Good morning. My name is Michael Winger. And I suppose I could give a whole lecture introducing myself, but I'll spare you. I practice at the San Francisco Zen Center, and I'm currently Dean of Buddhist Studies. But on to the body of it. Ru Jing, Dogen's teacher in the early 13th century in China, wrote, the footprints of the Tathagata can actually be seen today in the land of Udana in western India.

[01:13]

The room in which the layman Vimalakirti dwelled still exists. The foundation stones of the Jetavana monastery remain as well. But when one goes to sacred remains such as these and measures them, he finds them sometimes longer, sometimes shorter, sometimes extended, and sometimes contracted. Their dimensions cannot be fixed. This is a manifestation of the Russian vitality of the Buddhadharma itself. The footprints of the Tathagata can actually be seen today in the land of Udana in Western India. The room in which the layman Vimalakirti dwelled still exists. The foundation stones of the Jetavana monastery remain as well.

[02:17]

But when one goes through sacred remains such as these and measures them, he finds them sometimes longer, sometimes shorter, sometimes extended, and sometimes contracted. Their dimensions cannot be fixed. This is a manifestation of the Russian vitality of the Buddhadharma itself. Probably around 20 years ago, Bernard Four, a Western scholar of Zen, one of the leading Zen scholars, but at this time he was kind of a post-doctorate student, was in Japan studying with Yanagida Sensei, who was maybe the leading Japanese scholar of Zen. He went to visit Sojiji. Sojiji is one of the two main temples of Soto Zen in Japan.

[03:22]

Because he heard that the mummified remains of Sekito Kisen, who lived in the 8th century in China, were there. It's a long story how they got there. Maybe some other time. So he went to the temple, knocked on the door, or went in. Probably the guest manager or the Ino or someone on the staff met him, and he said, I want to see Sekito's mummy. And they said, no. He asked several times, and if you know Bernard, he's rather charming and persuasive, and his Japanese was quite good but still the monk said no. So Bernard went to leave the monastery but it was raining and he had forgotten his umbrella so he stayed inside and talked to the monk a little bit longer.

[04:33]

After about an hour the rain stopped and he said goodbye and went to leave and the monk said, don't you want to see the mummy? Why do you think he said that? And what was Bernard looking for when he was looking for money? Is your tradition something that can be measured and can be mummified, embalmed as some past event which you want to save for the future? Or isn't there anything as tradition? You just came here by accident. Well, probably neither of those are true. The famous Argentine writer, Borges, wrote a short story about someone who tried to, who really appreciated

[05:46]

Cervantes' Don Quixote. But he hadn't read it in a while, and he thought, wouldn't it be great if I could have written Don Quixote? In fact, I'm going to try to do it without reading, just studying the times and Cervantes' life and the issues of the time. I'm going to I'm going to write, Cervante. I'm going to write Don Quixote. But then he said that was too ambitious a project. He said, even if I could write a chapter. So he spent a long time and struggled over it. And the language was a little bit different at the time, but he struggled over it.

[06:54]

And in fact, he wrote it word for word, one chapter that he picked. Isn't that amazing? Probably not true, but it's... But this is true. When he'd done it, he realized it had a different meaning because he, a 20th century writer, had written it. The question of what is tradition and what kind of tradition is being addressed by Ruijing. He was adjusting it over 700 years ago. But when one goes to sacred remains such as these and measures them, he finds them sometimes longer, sometimes shorter, sometimes extended, and sometimes contracted.

[07:58]

Their dimensions cannot be fixed. This is a manifestation of the rush and vitality of the Buddha Dharma itself. You know, the very famous Zen adage is, don't mistake the finger for the moon. So, We have various teachings, accoutrements, sounds, smells, touchables, wearables, and they're pointing to something, but maybe they're not the moon itself. When I Early on when I was at Zen Center, I think it was probably in the early 70s, there was a lot of talk about we shouldn't be wearing robes.

[09:05]

What we should wear is denim fat pants. That should be our tradition. And you know, it kind of made a certain kind of sense at the time. But can you imagine how arcane that tradition would seem now? We all come from some tradition. We all have some connections. We all have grown up in certain circumstances and chosen certain circumstances and inherited certain circumstances. And that informs who we are. When I introduce who I am, it informs who we are. But you know, it's just the stage in which we can then act. If you deny your tradition, or your circumstances, or your choices, or just what you've inherited, I don't think you can stand up in the stage of your life.

