So today's talk is entitled, An Appropriate Response. And it stems from a case, case 14 in the Blue Cliff Record, which is a collection of, of Chinese, of exchanges with Chinese Zen masters. And this is an exchange with the famous Zen Master Uman of the Tang Dynasty. A monk asked Zen Master Uman, what is the teaching of the Buddha's whole lifetime? Uman replied, an appropriate response. Now, Master Uman was a crafty devil. He was a master of what were called live words, which were expressions, words, responses that could help his students to wake up.

[01:13]

And he is one of the most quoted teachers in the record of the Tang Dynasty. He lived from 862 roughly to 949. I'm not going to talk about him much but this struck my fancy. One day when he was in his 80s, Uman composed a farewell letter to the king and he gathered his monks in his temple, there were a lot of them, he had a lot of monks, and he read them a concluding statement. He said, coming and going is continuous. I must be on my way. And with that, he sat down in a lotus posture, and he died.

[02:18]

And his preserved corpse was venerated for 1000 years, literally. And finally, it disappeared during the Cultural Revolution in the early 60s, but it had been around until then. There are a number of different ways of translating that final line of this case. I'm translating it pretty commonly as an appropriate response. There's an unpublished lecture from 1963 by Shunryu Suzuki Roshi, who is the founder of our Zen family. He translated this response a little differently. He said, the teaching confronts each.

[03:31]

The teaching confronts each. And that's interesting because when you, I'll give you more of his teaching, but when you look at the word appropriate, you can have, we're using it here as an adjective. which tends to mean, colloquially, it means something that's especially compatible or fitting. But as a verb, to appropriate means to own or to make one's own, to take exclusive position of, which harkens back more accurately to the the Latin roots of the two parts of that word, ad and propria.

[04:37]

So I like Suzuki Roshi's translation. The teaching confronts each because it implies our ownership, the ownership that we have of our response. So what Suzuki Roshi wrote was that the teaching given by Shakyamuni Buddha during his lifetime was accommodated to each disciple's particular temperament and to each occasion's particular circumstances. For each case, there should be a special remedy. according to the circumstances there should even be teaching other than the teachings which were told by the Buddha. So to each for each case there should be a special remedy that resonates with my understanding of the Buddha's teachings as medicine as each teaching was not a doctrine or a law or a

[05:50]

but rather a prescription for bringing us back into balance in the course of our lives, our internal life, and our social life. And then he says, according to the circumstances, there should even be teaching other than the teachings which were told by Buddha. In the light of this, how is it possible to interpret and pass down an essential teaching which can be applied to every possible occasion and individual temperament. Maybe there can't be. But to come back to this radical expression of Suzuki Roshi's, there should even be teaching other than the teachings which were told by Buddha. Buddha did not have In this way of expressing it, he did not have a lock on all of the truths that exist in the world.

[06:57]

That each truth, each truth depended upon a response that was appropriate to the situation. So in a sense, I see this as the heart of our practice. to own one's thoughts, to own one's words and actions. And of course, to aim them towards the liberation of all beings. This is the Bodhisattva vow that we will chant at the end of this and every Dharma talk. But having said that, will just continuously raise this question, what is an appropriate response? So from one perspective, one way I've been thinking about this is that an appropriate response is the completion of a set of practices that quite a number of us know as the three tenets.

[08:14]

This is a modern teaching developed by the late Zen teacher Bernie Glassman, but he derived it very clearly from the ancient teachings. This morning's lecture will not go into them in great detail. I've done that at other times and I'm sure I will do that again. uh but these three tenets are this not knowing bearing witness and my own version of the last tenet is an appropriate response uh in some other versions it's a it's loving action uh or compassionate action and so forth but i see these teachings as teaching And so I take the opportunity to interpret them according to my own understanding.

