I’m finding more not to like in the concluding chapters of Each Moment Is the Universe: Zen and the Way of Being Time, by Dainin Katagiri. In my previous post I criticized Katagiri for buying into the Buddhist notion of past lives, which reeks of unproven supernaturalism.
In some reading I did in the book today, I came across another subject that, thankfully, I’ve rarely encountered in other books about Zen Buddhism: bodhisattvas. Katagiri said:
There are two ways of manifesting your life every day: there is an ordinary life and a bodhisattva life. The ordinary type of life is to live in past karma as a cause and delusions as a conditioned element… In ordinary life we are always looking at life through our egoistic telescope: judging and evaluating, barking at each other and fighting, always trying to get something for ourselves.
…But for bodhisattvas there is another type of living. To live the bodhisattva life is to live in vow as a cause and the paramitas as a conditioned element. A bodhisattva is the person who vows to help others under all circumstances. In order to make that vow mature, bodhisattva practice has six fundamental principles of human life that are secondary causes to make the primary cause ripen. These are the six paramitas: giving, precepts, patience, effort, samadhi and wisdom.
Whenever I read passages like this in a book about Buddhism, I feel grateful that I’m not a Buddhist, because I find this sort of sanctimonious B.S. really annoying. Especially when it comes from a Zen teacher.
Zen appeals to me when it has a decidedly non-bodhisattva character. When it is humorous rather than serious. When it is earthy rather than holier-than-thou. When it is ordinary rather than special. When it is rooted in everyday life rather than idealized existence.
Right after Katagiri says that ordinary egoistic life is marked by judging and evaluating, he judges and evaluates anyone who doesn’t embrace a supposedly selfless bodhisattva life. I say supposedly, because I doubt that even the most charitable and caring person truly is selfless. Meaning, not that they lack an enduring unchanging self (no one has such a self), but that they only care what is good for others, not what is good for themselves.
I would bet that most, if not all, Buddhists who aspire to being bodhisattva dudes or dudettes believe that doing this is good for themselves as well as for other people. Katagiri decries us poor fools living an ordinary life who are “always trying to get something for ourselves.” Yes, Katagiri is correct. I’m trying to get health, happiness, satisfaction, money, meaning, and so much else for myself.
And a bodhisattva is trying to get enlightenment for both themselves and all sentient beings. At least, that’s one of the descriptions of a bodhisattva in a lengthy Wikipedia article that gave me a headache just scrolling through it rapidly.
In Buddhism, a bodhisattva is a person who has attained, or is striving towards, bodhi (meaning ‘awakening’, ‘enlightenment’) or Buddhahood. Often, the term specifically refers to a person who forgoes or delays personal nirvana or bodhi in order to compassionately help other individuals reach Buddha.
Everybody is desiring something. Well, lots of somethings. That’s an inescapable part of human nature. If we didn’t desire food and water, we would die. If we didn’t desire sex, we would rarely have children. If we didn’t desire learning, we wouldn’t have schools. If we didn’t desire enlightenment, we would lack bodhisattvas.
I know some extremely caring people. They get a lot of joy and satisfaction from helping other people. Yet they don’t see themselves as special in any way. They are genuinely humble, because they don’t try to be humble. They’re just themselves. I much prefer their naturalness to the bodhisattva B.S. that Katagiri espouses and which is present in the headache-inducing Wikipedia article about Bodhisattva.
I asked Claude, the AI model, Does zen buddhism place importance on bodhisattvas? Yes, it does, albeit in a certain fashion. Which helps explain why I am attracted to Zen, but in no way would I want to go through any sort of formal Zen training. Claude told me:
Zen Buddhism has a nuanced relationship with bodhisattvas — they’re present and respected, but not central in the way they are in other Mahayana traditions.
Bodhisattvas are acknowledged, not emphasized
Zen is a Mahayana school, so it formally embraces the bodhisattva ideal — the aspiration to attain enlightenment for the benefit of all beings rather than oneself alone. Zen practitioners typically recite the Bodhisattva Vows (the Four Great Vows) regularly, which are a direct expression of this ideal.
But Zen downplays devotional focus on bodhisattva figures
Unlike Pure Land Buddhism (which centers on Amitabha Buddha and Guanyin) or Tibetan Buddhism (with its rich pantheon of bodhisattvas as objects of practice), Zen tends to be skeptical of external objects of veneration. The famous Lin-chi (Rinzai) saying — “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him” — captures this spirit: don’t cling even to sacred figures.
Guanyin is a partial exception
Guanyin (Avalokiteśvara, the bodhisattva of compassion) does appear in Zen temples and is genuinely venerated, particularly in Chinese Chan and Korean Seon traditions. But even here, the emphasis is less on devotion to an external being and more on embodying compassion oneself.
The practitioner as bodhisattva
Perhaps most distinctively, Zen tends to internalize the bodhisattva ideal — the practitioner aims to become a bodhisattva through practice and awakening, rather than seeking the intercession of bodhisattvas. The teacher-student relationship often carries something of this bodhisattva energy, with the teacher compassionately guiding others toward liberation.