[10:16]

On the other hand, if you try to keep it fixed, if you think that the finger is the moon, if you try to embalm your life to protect you from what's happening in this moment. That's pretty crazy too. So we have an open tradition. You know, in some ways, Buddhism is a genetic code or a living being that lives on as the generations live on. When we offer incense to Buddha or to Suzuki Roshi or to those people who have gone before, we also sometimes offer tea and food

[11:27]

to care for them, to keep their spirit alive. Now sometimes there are things in our tradition which don't really make any sense, at least now. They're more like vestigial organs or unused genes. And sometimes we don't necessarily use them, but you know, we have to be very careful about what we throw out. Because there may be a time when that gene is useful, when that organ is useful again. when that genetic information maybe wanted to be called forth. And at the same time, we need to adapt to what's happening right now. I don't think that's contradictory. I'm wearing modern underwear. ancient robes.

[12:31]

Now someday we may try wearing ancient underwear and modern clothes. That might be okay too. Suzuki Roshi was asked by Bishop Ipo, who is a Nichirin priest, not the Nichirin Reisak, but a Nichirin priest. And this touches on the question of tradition. What is the future of Buddhism in America?

[13:35]

A traditional question. Suzuki said, I don't know. The bishop asked if Americans understood him. Suzuki Roshi said, whatever people understand is OK. By their free knowing, they will get it. The bishop said, Zazen is so uncomfortable for Westerners. Maybe there is some other way. Suzuki Roshi replied, that's all I know. That's what my teacher taught me. By their free knowing, they will get it, is confidence. that we can adapt and respond to whatever is in front of us. And knowing what our teachers have taught us and given us is a great comfort and a great tool.

[14:46]

So many of you may think, The real Zen has no robes, no Buddha, no nothing. And that's part of Buddhism too. But I think we need to keep the whole kit and caboodle until we thoroughly know what's important and what's not. This genetic code, this living virus, has lasted 2,500 years. And it lives through us. So I think the monk saw that Bernard was interested in more than just the trappings of what was going on, but wanted to penetrate, and was really interested in what the true teaching was.

[15:59]

That's what I think. And that before he was wondering if he was a publicity seeker, or a scholar who wanted to know from on top what was going on, but not to be in the middle of it. Wanted to know Buddhism as an object, rather than become the subject of Buddhism. So if you try to objectify what we do too much, it's like killing it. And even when you try to pay homage to it, it will be something dead. You won't be feeding Buddha to keep him alive, even if it's in yourself. some spark has been created which we keep alive.

[17:21]

And the way we keep it alive may not be necessarily the best or the only way to do it. We shouldn't be critical of other ways. Or experimentation, for that matter. But not experimentation out of arrogance. but out of true questioning. So all of you have come today and chosen this among the many things you could have done today. Many things you could have done with your life. And we have many lineages which inform who we are.

[18:35]

But acknowledging and appreciating what has come before us is very important if we're ever to move on. If we make believe that we're not informed by our past. There's great denial going on. Can I take a few questions? Yes. So, I don't know if I've really even said that much today, but I've tried to open up an area in a correct working with tradition. But maybe you have something to add or question about. Hi, Michael.

[19:55]

My question is, where do you deeply question the tradition? And you've been at it for a while. Well, every time I put on my robes, I realize what a pain in the neck they are. You know, I want to say something about the question, though. Which is, even that way of questioning is making the tradition both too strong and too weak. Tradition is the air we breathe, and yet sometimes the air is invigorating and sometimes it's polluted. I don't think I'm doing very well on this, but I think

[20:57]

The part is, I don't have so much problem about questioning tradition as to realizing that I'm not doing something else. When I'm not trying to hide behind something, or to keep something dead, or something like that. And there are times I definitely have that feeling. In fact, the first few years that I went to service, I couldn't understand it at all. Of course, I've gotten used to it. And then, if you notice, everyday service is a little bit different. And it's also coming out of zazen, there's energy. And it's just, it's, I think it's, for me, it's kind of a, it's a particular form that I don't feel, I think we could have evolved other things to do, but this is what we've got. And hearing everybody chant and hearing myself chant, it's interesting. And it's not so much that I think that that's the perfect tradition, but it's what's in front of me.

[22:09]

But I do question it when I think, oh, this is the way. And if you notice, Suzuki Roshi didn't say, oh, the way. It's just the way that he lived. If we try to use it to reinforce ourselves, oh, I'm in the tradition, and the tradition is good, therefore I'm good. It's not so good. Or the tradition is good, and I'm not so good. I mean, either way. Or the tradition is bad, and I'm really good, because I know the tradition is good. There are many ways to look at those kinds of things. Anyhow, I didn't really answer your question, but I appreciated it. Yes? You wrote a quote describing how, if you go to measure, You interpreted it as a metaphor for the suppleness of tradition, but the quote itself appeared to describe miraculous phenomena.