[09:26]

So not knowing, bearing witness, and an appropriate response. We begin by looking at a situation with a completely open mind. and without having removed the preconceptions that we might have from our own habits and beliefs. And bearing witness means just seeing what's happening, seeing who's suffering, seeing who's liberated, seeing the nuts and bolts of the situation. And then from those two, an appropriate response hopefully arises. So in the last few months, the actions of the government police forces and some citizens have sensitized us once again to what of course is a pervasive reality

[10:43]

of white supremacy in this country, a reality that reaches back to our earliest days as a nation, as a nation that's dependent upon the forceful enslavement of African peoples, on the violent removal of indigenous people here on this continent from their ancient lands. Promises, even laws and constitutional amendments, are broken daily from the moment they were made. Treaties and territories that from the start fenced in Native peoples have never been honored. Their lands have been encircled, narrowed, and environmentally despoiled. And returning to that word appropriate, I feel we live in a time when the land, the rights, the privileges, and the wealth of all or of the many have been appropriated by the few.

[12:02]

And I don't think this is what Yunmen meant. when he spoke of an appropriate response. By the way, we now have a YouTube channel, Berkley Zen Video, three words, Berkley Zen Video. And we've posted videos of all the Saturday talks that have been recorded since we created this virtual Zendo. Two months ago, shortly after the killing of George Floyd, I gave a talk entitled, Everything is Burning. And even though we hadn't announced this YouTube channel to people, somehow The first comment, somebody found it and now I'm telling you where it is so you can find it.

[13:11]

The first comment on the YouTube of this talk was posted yesterday and it said, this isn't Buddhism, this is political activism. Please stick to the Dharma. I don't dismiss this comment out of hand. And to the author, whom I don't know, as they were anonymous, I do promise to think about this. At the same time, that message is something that I have heard for 30 years. actually from the first day I started working at Buddhist Peace Fellowship in 1991. From my perspective, what is being characterized as political activism, and therefore marked by delusion and dualistic view,

[14:28]

My understanding is that it's the fulfillment of the Bodhisattva's vow. In the spirit of liberation, we try to see each being as equal in human value. Seeing clearly, free from these deeply imprinted views and prejudices that I have, I think all of us have, seeing clearly that way matters greatly. To be free from these habits and views that are so deeply implanted in me that I'm capable of acting out harm even before I see what's happening.

[15:34]

Now I'm sure that some of you who are watching this morning, listening, may also have a concern that I am veering away from Buddhist teaching. And given the fact that I know I fall far short of Buddhahood, you may be right. Some of you may walk away. Those of you who stay, are invited to metaphorically hold my feet to the fire. And those of you who come because you appreciate the very fact that these questions are opened here, welcome.

[16:46]

But I will say that in this time of pandemic and fear, environmental threat, and the sight of democracy such as it is in jeopardy, I plan to continue to raise these questions and to address them to the best of my understanding in the spirit of Buddhadharma. and to own that I am very aware that the Buddhadharma has already saved my life several times. And I have faith that its wisdom can serve anyone who embraces it that way. So I don't think that the perspectives I'm laying out are modern distortions of Buddhism.

[17:59]

Their roots of law, equality, non-discrimination, and peace are seen in the earliest Buddhist teachings. And I can send you, if you like, a list in the Pali suttas. You can find it in the Veseta Sutta, in the Agana Sutta. Those are teachings that talk about the fundamental worth of each being irrespective of class, caste, color, birth, gender. Very clear, very clearly spelled out 2,500 years ago. In the Chakravarti Sutta, the wheel-turning emperor, the responsibilities of a ruler, the responsibilities of citizenship are spelled out very clearly.

[19:09]

This is further articulated in the rock edicts the pillars and rock faces that were carved all over India by the Emperor Ashoka. And you can find, you can also find it in the writings of our Zen ancestor Ehe Dogen. Particularly you can look at sections of the Bodhisattvas for embracing dharmas and see how he talked about the responsibilities of people and a ruler, people and a governor or king or president. So life blooms and it fades. An appropriate response

[20:16]

meets each stage of life with wisdom and compassion. Those who were truly awake and trained, and by that I don't mean just Buddhists, they can bring that response of wisdom and compassion even to their last days. On July 17th, we lost Congressman John Lewis. In yesterday's New York Times, I read his posthumous essay that he wrote in his last weeks. At the heart of this essay, he writes, like so many young people today,

[21:18]

I was searching for a way out, or some might say a way in. And then I heard the voice of Martin Luther King Jr. on an old radio. He was talking about the philosophy and discipline of nonviolence. He said, we are all complicit when we tolerate injustice. He said it is not enough to say it will get better by and by. He said each of us has a moral obligation to stand up, speak up, and speak out. When you see something that is not right, you must say something. You must do something. Democracy is not a state. I would say the same thing is true to my understanding about enlightenment, something that we talk a lot about in Buddhism.