So in short: the bodhisattva ideal is important in Zen, but bodhisattvas as devotional figures are largely de-emphasized in favor of direct practice and self-reliance.
Discover more from Church of the Churchless
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gurinder tells a satsangi that his leather shoe and belt business is unethical.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwSim-GV07g (starts at 6:30 minutes)
In his explanation, Gurinder says that all medicines can be made with non-vegetarian ingredients, and that doctors who sell medicines with animal ingredients are “just looking for an easy way out.”
But records show that Ranbaxy uses animal products to make pharmaceuticals. (Gurinder didn’t own Ranbaxy, but it was a family business; moreover, Gurinder wasn’t above taking huge “loans” from Ranbaxy).
There are no records of Ranbaxy ever saying it avoids animal products when making medications. Records do show that some of its products explicitly contain gelatin.
Didn’t Sawan Singh ride a horse in his army days? Aren’t horse saddles always made of leather?
Also, there’s a photo of Sawan wearing leather boots.
Despite all of that, Gurinder is telling this satsangi that his leather goods business is unethical.
I hope the satsangi does the right thing and sells his leather business. But wait, even that would be unethical, because in the video, Gurinder says that supply created demand. Obviously, the satsangi should burn or bury his leather goods.
If any of this is confusing to some of you, let me make it clearer: Gurus can use leather goods but forbid their followers from using them or selling them. Also, gurus can forbid their followers from eating foods with animal rennet while taking huge “loans” from pharma businesses that use animal gelatin.
These QnA videos always show exactly how RSSB is a cult. The members are waaaay to gullible and every single question is the same. There is not a single critical thought in over 150 of these videos. Props to you for even bearing to listen to even 10 seconds of this trite nonsense.
As for the karma, I remember in the old satsangs they said we should not even sit with meat-eaters because that would influence our minds. How quickly the so-called “set-in-stone” teachings change in the modern age…
All the reading l went through over the years, it was Buddhism and Taoism that, for me, made the most sense; but l soon realized that many authors (teachers) incorporated ideas and beliefs from the cultural past of the original Buddhist countries.
I know that many in the West decry the dilution of the original teachings, but l do feel that cutting through the inevitable inclusion of the cultural aspect of Buddhism (Zen in this case) can only help to clarify Buddhism’s relevance.
There are many who have ‘de-cluttered’ Zen in a positive way.
l mentioned in a previous post, that at some point, whether perhaps through reading or attendance in Zen (or whatever) relying on teachers and teachings can become non-productive to one’s understanding of oneself and life.
So, ‘If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him’: And, ‘Become an island unto yourself’ – which doesn’t mean withdrawing from life as some may believe – but just to live the aliveness of life as it unfolds for you.
People are drawn to different styles of living. If someone wants to make helping others their goal in life, and they are willing to work at it, they will get better at it. Along the way they will have to make a lot of decisions about what path to take, and what they will leave behind, or do nothing and make zero progress, which calcifies into decline.
But wanting to be good at anything generally is not enough. We must learn how, and for that good teachers are priceless.
So pick your path, be flexible as the requirements appear. Be accepting as good teachers appear. Don’t try to judge the answer without the beginner’s understanding until you have some actual experience, which will only teach you that the world is larger than you thought so it isn’t wise or necessary to judge. Be a student. Always.
Be willing to work, to learn and try again.
Avoid judging others. They aren’t any of your business. And you don’t have time left for it.
The greatest path to growth, as Tolstoy wrote, is to love something, and someone, more than yourself.
“If you see the Buddha on the road, Kill him”
This is highly misunderstood out of context. To the atheist it means refuse any teacher. And that is false interpretation.
But to the venerable Linji-YIxuan, the 9th century author, it only means you should kill your own preconceived notions of what the Buddha should be. That could be your preconceived notions about God, divinity, the universe and reality. Mental concepts are derivative at best, and should be discarded. We learn through experience, and concepts only serve to help us along.
We always find truth, reality and Buddha, within ourselves. But it is a journey, an Odyssey through our own illusions. How can we pull ourselves through our own illusions? We can’t. A good teacher can help you with that.
And if they do, you may rightly call such a teacher “God” for they helped you find the treasure of all treasures. They went with you every step. They used their connections to connect you too. And it became quite clear, they did this so easily because they came from there and because they are love.The difficulties were always within you. But that is to be expected. The journey is a journey after all.
Another nice story in Buddhism is to do with non-attachment: ‘When the raft takes you to the other shore, leave the raft behind.’ The teachings have done their job: to cling to the raft – whether the Buddha s teaching, Zen. Advaita and so forth, is to continue suffering under the yoke of attachments.
A crutch may be a useful aid following injury but can become an impediment once healed. Maybe some of Katagi,s (and Zen) teachings are not needed as one awakens too living life in the only reality we can truly know – the aliveness of the present moment.
I’ve never before seen someone who’s actually angered by the Mahayana concept of absolute compassion and selflessness.
The Bodhisattva ideal is the foremost principle of Tibetan Buddhism. It’s the Buddhist concept that the 14th Dalai Lama most frequently talks and writes about. Stunning to see it put down as “sanctimonious BS.”
Pingback: More Zen pseudo-wisdom from Dainin Katagiri