Sunday, March 29, 2015

Spiritual "Feminine Principle" and Real Women

There is in all visible things an invisible fecundity, a dimmed light, a meek namelessness, a hidden wholeness. This mysterious Unity and Integrity is Wisdom, the Mother of all, Natura naturans.

… All that is sweet in her tenderness will speak to him on all sides in everything, without ceasing, and he will never be the same again. He will have awakened not to conquest and dark pleasure but to the impeccable pure simplicity of One consciousness in all and through all: one Wisdom, one Child, one Meaning, one Sister.

From Hagia Sophia by Thomas Merton

We wrapped up our weekly study class winter term comparing and contrasting Shuichi Maida and Thomas Merton on a note common to both men – the spiritual principle of the “eternal feminine.” Merton expresses his veneration of the feminine principle in his prose-poem Hagia Sophia (quoted above), referring to the Eastern Orthodox focus on Hagia Sophia (Greek for “holy wisdom”) as the source of Virgin Mary’s inspired purity. Maida sings praises of the feminine principle in his commentary on Goethe’s Faust titled Eien ni josei naru mono (that which becomes the eternal femaleness).

Several decades ago I started reading Maida’s book with the intention of translating it. I thought it would give people insight into my teacher’s background – it was the book that Dr. Haneda happened to come across which became his gateway encounter with Buddhism and Shinran’s teachings in particular. As rich as the book is in relating Goethe’s Faust to Jodo Shinshu (see the excerpt translated by Dr. Haneda in The Evil Person), I couldn’t help feeling disturbed by Maida’s sexist and racist comments. Probably other Western women have felt this way – you want to translate and promote your teacher and/or his teacher, but it’s hard dealing with that imperialistic Japanese mindset which denigrates darker-skinned people and women who aren’t focused on being the perfect wife and mother.

As much as Maida, Merton and other revered teachers poetically praise the “feminine principle” in spirituality, it doesn’t carry over into a demand for more women to participate in religious leadership. Avena, a minister at a protestant church who occasionally joins our study group, said many congregations feel short-changed if they have to settle for a woman minister. She’s heard people say, “If we had more money, we could afford a male minister.” (And I thought only Japanese American temples and churches spoke that way.)

I think we need to disconnect the spiritual “feminine principle” from language associated with the stereotyping of real women. So many times my husband tells me I’m not acting in the temple’s best interest when I’m too girly, trying to be “meek and accommodating” while dealing with a demanding member or negotiating with vendors of goods and services. Instead of “masculine” and “feminine” to group certain traits, we should use non-gender terms. The problem with the words “passive” and “aggressive” is they sound too passive and aggressive. So I propose using the geometry terms, concave and convex.

[graphic from]
There are times when we human beings in our jobs and relationships have to be more convex (“leaning in,” assertive) and times to be concave (witnessing, receptive). But in spirituality we discover more and more how deeply concave the great Life within and around us is. Accounts of the militant, jealous Zeus/God are reflections of the convexity of our childish temper – we want to be the punisher of all who don’t go our way.

Maybe this isn’t the best suggestion, but I hope all of you future Maidas and Mertons out there can experiment with religious vocabulary so that real men, women and intersex people (a shout out to our member Lynnell) aren’t boxed in by expectations regarding gender and spirituality.

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Economic Justice: Liberation from the Delusion of Possessiveness

Yesterday I attended the breakfast meeting called by ONE-Northside to discuss the state budget cuts. The e-mail invitation was for “leaders” of member groups and those who showed up were either heads of social service agencies or like me, the minister of a local church. For the clergy, it was a time to listen as the various agencies told us as they receive less state money to provide services, we will see more people at our doors asking for food, shelter, tutoring, jobs etc. At our temple we already see several people stop by during the week or showing up on Sunday telling us they would like some money, some food or just a little assistance, such as a man wanting someone to help him fill out forms for housing. I’ve told our volunteers to give out bottled water, soda or whatever leftover snacks we have around and to give people the information sheets I received from Peoples Church and St. Thomas of Canterbury listing the nearby places and schedules for free meals and food pantries. I realize it falls short of what Haya Akegarasu called “an offering to a buddha” in an anecdote where Akegarasu goes to the kitchen and gets a hot meal for a beggar that his young relative tried to shoo away from the temple.

The people of community organizations such as ONE-Northside feel the most important action to take is to campaign for raising taxes – to increase the size of the pie instead of service agencies and their clients fighting over the crumbs. But as one minister said, “We need talking points. Our congregation members are already saying that higher taxes will make people and companies leave Illinois for other states.” (He added that he’s from the South and wouldn’t want Illinois to end up like those states with a stark divide between the rich and poor.) The agency heads said there are statistics showing the costs of jail, emergency room visits and nursing homes are much higher than the costs of providing ongoing services to those dealing with mental and physical health issues. An example of one cut of  “non-essential services” is the substance abuse prevention programs at Alternatives, Inc. Those programs were providing tutoring and job training to underprivileged young people to give them confidence in themselves so they would be less likely to turn to drugs to temporarily escape situations of helplessness.

I’m not sure I can get people to consider the benefits of raising their taxes, but one thing I can do is help people see the delusion of possessiveness – that belief that one has to get more and more and hang on to it tightly. In the U.S. right now there seems to be a prevailing message of “you deserve what you’ve got and should protect it” – that is, your possessions and wealth are purely for the welfare of you and your family and should not be shared with the people who are too lazy and/or immoral to do honest work. There’s a demonizing of the “have-nots” as people who are poor entirely due to their own faults (they’re “illegals,” “welfare queens,” “thugs” etc.) It’s similar to how the aristocracy in Shinran’s time called the people of the working classes akunin, “evil persons,” deserving to be miserable because they break the Buddhist precepts in carrying out their jobs.