[22:32]

Democracy is not a state. Enlightenment is not a state. They are both acts. And he writes, and each generation must do its part to help build what we call the beloved community, a nation and world society at peace with itself. The Sangha, the Zen community, the Buddhist community is a beloved community. Beloved community is not a location that is devoid of conflict. It just has the tools peacefully to resolve that conflict without doing harm to each other. So John Lewis's words, for me, bring to mind something that Thich Nhat Hanh wrote in a book quite a while ago. The book was called Pieces Every Step.

[23:33]

And Thich Nhat Hanh wrote, when I was in Vietnam, this is in the the 1950s and the early 1960s. When I was in Vietnam, so many of our villages were being bombed. Along with my monastic brothers and sisters, I had to decide what to do. Should we continue to practice in our monasteries or should we leave the meditation halls in order to help the people who are suffering under the bombs? After careful reflection, we decided to do both. To go out and help people and to do it in mindfulness. We called it engaged Buddhism. He adds, mindfulness must be engaged.

[24:39]

Once there is seeing, there must be acting. Otherwise, what is the use of seeing? We must be aware of the real problems of the world. Then with mindfulness, we will know what to do and what not to do to be of help. Those words and John Lewis's words seem to me to fit hand and glove. It's not so surprising because to some extent, John Lewis and Thich Nhat Hanh had Martin Luther King as a teacher. So what is an appropriate response? In his final essay, John Lewis continues and provides this answer. Ordinary people with ordinary vision

[25:46]

can redeem the soul of America by getting in what I call good trouble, necessary trouble. Voting and participating in the democratic process are key. The vote is the most powerful nonviolent change agent you have in a democratic society. You must use it because it is not guaranteed. you can lose it. We've been hearing all the various ways we could lose it over the last few days. Postponing the election, basically shutting down the postal system or making it function in a way so that it can't deliver votes in a timely fashion. Vote is the most powerful nonviolent change agent you have in a democratic society.

[26:51]

You must use it because it is not guaranteed. You can lose it. So, for a moment, I will climb up on my soapbox, so to speak. This morning, we are 93 days away from the 2020 election. perhaps the most election the most important election in our in our children's lifetime. My soapbox is the vote itself. This is an appropriate response. That's what John Lewis was pointing to. This vote that is not guaranteed but is our right is an appropriate response. From this Dharma seat that I'm sitting in today, I feel the responsibility to address all beings and include all beings, recognize all beings, irrespective of political views and beliefs.

[28:10]

So I will not talk about whom to vote for here. But if you want to talk to me, you can give me a call or send me an email when I have stepped down from this seat and I will be glad to share what I think and glad to share how some of us are very actively engaging with the electoral system as a selection approaches. And of course, I invite you to argue with me. I am not afraid of that kind of discourse. I think that trading views and sharing experience is

[29:16]

It's how I learn, it's how all of us learn. But to close, I return to Thich Nhat Hanh's words. Mindfulness must be engaged. Once there is seeing, there must be acting. Otherwise, what is the use of seeing? When we're sitting in zazen, we are seeing ourselves. We don't leave that in the zendo. If we left it in the zendo, as just the cultivation of a state of mind, it would really be pointless. So mindfulness is an appropriate response. Sit down,

[30:18]

look inside and then we can turn our eyes outward. Seeing is an appropriate response. What is it that I see? Is it am I actually, is it really what I think I'm seeing or should I look harder and deeper? and acting on what we see and think. Acting for the benefit of all beings is an appropriate response. And for me, this acting is also, it's contingent on the beloved community. I am not convinced that even what I see as an appropriate response is completely correct.