[23:18]

I'm wondering why you chose to read it metaphorically. Well, actually, I didn't think of it as metaphorical, or what did you say? Miraculous. Miraculous. I didn't think of it as... In a way, there's miraculousness, but that's not so much... I realize it is... Who knows what it was like 2,500 years ago? I mean, we know there was something there. It's like reaching for your pillow in the night. You know it's there, but you don't know exactly what it is. And the tradition is there and important, but we can't exactly grasp exactly what it is. So how tall Buddha was, I know scientists may be interested in that, and there may be some value in that, but I know there was a Buddha. But what exactly he was like, I can't exactly say. Is that miraculous? I think, I don't know if it's miraculous, but it is open. It's like that phrase, reaching for the pillow in your night.

[24:21]

You know it's there, but you're not exactly, it takes a little feeling around to find it. rush and vitality of the tradition. I think so. For me it does. If Buddha is in a museum, or a mummified remains, that could be beautiful, but it could also be something that is not alive right now. If you know the exact dimensions, and maybe you could measure the exact dimensions. There's an element of this in which I feel like he was saying, you know, history describes it as such and such, and different teachers have described it as such and such, but when you actually see it, it's maybe a little different. Or the story about Seiko and the dragons, you know that story? This is one of my favorite stories, so thank you for giving me the opportunity to tell it.

[25:29]

In the Tang Dynasty in China, there was this man, Seiko, who loved dragons. You know, he had dragon calligraphy, he had dragon pez containers, he had dragon, everything to do with dragons. And he became so famous as the collector throughout China that even the dragons heard about it. And two dragons got together and said, you know, this guy really is interested in us. We should go visit him. So they knocked on the door. He opened the door, and he's screaming away. He was scared stiff. Because the dragon you think, the Buddhism you want, the Buddhism you understand, may not be what you think it is. I think that's what he was talking about. And that is a little miraculous, but it's not miraculous. It's just kind of the way things are. Our understanding is like a mummy, which is very useful.

[26:29]

and very, very great, but the mummy has to change, or we have to tend it. Thank you. Yes? It sounds like what you're talking about, in a way, is between the mummy and the living form, And so, what I almost hear you talking about is, what is life? What does it mean to be alive or to be embodied by it? Maybe so. I guess what I could say, I'm not so interested in what is Buddha, but I'm more interested in becoming Buddha.

[27:31]

Does that clarify what you were asking? Yeah, I'm just sort of wondering, how do you know the difference? How do you sense that for yourself? Well, I can't know it as an object. Or I could try, but... One problem we have is to think that an objectified understanding is it. It's a tool, it's useful, it's informative, but it's not on top. It tries to be on top. Rather, we're in the middle of things. Okay, I don't remember that, but yeah.

[28:37]

It could very well be. Arrogance. Arrogance. Oh, arrogance. I just was wondering if you could expand on that a little bit. I understand in my head, but what do you mean by testimony? Well, okay. You know, a oversimplification or a something is that maybe Some people, and maybe in Asia, there was a little bit of an arrogance by connecting to the past. Maybe. Let's just, for today, let's say that. And in America, maybe the arrogance is in denying the past, that we're more important. And maybe there's an arrogance in saying where we get our juices from the past, or there's an arrogance in saying where our understanding comes is from the future. or saying that none of that's important, what I feel right now is what's the most important thing.

[29:38]

But all three of those are important elements. It's just when we take one of them above the others. You know, I should say, I come from a strange tradition myself. My father's side of my family was Jewish, my mother's side was Catholic, and neither of my parents were very religious at all, at least formally religious. They had a lot of problems with traditions. So, of course, I became a religious fanatic. No. But, you know, I don't see that I'm that different from their tradition. You know, there are elements of the kind of bigness of things, which my mother really has. And there's something about the kind of questioning and openness of things that I got from my father's side of the family. And both of my parents, well, they had a lot of trouble with formal religion and therefore they became Unitarians. I don't know.

[30:43]

I think I've grown up with a lot of their sensibilities, which I appreciate. Arrogance, you know, I think it's possible to be arrogant and take any position. But one of the biggest arrogance is, I know the right way and everybody else is wrong. Which often people have as a reaction to coming from religions where they say, this is the right way and you're wrong. So then the person who hears that says, well I know the right way and it's not your way and it's wrong too. I was trying to get at that I think. What is striking to me is that Knowledge has taken us to the same place that we're talking about. That is to say, we don't intrinsically understand anything. We have a description of electricity, we can manipulate electricity, we don't understand it. We can quantify gravity, and changing the rules all the time of quantification, but we don't understand it.

[31:46]

Ultimately, we don't understand anything except that we have sensibilities, and that we're capable of manipulating, and God knows how far we can go in this process. But intrinsically, there's no understanding of anything. Maths has been reduced to logic and Principia Mathematica, and logic has been found to have antimonies, contradictions. So, we have sensibilities, but we don't understand anything. In other words, what you're saying can be generalized on the basis of reason itself. Well, yeah, and of course we don't want to make that into our understanding too much either, but yeah, I agree. But I mean, I'm just saying, you can take it. But isn't that wonderful? Yes, yes it is. That it's all kind of, that it's not nailed down and written up in some book, that actually we're participating in the way things are. Yeah. The problem is our desire to cling, hide away from the finger for the moon?

