There is something missing in American Zen

There is something missing in American Zen, and I think it's symbol is the kyōsaku.

My first stay in a monastery was the fall of 1984, the fall practice period just after Zentatsu Richard Baker left the San Francisco Zen Center. I was went to Tassajara Zen Mountain Monastery from the Santa Cruz Zen Center and at the age of 26 I was quite clueless in just about everything. I recall very many community meetings, with lots of strong emotions and lots of tears. One small little bit on the emotional landscape was the rejection of the kyosaku. I was still trained to carry it, but it seems that over the years it's role has diminished to an ornament in the zendo and it's rarely now seen in community zendos.

The kyōsaku is a hardwood stick, about 3 feet long, rather round on one end and more flatish on the other, and quite sturdy. It's carried buy a student who walks slowly inside the meditation hall. Basically, if a student looks sleepy the kyosaku is placed on the meditators shoulder to wake them, then they both bow, and then the meditator gets struck on the back/shoulder. WACK! Everyone wakes up!

I was told that Suzuki Roshi, the founder of the San Francisco Zen Center would send kyoskus that had broken in use back to the Japanese Soto Zen Organization to prove to them that authentic Zen was being practiced here. "Look! Very strong practice!"

I think of it as a symbol of the Japanese physical approach to practice. Apparently, their monasteries are very physically arduous with malnutrition, frostbite, injuries and extensive, very strict ways to do everything ("the forms").

An attempt was made to import some aspects of this spirit into the US but with the breakdown of the authoritarian abbot it rapidly became watered down.

That Fall, my first practice period at Tassajara, many things changed and it was the beginning of the end of the for the kyōsaku. In a more democratic, inclusive, feminized (is that OK to say?) American Zen practice there is no place to hit one another.

It should be said that the kyōsaku is not a punitive tool. It is usually referred to as an expression of compassion: it helps everyone wake up and can lossen up tight shoulders. But modern american Zen aims to be widely inclusive and supportive of even the more sensitive individuals who may have been physically abused in the past. So the kyōsaku is rarely seen. It is a symbol of changes from a quite physically challenging environment to one that is supportive of even the most delicate members.

I want to be quite clear that I am all for these changes and do not advocate going back.

But there is now something missing.

The west is contributing so much to Zen: 'humanizing' everything from the administrative structure of the sangha to what one does on the cushion: If shikantaza seems difficult then try counting your breaths. Full lotus hurts? Try half lotus, or the seza bench, or a chair or even lie down. And the intellectuals are also working hard: the bookstore shelfs are taken up with zen and psychology/gender/emotions/eating/punk/women etc. I'm all for a big tent and making new gates to Zen practice. But look at old zen literature: There is a lot of hitting and yelling. We don't do that. Is there something missing?

What is it exactly that is now missing? It is the flavors of physicality and immediacy, a "Just this! Right now!". A smack up side the head. A yell at a funeral service. A fully alive energetic state. The explosive rejection of delusion. It seems to me that this immediate physicality is a defining characterization of Zen practice. We sit physically upright, facing reality and express enlightenment in this very moment.

With the fall of the kyōsaku we have rejected the Eastern expression if it, but how do American zen teachers and students express it?

I think the Alexander Technique can play a role here.

The practice of the AT is actually pretty simple: it has only two parts and first part is "Stop". Just stop. "Stop end-gaining" is pure Zen. American Zen needs to embrace "Stop!". Stop with your end-gaining. Stop with your bullshit. Stop running away, stop hurting yourself. Stop being afraid.

Is "Stop!" is the Western kyōsaku? What do you think?



  

Sensory Appreciation

How do you know what to do with yourself on your mediation cushion?  You arrange your robes, and your body to sit.  You arrange your robes so they are tidy, but why do you arrange your body as you do?  You want to be upright because being upright is important, right?  But how do you find upright?  This is important.  Dogen, in his instruction on sitting, devoted quite a bit of his instructions on the importance of how to sit physically.  Place your ears over your shoulders, your nose in line with your navel.  I have an intellectual grasp of what this means.  I’ve studied anatomy!  But how do I do it?  How do I know when I’ve been successful?

Does it happen “naturally”?  Look around the meditation hall before the end of a long sitting.  This person is sitting a bit forward, that one looks like she’s sitting back.  That person’s is holding one shoulder higher than the other.  This person is sitting with his head far forward, and she looks like she’s looking down.  That one looks a bit twisted.   Ask them if they are in pain.  Does it make sense that sitting has to cause pain?  Sitting upright does not come naturally.