[31:27]

So I depend upon friends, I depend upon teachers, I depend upon you for the process of actually clarifying and refining what it is that's best for me to do. So to me, I think this is how we bring our practice into the world and how Zazen pervades the universe. So thank you very much. And with that, I want to open up to questions and comments. And we'll see how that goes. I think Blake will facilitate. Is that right? Yes. Thank you, Hosan. I invite you to raise your virtual hand.

[32:30]

You, the Sangha, to raise your virtual hand. If you have a question, I will call on you. click participants at the bottom of your screen, and then a list of participants will arise on your right side of your screen. And at the bottom of that list, you will hopefully see a blue hand. And you press that, and then that will say, raise my blue hand. Or you can type a question and all the questions in the comments are coming only to me. That's the way we've set up. Thank you, Heiko. So type a question and I'll read the question. And you can put the word question in front of the question so I know, although those are what's coming in. And I urge you to be brief, concise, clear with your question. And if you need to, maybe a follow-up question, but really just one question, no preamble, just get to the question.

[33:39]

Also, I'd love to hear from people who perhaps are a little shy or don't usually speak in this context. Please feel free. Yes, I second that emotion. I would first like to invite Heiko to unmute yourself, lower your blue hand, and ask a question. Thank you. Thank you, Hozon, for a really timely and wonderful talk. The appropriate response is always the big question, but I recognize if I'm seeing so-called my own delusion, or if I'm seeing what I am seeing, if I'm giving the same response again and again, I know I'm likely in line for a disillusionment. So my question, or I want to tweak the frame of the discussion maybe just a little bit, that

[34:47]

Each person's appropriate response will be according to how they see, and even the clearest of all of us would come up with a different response than everybody else. This is at least my thinking. And so that appropriate response is for those skilled in it to wield energy in the voting and in the tweaking of minds, and other appropriate response still may remain gardening wholeheartedly. I would like to see how you respond to that or what you think about that extent of variation. Thank you. Thank you for that question. I think that is on the mark. It goes in two directions for me. One is that an appropriate response, first of all, is going to relate to what we are trained to do.

[35:50]

So, for example, if somebody collapses on the street in front of you, if you know CPR, that's an appropriate response. If you don't know CPR, you know, you may be stuck. You know, an appropriate response would be, OK, I got to find somebody who knows CPR. But if you just fall down and start mucking about, you're likely to do harm and not save a life. So you do what you're trained to do. This is in the context of, say, the civil rights movement, particularly in the early civil rights movement, when John Lewis John Lewis trained with this guy Jim Lawson, who was a Methodist minister, before he did Freedom Rides.

[36:57]

They were trained extensively in nonviolence, not in an academic way, but in a very practical role-playing fashion. In that role play, they played both roles. They played the victim and the oppressor. and as any of you who have done role plays know, it's very interesting because once you take that other role, the one that you think is definitely not you, you discover I've got this in me. I've got the oppressor in me. I know how to act this out and you learn stuff. So the training is one part. The other thing I would say about an appropriate response is There's another half of it, which I've been speaking of, which is that my response, which stems from my understanding and intention, may or may not have the effect that I wish it to have.

[38:07]

Now, if you were a 10th stage bodhisattva, you know, like Avalokiteshvara with her thousand hands and her spiritual Swiss army knife in each hand, then what you're doing is likely to have a beneficial impact. But if you're a muddling human being like I am, you know, you can you can do even what you're trained and you can find that it has a negative outcome. And then you have to You go around again, you have to reconsider, you have to think. Gardening might be the right response. I'm not going to say what an appropriate response is because it's incumbent on the person and on the situation. I'm reading through the questions and I'll state two and paraphrase two that are sort of juxtapositions to each other.

[39:22]

Of course, the first one is the idea that the personal is political, an idea that perhaps arose in many people's minds as you were speaking. And the second one is that there's a risk of when one goes into what the political realm that it's not, it creates a non-inviting Sangha milieu because it presupposes that there's a political ideology on top of the Buddhist ideology. How do you sort of put those two together? Well, You know, it's it's easy to play with words. And the play that I would do, you know, we all those of us of a certain age, we all learned that the personal is the political at a certain point in time.

