Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Stephen Peltz's avatar

This post begins with a story about a Zen priest who presumably was confident in his Buddha-nature, and thus liberating from conventional mores. It was against the rules to drink wine, but he drank it anyway without fear that he was putting his enlightenment at risk.

It ends by referring to seekers of truth who embraced the mortification of the flesh as a path to enlightenment. That’s the complete opposite of the first story, with its laissez-faire priest.

How should we read those Daoist/Zen texts, that point us in opposite directions?

Personally, I think the first story is closer to the truth than the later stories. But there is an inescapable paradox that led to two separate schools of thought in Buddhism: those who think enlightenment comes all at once in a flash of sudden insight, and those who think that enlightenment has to be worked for, by struggling to advance over a protracted period of time.

For the latter school, enlightenment is the culmination of and reward for a lifetime of effort. And I have spent my adult life seeking wisdom, so in practice I suppose I agree with them to some extent. (Albeit I have never seen any value whatsoever in seeking out the mortification of the flesh. I think that’s evidence of a spiritual sickness.)

But ultimately, the struggle comes down to making peace with yourself. Learning to accept who you are—even the aspects that society regards as shameful. Understanding that the Dao generates ten thousand things, and you are one of them, whose beauty and cosmic purpose inheres in the fact that you are unlike all the other ‘things’.

And so I circle back to the first story. Enjoy a glass of wine! Take satisfaction in your humanness. That is the Daoist _Way._

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts