This podcast is offered by the San Francisco Zen Center on the web at www.sfcc.org. Our public programs are made possible by donations from people like you. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to San Francisco Zen Center. My name is Kyoshin Wendy Lewis, and today I'll be speaking about anti-intellectualism in Zen. particularly in American Zen. Issue for me for a long time. During the upcoming practice period here, I have proposed a class on an introduction to the Lotus Sutra. And the Lotus Sutra is very important in Zen, Dogen, Suzuki Roshi, and in Nichiren. Buddhism, and in that tradition, it's kind of magical texts.

[01:07]

It's chanted, and it's used to sort of, I don't know, it's like how you call it, sort of inspire, release from suffering, and getting things that you want. And that's a function of faith. It's kind of tricky how we judge that. So one of my sources, my research sources, says that there are some Japanese scholars who refer to the Lotus Sutra as snake oil because of that way that it's used. But also the people who study it and chant it feel like you know, there's not necessarily a need to have it reflect doctrine, because that's sort of implied, or people who are chanting it know the doctrine already. So there's these ways of looking at this very important sutra.

[02:10]

So these differing interpretations and ways we perceive things and judge them, it's common in religious history, and, you know, any kind of scholarship in any field. I think they're kind of... We often sort of divide them between the approach of study and research and faith or belief. And so it's very easy in a certain way to kind of fall into one side or the other and ways to justify that and be arrogant about it. And I think that... there's a tendency towards the sort of magical, sort of founder, adulating, enthusiastic tradition because, and I'm using these words just neutrally, but you can hear them however you like. It's saleable, and it helps institutions hold together.

[03:17]

So you don't have to ask so much of people in a certain way. And I'm trying to be careful there because it's tricky, right? So I think that what institutions offer is this sense of social intimacy and communality, shared feelings, beliefs, ideas. But they also, for that reason... comprise exclusivity and sort of a denigration of other people's beliefs and experiences so you know and then intellectual perspectives can be excluding because they have particular needs you know you need resources you need teachers you need interpretations you need all kinds of things so those aren't always available or interesting to people. So one can seem credulous, and the other can seem narrow, and both have their arrogance and their sort of transformative potential.

[04:29]

So the prologue to Suzuki's Zen Mind Beginner's Mind is often quoted, and I'm sure most... Many of you will be familiar with the sentence, in the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the experts there are few. The experts. So one of the interesting things about Suzuki's talks that have been published is that they're not annotated. So you don't always know if he's referring to a koan or a sutra or what. So as you read his... you know, what are published as his talks, that's something to keep in mind, that you might not know what he's talking about, which is okay. You know, it's kind of like with the Lotus Sutra, like, well, the doctrine, you know, if you don't know it, then how do you know what he's talking about? So, but God allows us to interpret his teachings any way we like. We can just say, oh, this is what he means, and this is what he means.

[05:35]

So I get to do that too. So... In Christian theological history, you know, some of you might be familiar with this, you know, there are interpretations that can be considered paradoxical or contradictory. One thing that was interesting to me as I was studying theology was that, you know, as Christianity moved into all these different pagan societies, Greek... Roman, Middle Eastern, European, North African, the traditions there were not unfamiliar with the gods relating with humans and creating demigods. So the idea of Jesus being the son of God wasn't a problem. It didn't have the sort of different view that some of the... traditions, like the Judaic tradition, did not have that pagan view.

[06:36]

So then when you read the Gospel of Matthew, it begins with the lineage of Jesus. And this is reading into history. You can't really say whether true or not, but it reads his lineage back to King David through Joseph, as though Joseph is the father. So I was talking to one of my people in my cohort who was a devout Catholic and a really good friend. And we were talking about these contradictions and everything. And he said, well, it's just a matter of what won out. And I sort of shivered a little because in religious history, when something wins out, it usually means a lot of people are murdered or marginalized or something like that. It's just very interesting. These interpretations have a lot of power. So I've mentioned this before, and I don't think it's so much that unexamined history repeats itself as that human nature remains consistent.