I’ve relied heavily on how I feel.  I’ve held my body or changed my posture to make my zazen conform to what I think it should be - to improve my sitting - to get more concentrated, focused, relaxed, present, alive, quieter, etc.  Through all these years, I have held dear a phrase I heard at the San Francisco Zen Center: “The body is always present”.  I misinterpreted this as meaning the sensation of my body can be relied upon, that these sensations are honest, that they will support me and guide me, that they can teach me to improve my sitting.

  I don’t think I have been alone in using my bodily sensations to guide me in sitting.  Buddhists have written about the use of a body practice.   But Zen students are direct, honest, and in the moment.  We embody the truth.  Well, here is my truth:

I am not at all sure what I am are actually doing.  It is hopeless to try to sit more upright because I have an inaccurate idea of what I am actually doing with my body.

Even though I learned this gradually, to write it is still profoundly disturbing and unsettling.  And writing that makes me sad: This sitting, which has been the backbone of my life, and I have no idea at all how to physically do it.

I have lots of colorful and descriptive examples from my own life to illustrate how profoundly unreliable sensory appreciation actually is.  In fact I have so many examples that I must conclude that everyone who has notices their use, must come to the same conclusion that I have.  Since I have no evidence that anyone is interested I won't talk about my own examples.   I don’t think anyone could convince you that your all your ideas on what you are actually doing are unfounded.  I imagine that you are like me and have to have many examples before the truth sets in.  But let me offer this: has a teacher ever come up behind you and ‘adjusted your posture’?  Afterward, did you say “Ah, now this feels right!”  or did you think “Oh! this feels totally wrong!”

FM Alexander had something to say on this topic.  FM Alexander was a theatrical speaker.  He began to lose his voice.  With consultation of physicians it was decided that the cause of his difficulties was something he was doing while reciting.  With the use of mirrors, he found that to his surprise he was not doing, or using himself, in a way that he thought he was.  He called this unreliable sensory appreciation.

It is not that the raw data that our senses provide are at all wrong.  The problem is that the judgments, opinions, and conclusions are poor and unreliable.  They do not provide sound basis for actions.    We are like a ship in the ocean and we constantly missread the compass.  We just can not read it right.

But again I won’t try to convince you.  I can’t convince you that the sensation from your back may, or may not, have anything to do with your back.  Who am I to tell you that you don’t know if you are leaning right or left.  You would never believe me if I suggested that your use of your self should not be based on how you feel, on your proprioception?  You have a lifetime of experience and that makes you an expert .  Experts are loathe to change their opinions.  And when they do it hurts and they feel lost.  Anyway, I do.
 And an expert in the meaning of their senses might be deeply afraid to admit they have faulty sensory appreciation.  Then what would you do to guide their use of their body?  How would they know how to adjust their posture?  You don't have a teacher who is correcting you posture frequently.  You don't have mirrors around you for feedback.  Can you imagine sitting for long hours knowing that you really don't know how to sit upright?  What a scary thing to imagine.   But it's also a start.

Alexander Technique and Emotions

On this topic I have only the poem:

Short, narrow: fearful
Ah, Alexander Technique
Now long, wide: loving.