[photo – detail of woodcarving of the teaching Buddha by Harry Koizumi]
In Buddhism we say that gratitude comes from realizing our lives are the results of so many causes and conditions – that our comfort, health, “smarts,” rewards etc. are primarily from the influences of generations before us, the society we happened to be born in, the environment, how resilient or damaged our genetic material is. In that same realization should be a concern for others who did not receive such an advantageous aggregate of conditions. We can’t fault them for “bad choices” when we know that the choices we made were hardly well thought out and the good results were from choices we really did not make rationally but from anxiety or a fleeting hunch.

Although we live under a legal system of property rights and money exchange for goods and services, the Buddha pointed out the reality of “By nature, one possesses nothing.” Everything is only in our temporary custody despite all the documentation we have to prove ownership. If we can take this to heart, there would be no more sense of “giving” but only “sharing.” In that sense, there is an argument for higher taxes – assuming our governments are efficient enough to distribute those funds to the services that could help people more than our individual donations would (unfortunately in Illinois the local governments are known more for corruption than efficiency).

In Buddhism, you can still be a wealthy householder like Vimalakirti but the teachings help us from falling in the delusion of “deserving” to have and hang onto wealth and vilifying the poor as “unworthy.” Temples need to emphasize the universal sense of sharing with all beings instead of defining “generosity” as big donations to the temple. Of course as an institution we need to raise funds to operate, but part of the service we give to the community is to open the hearts/minds of our attendees – to help them become more able to identify with people who are struggling and suffering due to limited access to the resources we take for granted. I don’t think this is me getting political – but for myself and my privileged peers, we need to hear in the Buddha-Dharma our liberation from the crippling delusion of possessiveness.

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Learning the Mind of Ahimsa

Lately I’ve been feeling guilty because of the recent death of a temple volunteer who was ill for several months. I won’t go into the details, but about a year ago that person heard about my criticism of him and he confronted me about it. I felt as resident minister I should be concerned about the use of the altar area and supplies and about newcomers being steered away from participating in our temple. But I realize my problem is I come off sounding harsh, condemning the whole person for the few things he did that rubbed me the wrong way. Now that the person had died, I can imagine all the people saying, “How could you be so mean to someone who was so gentle and kind?”

Rev. Gyoko Saito is my main role model for learning how to be more of a listener and less of a talker – to be the grateful receiver of wisdom from others rather than the pushy propagator. But I need to learn more about how to have the “heart/mind of embracing all” even when those you are confronted with those who seem to be working at cross purposes to you, those whose presentation of Buddhism seems worlds away from the nembutsu teachings, or even those whose words seem totally at odds with the Buddha’s basic teachings though they wear the title and robes of spiritual authority.

It’s something I need to learn for any gathering under the umbrella of Buddhist brotherhood. For the upcoming Catholic-Buddhist dialogue in Rome in June, I can see where for most of the Buddhist delegates it’s easier for us to relate to the Pope than to each other. At base, almost all Buddhists recognize that Shakyamuni taught in different ways to different people, so we accept the existence of a wide diversity of sects. “You do what works for you and I’ll do what works for me.” The tricky part is analyzing why your way doesn’t work for me without denigrating you and your presentation.

Even if someone appears to me to be a big blowhard, using the banner of Buddhism to glorify his/her self, I need that mind of forgiveness and compassion (“fellow-feeling” – as Shinran called himself a “slanderer of the Dharma” for using the role of Buddhist teacher to satisfy his ego). I’m thinking the word to keep in mind is ahimsa, usually translated as “non-violence.” Even if I find much to criticize, there should be no ill-will towards that person and what they do, no wish for harm to come to them. How does one maintain that mind while engaging in a critique of someone’s conduct and philosophy?

Of course all over the internet we are bombarded with loud condemnation and cruel insults thrown by people with differing views. During the Vietnam War era, I remember seeing all the harsh caricatures of President Lyndon Johnson and wondering how people who claim to be peace activists can be so disrespectful, treating Johnson and other leaders as less than human, deserving to be beat up and even executed. That is the mind-set I need so much to overcome.

[from Gesthsemani Archives, Merton at the East/West Conference in Thailand 1968]
For our weekly study group as part of the topic of “renunciation,” we will begin a discussion of the life and writings of Thomas Merton. There’s not enough time for me to delve very deeply into all of Merton’s major works, but so far in what I’m reading (primarily Mystics and Zen Masters and articles in A Thomas Merton Reader) I’m finding him as someone to emulate. In another book I’m reading (Thomas Merton: Monk and Artist by Victor Kramer), Merton is described as someone who started off sharply critical of the world in his early writings, but as he matured, he demonstrated a deep compassion towards those who did things he found disturbing, such as the officials who sent a young refugee back to her country to suffer certain punishment.

It’s in his appreciation of philosophies far removed from his strict Catholic milieu (as a Cistercian “Trappist” monk) where he shows an attitude of respect and a willingness to learn the details of a fellow human being’s way of spirituality. I am hoping by reading his brilliant writings that my closed mind can be cracked open a bit and I can strive for more understanding and less condemnation of others’ seemingly “alien” ways. Maybe to become more “kind and gentle” will make me a less interesting blog writer, but Merton certainly shows one can skillfully use words to foster mutual understanding and rally people to activism based in thoughtfulness, rather than bile.