[40:26]

But one could one should also recognize that the political is the personal. that political policies, political actions, directly affect the personal lives, our personal lives and the personal lives of others. And if you're just invoking one side of that expression, you're really missing something important. And so, You know, I don't wish to make people feel guilty in any way. But I also might think that, as I said, there are people who are going to be uncomfortable with this talk and uncomfortable with other things that are said by me and others.

[41:31]

And I do want to hear about that. At the same time, we need to recognize who is not in the room and at least both speculate and inquire of them. It's not like they should be in the room. Is there something that they are seeing in the structure of our community that is exclusionary? So it's not just who feels comfortable in the room that's in the room, but it's like who might benefit and might wish to be in the room but doesn't feel comfortable to enter. Does that make some sense? Wonderful.

[42:37]

I'd like to invite Judy Fleischman to lower her hand and speak. Thank you very much. Can you hear me OK? Yeah. Yeah. One of the conversations that relates to this I think is on the relationship of intent and impact. And so I'm wondering in terms of being responsible myself to be as aware and invite how my action or my contemplated action might impact someone. What I find coming up is that the intent is to relieve suffering and specifically to engage and turn towards pain, which can feel really overwhelming and sometimes difficult to distinguish.

[43:46]

Is this my pain? Is this your pain? Is this this pain? And then With the intent to relieve suffering, a choice must be made in a particular moment. I'm facing such a situation right now with a loved one in hospice and the question of and the request to me to show up in person in a high risk situation. because of COVID with a lot of family members involved and exploring whether and how and what can be done and a direct request from the dying person. So that brings up a lot of pain. And so I'm wondering what helps to discern an appropriate response when there is a timeframe for an action to be taken? You know, I mean, one thing that comes to mind in that situation, and it's, you know, it's a, it's kind of a formless question in a sense is, is whose fame?

[45:03]

You know, the person sitting in the hospital is in pain and, uh, may wish contact and touch, et cetera, which is totally understandable. Uh, but you know, I can only speak, I want to speak for me, not for anyone else and just say that sometimes my pain appears to be the global pain. And so this bearing witness step of the three tenets is calls for a very close. This is, this is, um, one of the factors of enlightenment, uh, investigating the Dharmas. And so when I'm investigating the Dharmas, I'm trying to investigate what it is that I am experiencing and to make sure

[46:11]

that the pain I'm trying to relieve is somehow not my own, if you understand. It's like I'm not trying to get myself out of an uncomfortable situation. I want to make sure that I'm actually trying to meet the suffering of others and sometimes it's a very difficult thing for me to see. That's kind of the standard I would apply I guess and that's the first place I'd look which doesn't really totally answer the question but I don't know what I would do if I was called to hospital in that situation. Again, what are we trained to do which means how are we trained to look at ourselves in the context of being non-separate from everyone else.

[47:12]

I think I'll leave it there if that's okay. It helps particularly because it's a home hospital situation. Actually even having you hear that as hospital is awesome. Thank you very much. We are coming to a close. Perhaps, Susan, Moon, I invite you to unmute yourself and sort of, yes. Thank you. Thank you, Alan. I just want to kind of refer back to Heiko's question about some people might have different responses, and I've been Is it possible for a person to say, well, I didn't have to be born in this world and I don't study what's going on in the world and I don't read the newspaper, but I try to be a good person and I take care of my garden and I take care of my family or whatever.

[48:19]

For me, voting would not be an appropriate response, because I wouldn't cast a ballot for the right people, because I'm not doing all the research that you need to do to go vote. And that's not what I am best at doing. So I'd prefer not to vote, because I might unwittingly be causing harm. And that's not my realm of action. My whole life is based on the premise that that's sort of not OK. But why isn't it OK? Or what about that? way of looking at it. Why is everybody obliged to go vote? I don't think everybody's obliged to go vote. I can understand that position. It just really depends on whether you have a wish to participate in a process of change in this country.

[49:26]

If you don't, you don't. To me, you're relinquishing some of your power and that may be appropriate for your life. I don't want to get into the fine points of that. It depends on your training. That person is doing what they're trained to do. I can't say their training is right or wrong. It's certainly not what my training is, but to be quite honest with you, for most of my lifetime, I have really felt that my participation in the electoral process didn't mean a thing. and I've come to think differently about it.

[50:27]

That's through a process of training. To me, I think it's Bodhisattva training. It's recognizing how we are interdependent and how we co-create the world that we live in and, you know, if you trust other people to make those decisions, then fine. Then what you see is what you get. Well, I want to follow up question, which is, well, what if, I mean, if you're going knocking on doors to get out the vote or writing letters to get out the vote, and somebody comes to the door and they say, well, I don't believe in voting. I'm not into that. You don't just say, oh, that's cool. I mean, it's when we try to get out the vote, we're saying to people, it's important to vote. It's important to exercise your right to vote. There's some level at which I don't really feel like it's okay.

[51:31]

And yet, I'm not sure that that's fair. Well, I think this is where I want to go back to what, What Suzuki Roshi said, if I could find it, you know, that sometimes there should be a teaching other than the teachings which were told by the Buddha. So when I go to the door and I've done this, you've done it too. You go to the door and somebody says, I don't vote. And as a person of training, You then observe, is there an opening there? Are they asking me a question? Underneath that, is there a question, why should I vote? Or is it just like, that's it, I'm done, I want to close the door.

[52:34]

And this is where we have to discern what is an appropriate response, because sometimes that is a bid for a conversation. And sometimes not. And so I think it's incumbent upon us to read that to read that energy and make a decision about which way to go, sometimes to walk away and sometimes to see if there's a deeper discussion to be had. So thank you. I'd like to hear I'd like there was a hand. Time is growing close. Yeah, there was a hand from Jeffrey, but I don't see it anymore. Well, then there's one more. Heather? Just real quickly, Hozon, and I'll be very short. I just wanted to call you out for an excellent lecture, and especially the two central practice questions I carry around, what do I see and what will I do next? Thank you so much. Thank you. Well, there was one more. Heather, can we do that and close?

[53:35]

Since you're leading, I can take this opportunity. Thank you, Hazan, for a wonderful talk. I am a deeply political person. Everything I do in my life is political. And on top of that, I practice Buddhism. So maybe I come from a slightly unique lens in this group. But it strikes me that in the study of Buddhism, we are looking to dissolve the boundary that makes us feel separate. And part of doing that is a supreme awareness of everything and the ripple effects of our actions. This idea that there's a personal and a political has always been confusing to me because I woke up this morning and I had a cup of coffee and there are farmers who grew that coffee in particular situations.

[54:42]

Not all of them may be perfect. I had a banana that got shipped all over the world and used fossil fuels, you know, on and on and on. So even if I'm not voting or campaigning or organizing, I'm still breathing the air and eating the food. And all of that is political. So I'm just reflecting that this idea that there's a personal and political Like, I don't get it. Because they're actually, there's no separation there. And to me, that's the study of Buddhism is to live in that full awareness of no separation. That's not a question. No, it's not. I don't understand why we separate the two. I think there are a lot of structural reasons. And I think there are a lot of political reasons why we separate the two. And, you know, we can go into the history of religion and, you know, the history of almost all religions has been a struggle between spiritual and worldly authority.

[55:58]

And it's probably been that struggle has probably been responsible for more death than any other cause that I can think of. So, you know, I think we need to be very careful about that. At the same time as I'm trying to articulate a compassionate human and life-preserving set of values, as common to the Dharma and to the politics that we wish to further. So good luck to all of us. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much, Hosan. And thank you all for the questions. Let me post the, uh,

[57:03]

Vows. You know, you can, um, can I, am I allowed to post to everyone or you? Of course. Um, I think it's only, I'm not sure. Check it out. I can. I'm just going to put my email here. Wonderful. Oh, uh, in chat. Yeah. Okay, and I'll pull up the vows, closing vows. I believe Ed... Wait, you closed the chat though. Hold on a second. All right. Just let me... Go ahead. Just finish this. Okay, if anyone wants to continue asking me things, please email me. I'm happy to have these. These are all the discussions. Thank you. Go ahead.

[57:59]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