[07:50]

And I think it is consistent that spiritual beliefs and ideals sort of entwine themselves with... social, political, and intellectual tendencies. You know, even atheism is dependent on the foundation of religious history, which is the foundation of our institutions of politics and our legal institutions are based in the laws that have come through Judaic and Christian traditions and so on and Roman and blah, blah, blah. So to some extent, I think, and I don't think this will surprise anyone, but Zen in America is entwined with what we might call the hippie ideals of communal ideology, liberal politics, and anti-intellectualism.

[08:52]

And some of the consequences of that, you know, communal ideology in many intentional communities, religious, particularly spiritual communities, has eroded sometimes through misuse of sexuality and money and, you know, you've seen these things in the news, and by conflicting interpretations. And this is basically an issue of power and that undercurrent of narcissism. that can become part of any sort of movement or spiritual interpretation or whatever. And liberal politics has a tendency to slip into lip service and, you know, what do you call it, self-congratulation and a kind of reactivity to every new problem. Now, again, these are not said in a judgmental way.

[09:58]

It's just like, how do we look at what we're doing? And so I think anti-intellectualism undermines this potential, you know, for deep practice, consideration, and understanding. And that is often the foundation for long-term institutional stability and growth and meaning. What does it mean, what we're doing? So Suzuki says, all self-centered thoughts limit our vast mind. And by expert's mind, he is describing a mind of complacency or kind of cluelessness. And this is chosen or based in an understandable, willful ignorance. You know, it's like, how much can we take in?

[11:00]

How much can we care about? How much can we examine ourselves and the people around us? And, you know, don't we know enough already? Most of us are pretty knowledgeable. And it doesn't matter what that comes from, you know, what that's based in. But when I think our expert's mind is applied to Zen, or Buddhism in general, it then allows us to justify our interpretations of Zen, including acting out as a skill in training others, to present materialistic and controlling tendencies as mature practice, and to let our narcissistic tendencies predominate. And this results in a form of leadership that's called petty tyranny, something I've been studying. And I think all of us enact or have enacted petty tyranny to some extent.

[12:09]

We expect it in our institutions and our working environments and I think in our daily life. So petty tyrants require flattery, praise, agreement, and obedience. And they're very friendly and sort of play favorites with those who provide these things and reward them. And they pass on those same attitudes of power to the next people. It's just like anything. That's how it works. And so there's an element of being controlling and encouraging resentment and gossip. through arbitrary admonishment and secrecy. And this is, you know, we're so familiar with this. It's kind of like, we're like, yeah, you know, that's something I think we've all experienced. And at the same time, I don't know of any stories when the Buddha, you know, kind of punished or hit or physically,

[13:20]

hit or yelled at people in public or shamed or silenced anyone. And so I think, well, you know, where does this kind of, this sort of Zen tradition of sort of hitting and shaming come from? And I, again, this is not a judgment. It's just like, what? You know, and how do we get caught in these things, these traditions and these interpretations? And there are certainly many Zen ancestors who didn't do those things. And so they're also in there for us to look at. So the antidote or, you know, the sort of opposite correlative to petty tyranny seems to be appreciation and consideration for those one guides or supervises, encouraging initiative, being unafraid of criticism or feedback, and not forcing on others one's own point of view.

[14:23]

And, you know, in general, a kind of appreciation of variety rather than preferring people who agree with us or like us or that sort of thing. Very difficult. And this is examined in a study by Blake Ashworth called Petty Tyranny in Organizations. And ironically, in a certain way, these antidotes are characteristics of the intellectual perspective. And, you know, intellectual is not about scholars or academics or scientists or famous writers or anything, or artists, because they can be petty tyrants as well. We've seen all that. In the acknowledgments at the end of anti-intellectualism in American life, Richard Hofstadter remarks, you know, after he names all the people he's thanking who supported him in his project, he said, since much of the talk provoked by my ideas took the form of unresolved arguments, it would be especially ironic if any of these persons were assumed to share my views.

[15:42]

And I think this is the kind of flexibility of mind that can be called intellectual, an openness and a kind of sense of humor about one's ideas and thoughts and interpretations while still having the courage and confidence to pursue and express and defend them. And in the body of his text, Hofstadter discusses the relationship between the intellectual and truth. Whenever the intellectual is too certain of, if he is healthily playful, did I say whenever? Let me read it again. Whatever the intellectual is too certain of, if he is healthily playful, he begins to find unsatisfactory. The meaning of the intellectual life lies not in the possession of truth, but in the quest for new uncertainties. In principle, Intellect is neither practical nor impractical.

