the principle is the most important thing. The person who says it is not important either, because that person naturally has a certain character and a certain life experience. The time is not important either. I don't remember at all now what I said.

Participant: It's an important point.

Participant: No, no. Yeah, no.

Participant: I would like to continue the idea of Pavel. The longer I live, or the older I am, the more and more clearly I see the principle, or the question.

Boris: I'm sorry, but I don't understand what the question is. I know what I'm asking, but I don't know if there is any question.

Participant: At the beginning, I don't understand the question. I just know there is some kind of question.

Boris: So I don't understand the question why.

Participant: So first I recognize the question why, and then I look for the answer.

Boris: These basic answers are very easy.

Participant: The basic answers are very simple: not to lie, to live politely.

Boris: It is possible in hard conditions, not only in theoretical

Participant: And how to be able to continue like this even in very difficult situations, not just theoretically. And both intuition, experience and knowledge help me. And then I can choose Kierkegaard, Jesus, Buddha, and our teachers like mine.

Participant: It seems that by learning through reading books or meeting teachers, or reading books even from different centuries, different times, it resonates with the teaching only because we already have something, no matter what culture or period. And I just want to ask if it

Participant: Yeah, so it seems only what I already have or feel can resonate with the teaching. I cannot learn something that I don't already somehow experience or have.

Boris: Well, in other words, all teachings are like fingers pointing to the right direction, and we shouldn't worry about the finger, but the direction. And the direction is up to us.

Mike: Well, it's quite interesting. In medieval times, certainly in China, Buddhism was not taught by principle. If you read the many koan stories, there is a principle in them. Principles in them. Again and again and again in every story. But nobody ever writes down what the principles are. And even in Dogen's writing, there are principles in his chapters. But Dogen didn't write down, these are the principles. So, of course, I didn't live in medieval China or medieval Japan. But it seems our excellent ability to extract principles is a modern one. So.