West Meets the East, the Socially Engaged Buddhist

I've been thinking a bit recently about Zen, or more generally Buddhism, meeting the West.  I am no means the first.  I read a very good essay in  Best Buddhist Writings 2010 by David Loy entitled Why Buddhism Needs the West.
Briefly, the author noted that the main contribution from the west is social change.  This is the idea that people, and the groups that they become, have the ability to change social and political structures.  This seems obvious to me, but that's because I'm a product of the West.  It was not obvious before ancient Greek civilization.  They thought social structures are dictated by the gods or social structures are actually  natural phenomena.  Social change is not obvious in the East where tradition is unquestioned.
Buddhism offers a wonderful path towards self actualization and personal liberation from suffering but it has not been very good at inspiring social justice.  However, this is not inherent to Buddhism.  The historical Buddha was quite active in social change.  The religion that he inspired, however, was a part of Eastern civilization.  And monasteries depended on the status quo for their support - there was a disinsentive to expand the concept of liberation from the personal to social relms.
    The West was likewise handicapped.  There have been many social upheavals, but with the individual mired in greed, hate and delusion, a new social structures was at best only marginally better than the one it replaced.    Parenthetically, FM Alexander was a product of two world wars and deeply skeptical about the possibility of social movement to better our lot.
So David Loy hopes that those who are not overwhelmed with their greed, hate and delusion can effect real beneficial and durable social change.
My question is:  "Where precisely does East meet West?
I will say East meets West in your habits.  In your conditioning.  East meets west after you get up from your meditation seat, go outside and a stimulus to act reaches you.  One moment you were Sitting, laying the ground work of insight which generates the intention to act for the benefit of all beings, and the next minute you are outside getting the stimulus to act.
The actual stimulus does not matter much.
Now I am deeply humbled by my betters who are at the forefront of social change, they devote their lives to make this world a better place.  They are inspiring and I am very grateful for their efforts.  But the practice of the greatest Buddhist activist of our time is no better that the middle class woman who feels the discomfort (a stimulus) of seeing street urchin and, instead of walking by, turns towards the beggar and shows a bit of kindness.
For the socially engaged Zen student, there is only one question:
"What are you doing right now to make the world a better place?" 
Regardless of the stimulus, are you acting out of unconscious habit?  Are you acting out of a life long conditioned response based on greed, hate and delusion?  Or have you been able to create some space between stimulus and response?  Have you used that space to consider what you truly want to do?  In you heart of hearts, how do you really want to respond?  If you have created that space then I think you are a socially engaged Buddhist.
Zazen helps refine your intention regarding how you want to live - how you want to respond to stimuli.  And zazen helps a bit to create a space between stimulus and response.  But, forgive me, it is quite limited.
The Alexander Technique is all about creating space.  The Alexander technique is precisely at the point where East meets West.  It is an incredibly helpful tool if you aspire to be a socially engaged Buddhist.  If you want to help to heal the world you should take some lessons in the Alexander Technique.

  

Direction

Before we can evaluate if the Alexander Technique is the Yoga of Zen, I want to talk about one more word.  It is an AT technical term: Direction.  Durring my first lesson with Rebecca Robbins, Director of the Oregon Center for the Alexander Technique I was given a slip of paper with a few lines written on it.  I was told that when I get the impulse to get out of a chair, that I was to stop (or in technical terms "inhibit the end-gaining") and recite these few lines silently.  Later I was encouraged to follow this procedure any time I felt that I was "end-gaining".  Those lines were similar to:

• Let my neck be free
• Let my head go forward and up
• Let my back lengthen and widen
• Let my knees go out and away
• To let my ankles drop

Alexander wrote in the Use of the Self that "direction" indicates "the process involved in projecting messages from the brain to the mechanisms and in conducting the energy necessary to the use of these mechanisms."  
  

Direction has certain features.  

-It is generated by the cognitive mind.  It is the conscious direction of energy.

-Direction is aimed at the mechanism that controls the body.

-it has a geographic feature ("up" "wide" "forward" etc)

-it is positive, as opposed to the inhibition of end-gaining which is negative

-the amount of conducted energy can be quite loud or can be quite soft.  The direction can, in the experienced student, run in the background - analogous to many programs running on your computer that are not readily apparent.   Direction should always have some energy, determination, and commitment.

-Direction should have some consistency to be effective.

The most important point is that this "direction" is NOT "doing".  Direction is intention plus energy.  It is not "doing" - one must leave oneself alone.  "Doing" is effort based, there is an action.  The third option is "not doing".   "Not doing" has no energy.    I propose that "direction" is non-doing.  "Direction" has energy and intention, but no effort.  When we use "direction" not one bit of dust is lifted.
  

Zen students are familiar with "Think of not thinking. How do you think of not thinking? Non-thinking. "

"Direction" is the physical, body based, corollary to this non-thinking.   

Giving yourself directions - energetic, consistent and focused direction without a trace of "doing" is quite difficult - perhaps because it is so simple.  You really need lessons from a qualified, experienced Alexander Technique teacher.   They can help show you how to use direction while leaving yourself alone.  

Training yourself in inhibition and direction will help anchor you in the present, inform how to physically sit zazen, and will provide you with the ability to do whatever you want with ease, grace and efficiency.

Thank you for reading.  I am interested in any thoughts you might have.

Three terms we really need.

To talk about the Yoga of Zen I think it's important to have three terms to use.
They are technical Alexander Technique terms, but Zen student should feel quite at home with them.  With the use of these terms we can see how the AT and Zen relate.