[16:48]

It is extra practical. Sounds very Zen, you know, like what? Where's he getting this? And I think there's also echoes of this in Suki's comments on beginner's mind. He says, there is no need to have a deep understanding of Zen. Even though you read much Zen literature, you must read each sentence with a fresh mind. And I think he's saying that beginner's mind is not the way we usually think or the way we perceive or interpret our experience. Hofstadter says, the intellectual is not in the first instance concerned with goals. He is concerned with something else, a quality in problems that is not defined by asking whether or not they have practical purpose. Now, the sort of looking back at petty tyranny is focused almost exclusively on goals, usually immediate goals.

[17:59]

And often an exclusion of anything else, such as reflection, consideration, and this urgency and this narrowness can alienate the very people who can... initiate the processes to make these goals kind of flourish. And these goals are often not clearly articulated in the first place. So everybody's kind of wondering, you know, running around trying to figure out where we're going, what is it we want to accomplish, and what is our process? And it's... One of the factors of petty tyranny that Ashworth identifies is that it's a vicious cycle of crisis-oriented management. And this is what the petty tyranny prefers because it looks powerful. It's always some kind of control thing going on. I was in England recently, and the family I know there

[19:07]

Anyway, it was just very interesting, the different atmosphere I felt being there. And one of my friend's sons handed me a book while I was there. This happens to me all the time because people know I read. So he hands me this book called The Fifth Risk, and it's by Michael Lewis. And it's a critique of the current tendencies in American politics and decision-making. And he describes The Fifth Risk as... The one a society runs when it falls into the habit of responding to long-term risks with short-term solutions. It is the innovation that never occurs and the knowledge that is never created because you have ceased to lay the groundwork for it. It is what you never learned that might have saved you. One of the things that Lewis talks about and implies is that the changes that have happened in this current administration have altered and continue to alter our policies and our principles in a way that can't be reversed.

[20:26]

And this was a feeling I was having. And so when I read the book, I was like, oh, okay. And that's how to read his definition of the fifth risk. It's a hint. you know, of how to see what's happening, consider if there's a way to address it, if we even want to, and to understand that irreversibility. So I think, you know, most of us don't maintain short-term oriented expert view every moment or even every day. You know, it's kind of useful. in a sense, you know, to get things done or get through things, but I think that one part of it is that it becomes a habit and people who are, and it becomes a model for people in power positions and also for people who find themselves in power positions and trying to negotiate things

[21:32]

the power structure as it is. So many years ago when I was at Tassajara, I made this very petty judgment about someone and it caused them a lot of hurt. And this person I had in the back of mind when I thought about it, they kind of irritated me. And so of course I focused on them. I was just like, I was very lucky because this person confronted me about it. And it was hard, but I ended up apologizing and really thought about, you know, I don't think I want to do that again. And, you know, this is, I remembered other moments when I had acted in that way. And I'm not saying, you know, oh, now I behave perfectly and everything.

[22:34]

I'm so wonderful. But I haven't done that particular thing again. And it's kind of informed how I do other things as well. So, you know, this really awful experience and, you know, wasn't easy. But it did allow me to be more thoughtful about, you know, here I was in this power position and I was using it in some way. for some kind of self-gratification. I don't even know exactly how it would be described. But it just changed my sense of how I should speak to people and what the whole point of having a position of power was. It wasn't this judgmental thing. And why would I want to treat someone like that? What would be that need or whatever it was? And it also made me think about what other people were going through when they treated me or others in that way.

[23:37]

And how I could respond, not expecting people to change their behavior, but just stating my boundaries and my dignity and that I hadn't given them permission. And just letting it stop there. not trying to make a big deal or go and complain, which I also think is very important. Excuse me if I made that seem like it wasn't. But it's just these daily things stating those boundaries. So what I think is interesting about social media is that it's really a wonderful forum for petty tyrants and their victims. You know, everybody gets like all worked up and everything. And, you know, this is not exactly a new phenomenon. We're just seeing another iteration of it. But I find myself, you know, kind of referring to my perception anyway of our current social, political, and intellectual situation as defined by Facebook culture.

[24:47]

And I think our current president exemplifies this in some of his behaviors and his decisions and his statements. But many of us explicitly or implicitly kind of through our own behavior admire or emulate his bravado. So what are we in? Are we looking at it from the inside or the outside? What's being reflected back to us? So coming back to Suzuki Roshi's teaching on the beginners and the expert's mind, I think it's useful to remember that it's a teaching. It's not about saying, oh, beginner's mind is better and expert's mind is not as good and that sort of thing. It's not a dividing thing or to criticize others or praise ourselves or something like that.

[25:50]

And I think of when you think of true experts, like sometimes when I hear someone talk about something they really know, I just find myself relaxing. There's this kind of wonder about it that someone can be so full of something and able to communicate it. It's very wonderful. So these are people who really know things. Even if I don't know about the topic, I can feel it. And areas of science, there's so much variety, technology, research, artists, writers, social and literary critics, professional politicians and strategists, financiers, whatever you want to call them, businessmen and women, teachers, professors, military professionals. There's all these areas where there's possibilities of expertise. Experts are usually, like real experts, are usually very careful to refrain from expressing themselves in terms of absolutes.

[27:00]

So I think what Suzuki Roshi may actually be referring to is the interplay of the experts and beginner's mind. Just before that famous quotation, he says... For Zen students, the most important thing is not to be dualistic. Our original mind includes everything within itself. This does not mean a closed mind, but actually an empty mind and a ready mind. If your mind is empty, it is always ready for anything. It is open to everything. You can imagine the number of interpretations of that. Well, in... Buddhism, the term empty, it doesn't mean a vacuum or a space or a container with no object or substance to it or a philosophical vagueness, you know, about voidness or something.

[28:07]

It's actually a frame of reference for reality. So a short definition of empty is non-duality. And that is the context for the interaction of the relative and the absolute. And that is the openness for what we know to remain in conversation with what we don't know and all the possibilities of that. And almost paradoxically, this means that the more that we are open to input, information, other views and perspectives, the more our minds are open to everything. It's like an exercise. You exercise your mind to be more open. And I consider this a function of faith, this ability to listen for and to be open for what is beyond what we already know and assume.

[29:10]

As I was reading Anti-Intellectualism in America, Richard Hofstetter mentioned, he described two characteristics of the intellectual, piety and playfulness. And I was really taken aback when I read that because I believe that two of the most important aspects of practice are what I call faith and humor. So I thought... okay, I think we're in the same world or something. That was very funny. But piety and faith are not about a particular viewer belief, but I think it's about the openness to that interactivity. And playfulness and humor are not about laughing or jokes or hilarity, but about freedom. And partly freedom from what Suzuki refers to as discriminating too much or being too demanding or greedy.

[30:16]

And I think this type of mental flexibility can be painful and disconcerting. And Suzuki says, people say that practicing Zen is difficult, but there is a misunderstanding as to why. And I think in some ways we have this hope or assumption that practice will make us experts. And this is what Suzuki refers to as practice that has become impure. He says, in the beginner's mind there is no thought. I have attained something. And that means we can really learn something. So in some way we can interpret this teaching as though mental effort is not necessary, and that it is even detrimental. But for someone like Suzuki, who actually encouraged his students to study and pursue some scholarly understanding of Buddhism, I don't think this is quite right.

[31:26]

And I think he might have wanted his students to know enough to experience this type of mental illness. He says, this is also the real secret of the arts, always to be a beginner. Not to reject instruction or study, reflection, application, doing the work, but to engage with these as a kind of an exploration of the self and of reality and of the relationship between them. He says, be very, very careful about this point. So Hofstadter refers to the intellectual capacity as being one that people are born with. And I think what he's talking about is not so much the kind of intelligence that knows things and can answer trivia quizzes and that sort of thing.

[32:30]

And although at the same time, you know, accumulating knowledge and imagery and that sort of thing is very helpful for associative thinking. You know, it's kind of like if you only have two objects, you need to see the difference between them, but when you have 50, you have to think more deeply and more carefully. And I think, you know, as I... this topic is important to me because I'm afraid I'm kind of an intellectual. And I don't mean I'm brilliant or anything like that. I think there's some way I am that is just like that. And reading Hofstetter's book, I was like, okay, this is my something. And two significant struggles I've had in my life are with intellectual loneliness and boredom. And two of the solaces I've experienced are reading and being outdoors.

[33:36]

So this is the kind of person I am. What is the sort of option? And I realized that extensive reading is actually my effort to be engaged in good conversations. And not just ones, you know, that are intellectual, but I think of it as ones that are engaging, serious, and funny. And funny doesn't always mean laughter. It's like, I know I'm trying to get to the end of this talk. I'm almost finished. But there's this book called Pagans and Christians by Robin Lane Fox. And in it, he describes how when the Roman police were looking for Christians meeting together, one of the ways they could tell who had been there and how many men and women were there is that people would leave their shoes and their... coats and stuff outside when they would go into the meeting room. But when they knew the police were coming, they'd all run off without their things.

[34:39]

So the police would know who was there by counting the shoes and seeing which belonged to men and which belonged to women and the coats. And that's kind of funny, you know, in this very painful way of thinking, why were they looking for them and all that kind of thing. But these little details that can make things more alive. So the first time I tried to read Hofstadter's book, it had been recommended to me by a friend. It was too depressing, and I set it aside. But I do now find it sort of amusing and informative and this sort of reflection of that value of that particular perspective and of the intellectual perspective. Not that everyone should do it, nothing like that. But the value of it and finding that value in my enjoyment of it and the effect of anti-intellectualism on a certain kind of quality of our creativity and the way we treat each other and that sort of thing.

[35:47]

So one of the things about his book is that intellectuals are often kind of prophets of a certain kind. They don't foresee the future, but they illuminate the present. And I think that that's kind of something that can be considered to be of value, even if it's uncomfortable or irritating or whatever. Hofstetter describes one of the paradoxes of the intellectual's relationship to power. One of the difficulties in the relationship of intellect to power is that certain primary functions of intellect are widely felt to be threatened almost as much by being associated with power as by being relegated to a position of impotence. So I think the expectation of power tends more towards loyalty than something that I'll just call integrity. And it's willing to exploit both those who work for it and those who don't.

[36:55]

And that reinforces this kind of paradox. There's this British TV series called Inspector Morse. And the title character is, you know, your typical intellectual type. And he's a drinker. That often happens to people who see the world that way as this complexity. He reads a lot. He listens to classical music. And he's really good at solving these... impossible British crosswords, nothing like the ones we do, and solving crimes. And when his supervisor asked him at one point whether he's disappointed at not receiving a promotion, he shrugs and says no. And his supervisor, who's not surprised, says, you don't say the right things to the right people. So, you know... this complexity of things and about how power works and how we relate to it and what can support it and what can enrich it into authority and this kind of non, what is it?

[38:09]

This non, you know, this non-requirement of obedience but of this kind of variety and vitality or something. So there are different interpretations of Buddhist and Zen teachings, including Suzuki's. In the last paragraph of this chapter, he says, so the most difficult thing is always to keep your beginner's mind, that it is through Zazen that we appreciate it, and that this is the secret of Zen practice. So which interpretation of beginner's and expert's mind and of Zen will kind of win out We know in a way, and yet, can there always be this kind of turning, this kind of... Just keep looking at it in all these different ways. And so, you know, maybe it's possible to study the Lotus Sutra and Suzuki and Dogen and all these Buddhist texts and teachings.

[39:19]

And our Zen power structures with both our beginners and our experts mind. And with that interplay of piety and playfulness. And I think that that enriches our self-understanding and our understanding of others. Developing a mind that is compassionate. Suzuki says, Dogen Zenji always emphasized how important it is to resume our boundless original mind. Then we are always true to ourselves in sympathy with all beings and can actually practice. Thank you very much. Thank you for listening to this podcast offered by the San Francisco Zen Center. Our Dharma talks are offered at no cost and this is made possible by the donations we receive. Your financial support helps us to continue to offer the Dharma. For more information, visit sfcc.org and click giving.

[40:22]

May we fully enjoy the Dharma.

[40:25]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_96.35