[32:54]

Well, unfortunately for Zen students, they need to look at the fingers more most of the time. That doesn't mean that fingers aren't useful. That doesn't mean that books can't inform us. It's only if we put them up as the last word rather than as living information as part of the process. culture are you saying? And that's sort of a problem of translation, I guess, or what's being expressed is that you need a barrier.

[34:02]

Everything we do is a projective test. So it's the projection of what we think we're coming from and what we think other people are. So yes, that's very true. And that's why I think Buddhism has changed in every culture it's come to, and it will take different forms, and our robes may change a little, etc. But it's important to do it slowly, because we have to understand not only what the other country's preconceptions are, but what our own is. So if you keep a living total virus, even if it's alien, you will keep the entire package. And then slowly, as you learn, more and more, then you can actually adapt, but not to adapt too fast. Yeah, in 50 years, I think things will be very much different as they are already for 50 years. How we understand tradition, I wonder if this is important. It's also what you make your tradition. You know, I've been at Sin Center for, well, anyhow, a long time.

[35:08]

And every once in a while, or maybe people here, those of you who are Dwight Way, may have said the tradition is such and such. And then when you moved here, the tradition is such and such. The tradition, what people understand is the tradition also changes. I was talking with John Tarrant one day and he said, he changed one form. And somebody complained to him that he had changed the form that Hakuin had done 250 years earlier. And he said, I created that form. at a certain point in the history of his Sangha. So that doesn't mean that it wasn't a traditional form, because forms come and go, just as I was trying to say that it's a total genetic package. When you learn forms, certain forms may be the most popular ones, but there are others that are for other circumstances. How did I get off on this? Oh, about tradition. Tradition itself and how we understand tradition is also

[36:11]

for change and transit. But that doesn't mean that it's not important, but it just means that it's flexible like everything else, hopefully. Could you say a little bit more? Well, this is a tremendous question, and if I don't have that much time, I'm going to take one more question, but I'll say a little bit.

[37:49]

Even a small comment? It's a big question, because so much of Dharma air is kind of recognizing a certain person's maturity. That's one level. And then there's the sociological, about who should be the boss. That's another level. that kind of more sociological has been done variously at different times, as also the process of personal recognition and maturation. So sometimes the community chooses, sometimes the outgoing teacher chooses, sometimes it's a combination of both. And you know, there's no right way, really. In fact, there's not even one tradition when a while back we were studying how abbots are chosen in Soto Zen in Japan. There are actually several ways.

[38:50]

Some abbots are chosen for life, and some are for terms, and some are rotated. That, even though it's tried to be made into kind of a more mystical idea, I think most of that has to do with sociology and figuring out what's the best way to do it, and there isn't a best way, so you gotta do one way. Now the maturation of students and recognition of individuals, that's a very complicated question, and it's also done differently. But that has, the elements of magic are important in it. Then I'll, then you can move and I can get out of here. One of the problems I've had with Zen tradition in America is hierarchy. I guess it's present in all religious traditions. So my question is, what does the tradition offer for somebody who has a problem with hierarchy, like, say, like, you know, at Zen Center there's 30 people who are superior to me or have, you know, hierarchy, or let's see, what's the word?

[40:11]

I don't know exactly the word, but I've had a real difficult time with that. And I think it's one of the reasons I'm not at Zen Center now. Well, it seems like you might be a senior anarchist. I think there's no... Now, it's true that things can be more hierarchical or less, but there's no way around some hierarchy. And then there are groups of people... Actually, Zen Center is made up of people who are very anarchistic and hide behind hierarchy. Often. But you may be... very hierarchical and hyper-anarchy, I don't know. It's a difficult, you know, part of it is sociological, but part of it is what's the best way to do it? And, you know, religion in general tends, has both elements, has a very kind of peer element, and then there's the kind of more hierarchical element.

[41:12]

And often, most religions have that hierarchical element around seniority. And you are becoming pretty senior. But sometimes it's difficult to be high up in the hierarchy as low down in the hierarchy. You may have more problem with one or the other. And sometimes we choose the hierarchy, the place we pick. But also hierarchy is very difficult. The Japanese have a certain kind of hierarchy and Americans have a certain kind of distaste for hierarchy. and make and believe that everybody's equal. But on the other hand, there's these incredible power, hidden power things. So sometimes overt hierarchy is a lot better than not. But it's, you know, once again, I am just a bug. I try to deal with such a question. But bugs have hierarchy.

[42:15]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