The first term is "inhibition".  That is, hesitating to do an activity.  Stopping.  Creating 'space' between an impulse to do something and it's doing.  It is saying 'no' but not as a negative but to allow other possibilities, not to negate the present but to take another look at it.  It is impulse control.  There is quite a bit to say about inhibition: I'll leave much of it till later.  I'll says now that it is quit a bit more subtle, complex, vexing and more powerful and interesting than Alexander ever imagined.  Alexander was quite clear in his beliefs that if one inhibits the wrong then the right will manifest itself.  But I don't know if he knew just how right he was.

Coupled with inhibition is the second term: "end gaining". End gaining is being preoccupied with the end result of an activity durring an activity.  End gaining is discounting the means by which one gets to a goal.  If one is not end gaining one might be said to be 'present' - or have the sense of 'being in the moment'.  

On brief caution.  Inhibition of end gaining does not result in inactivity.  It is natural to have desires and aversions, and as long as we are alive we might as well act on them.  But I'm saying that with inhibition of end-gaining we can create a choice in how we act.  Instead of acting on our instincts, habits, personality or conditioning, we can inhibit our end-gaining and react from a more considered - or conscious - place.

   Zen practitioners have a word for the practice of the inhibition of end-gaining while sitting.  It's called Zazen, 'just sitting' or shikantaza.  Shikantaza is just sitting: everything that comes up is regarded as end-gaining, because, really we're already sitting so everything else is extra.  Everything.  Yeah, that to.

Actually, here is one exception.  The "posture".  The Zen student is immediately recognized by her posture. The Zen posture is unique among all the Buddhist and non-buddhist schools of meditation.   But lets be honest here.  Why is it important?  Isn't sitting in some idea of a "good posture" just more end-gaining?  Why not just sit more "relaxed"?

Oh, it is so exciting to write about this!

The third term is 'the self'.  Now this is not the "big self" and "small self" we sometimes here in Zen.  The 'self' that I am talking about is the sum of our body sensations, thinking, emotions and personality.  It is the sum total of what we bring to any activity.    The 'self' is a central Alexander term.  In the first paragraph of The Use of the Self Alexander could not have been more clear: "... it is impossible to separate 'mental' and 'physical' processes in any form of human activity. "  For the zen student I'll ask, has there ever been any significant thought or emotion what was not accompanied by a physical sensation?

So this inhibition of end-gaining must have a physical manifestation.  As our proficiency in sitting shikantaza evolves there must also be changes to how we use our body.  Is it reasonable to think that by improving our posture we might get better at just sitting?

But how, honored followers of Zen, could we improve our posture while at the same time staying true to our unshakable conviction that this present moment is perfect the way it it?  Read yet again first paragraph of the Fukanzazengi or here.    By what means could we begin to brush it clean?

There is no basis for 'doing': it's end-gaining.   We must get along without doing.  Fortunately, we have 'not doing': that's the inhibition of end-gaining.  But is there a non-doing?    Hmmm?  That's what I'll write about next!
  

What is the Alexander Technique?

I am entering an addendum to this blog post, just over a year after I initially wrote it.
In re-reading it I am struck by two things:
First, my thinking about the AT has changed a quite a bit and second I now disagree with a majority of what I have written in this post.  I think a majority of the definitions given below are wrong and misleading.  This is very hard to say publicly.   The statements below were made by those with far greater experience, so logically I should conclude that I'm very wrong.  But I will stick to my guns: I disagree with most of the following definitions. 

The AT is a learning experience, taught by teachers to student.  It contains two concrete tools and a set of interconnected principals.  To effectively teach them takes somewhere between six and 30 lessons - thought I have had much more than 30 and no doubt have much still to learn.
The AT is about bringing conscious reasoning to bear on one's responses to stimuli.  Our responses are generally habitual but the AT involves acquiring the ability to respond instead with ones fundamental intentions: to respond in a new way to a stimulus that always used to put us wrong.  It involves replacing subconscious habit with conscious reasoned responses.
I mean to be quite clear here, that I am not making any distinction between the mental and the physical.  The AT, I believe, is just as helpful in someone who suffers from an eating disorder as it would be to someone with low back pain.
Why do these experienced AT teachers define the AT in terms of it's physical benefits?    I will not offer an opinion.   
The idea that the AT is defined in physical terms and that the benefits are limited to the physical body is contrary to FM Alexanders teachings, and based on a fragmentation of the unified self, which, although deeply ingrained in our culture, has been repeatedly proven to be non-existant.
Here is my current favorite definition:
The AT teaches two tools and recommends that students use them.  The AT also offers a few principals that aid in the use of the tools.  That's it.  That is a complete definition.  
Do AT teaches claim that practicing these tools will result in any changes?  Yes.  The use of these tools with bring conscious reasoning to bear on one's responses to stimuli.  It will improve the use of the self.  Does the AT claim to make any more specific benefits?  No it does not.  It is reasonable to expect a wide range of benefits.  There have been scientific studies which show a wide range of benefits.  We do not yet know the limits of the benefits and there are many realms of human activity (creativity, psychology, sports, etc) that have not yet been studied.
   This definition is the most accurate and honest.  But it may be difficult for some to fully understand.   The best teachers define the AT in ways that is both honest and easily grasped.  

When I want to learn something I often start by going to Wikipedia - but I don't think it's a great description - it does not capture the richness of the technique.  Also, surprisingly, it does not mention the scientific evidence that shows the techniques efficacy or the studies that illuminate how the technique works.
A better way to start might be the main professional organization in the US of AT teachers.

Or go right to the source and read F M Alexanders books.  There is no doubt that his writing exactly represented his thinking.

For those interested in the Yoga of Zen, I think it would be useful to talk about how the AT relates to each of the guidelines proposed in my earlier post.  I'll give that a try in subsequent posts.

Another definition was written by the author of the largest study into the AT, proffesor Paul Little.    He writes:

"Lessons in the Alexander technique offer an individualised approach designed to develop lifelong skills for self care that help people recognise, understand, and avoid poor habits affecting postural tone and neuromuscular coordination. Lessons involve continuous personalised assessment of the individual patterns of habitual musculoskeletal use when stationary and in movement; paying particular attention to release of unwanted head, neck, and spinal muscle tension, guided by verbal instruction and hand contact, allowing decompression of the spine; help and feedback from hand contact and verbal instruction to improve musculoskeletal use when stationary and in movement; and spending time between lessons practising and applying the technique"

Those interested in podcasts can listen to a collection of interviews that Robert Richover, a AT teacher, has given with dozens of teacher, students and researchers.

He starts each interview by asking his guest "What is the Alexander Technique?"  The responses are quite varied, and I disagree with many.  I hope Robert does not mind, but I have a few edited some.
The Alexander technique:

will help you do what you want to do.

is a method of unlearning bad habits of movement and posture and relearning a more easefull way of doing whatever you are doing.

It's not a specific set of exercises.  It is a set of principals, an educational system that teaches people to become aware of  harmful movement paterns and gives them the tools to consiously choose a better and more efficient way of moving or doing any task.

is a set of skills and information that can be brought into movement, exercise or daily activity: can go anywhere and help you to do anything.

shows people how to interrupt bad habits and insert instead a more thoughtful way of doing whatever you do.

is the long standing foremost method for mindfulness in the east.

It's a way of dealing with habits: recognizing and then interupting them

is a method to become aware of unnecessary tension.

is a method to become aware of and change movement and postural habits that cause or exacebate pain, or get in the way of any activity.

is the conscious interface between rational mind and the movements you make.  The relationship between the head and the neck is important because it is the first movement you make and the body follows.

is an educational process: To build awareness of yourself and your actions and habits, then learn ways of thinking to help move more efficiently and easily.

it is a 100 year old educational technique that uses observation, verbal suggestions, and gentle hands on guidance to improve balance, movement and the overall coordination of the body.

a method to be more centered and connected that give people more choice to respond to any over-excitement or stressful event.

is learning to be aware of, and change, unconscious habits that distort posture and impairs coordination in the form of muscle tension - Learning how to not to do something - learn how to make better choices about how you move and use yourself.

is a method to help people do things with less unnecessary tension and encourages more freedom of movement.

AT results in a diminished need for reactive response patters.

unlearn old habits so that people can perform any activity with more awareness, freedom and enjoyment.

is a study of human coordination.  Liberating our most efficient and graceful coordination by reducing straining patterns of interference that we do habitually.

is an educational approach that help us to identify and free ourself from habitual interference allowing our natural ease and well being.

to help pt's find balance and the flow of their lives.

will help musicians understand how their thinking effect their function.