Incomplete: Completed

Something I quoted in last week's post (from the Third Zen Patriarch) has stuck with me and grown ever more significant:

The Great Way is not hard
For those who have no preferences.

No preferences? How could that possibly work? But I have an inkling, a nagging feeling, that this is one of the most important statements I have ever heard. I have been there, have at times had no preferences. This happens almost exclusively at meditation retreats and is most noticeable when doing mundane chores we call "yogi tasks".

Let me explain breifly about yogi tasks. No retreat center is set up to provide for every need of those who come there to meditate (we call ourselves yogis). Rather, part of the practice is to take on a chore to keep the place running. Some yogis clean bathrooms, others chop vegetables or wash dishes (I have done all these). When I am truly invested in the retreat, everything I do is enveloped in what has been called "choiceless awareness". Whether sitting on a cushion watching my breath or using an old toothbrush to scrub grout in a shower stall, I am equally at peace. I have no preference.

But real life is, alas, not a meditation retreat.

I am having a great deal of trouble at work. I am in conflict with someone and it seems to be getting worse. I don't want to get into all of the details or who is right or wrong (for one thing, how should I know?). What interests me here is meditating on how I can apply the Patriarch's prescription to this situation. How can I have no preferences here? I wish this person thought well of me. I wish our personalities did not clash. I wish I could come to work and be at peace. I wish I didn't feel as if my every action was under scrutiny. These are my preferences. And this much is certainly true: my preferences are causing suffering for me. If I could not prefer these things, I would not suffer from their lack.

But how is this "no preferences" dissimilar to indifference? No matter how far down the road to freedom I travel, I always run up against this question. How can I not prefer harmony to disharmony or pleasure to pain? The Buddha listed eight paired states (usually called vicissitudes) that can cause us disquiet:

Pleasure and Pain

Gain and Loss

Praise and Blame

Fame and Disrepute

his point being that preferring either of the pair will cause us to suffer.

But how can I have no preference when it comes to my own emotional pain? For example, how do I feel in this situation at work? Well, let's see...hurt, offended, angry, misunderstood, disrespected, threatened, afraid. All this week I have been using this situation as a meditation on the question of preference. Would it be possible for me to have no preference here? This is not an invitation to suppress these feelings; if I were able to have no preference, I wouldn't feel them to begin with.

Now, I am not asking whether or not this is possible—it clearly is. This lack of preference is, as the Patriarch said, The Great Way. I believe with all my heart that the Buddha had reached this plateau of choiceless awareness and that many people before and since have also achieved this state. So, a person can do this; the question is, can I? And how does one achieve this without becoming indifferent?

There is a classic Zen story of an abbot who heard a knock at his door and upon opening it was confronted with two angry grandparents. "You are a terrible man!" they said, holding an infant out to him. "Our daughter tells us it was you who fathered this child. We had so much respect for you and now that is all gone. Well, you take this child, he is yours!" And the abbot replied, "Ah, is that so?" and took the child.

A few weeks later the couple came to his door abashed and ashamed, saying, "Oh, great abbot, please accept our most abject apologies. The father of this child is a village boy. Our daughter was afraid to tell us so and blamed it on the first man she thought of. He is not your child, and we have come to take him home." To which the abbot replied, "Ah, is that so?" and gave them the child.

I have thought about this story a lot over the past few weeks. The central question facing the abbot, it seems to me is, who will be best served by whatever action he chooses to take? If he denies the accusation of paternity, will the child benefit? The young woman? Her parents? Clearly, none of them would. He cannot lie and admit to fathering the child, but he can minimize the harm he might do by simply accepting the fact of what they have to say and taking the child into his house and into his heart.

There is a limit to this tolerance, however. If his ability to carry out his duties or to remain a Zen priest were threatened by this accusation, he might have to consider differently. Not because this would be bad for him, but because it was his role to serve not just his monastery but the entire community. Under these circumstances, he might have to make clear that, although he was willing to accept the child into his care, he denied fathering him. But the most vital point here is that this choice would not be made on the basis of selfishness or self-interest, that in this regard he had reached the place where he truly had no preference.

We can also see from this story that having no preferences is clearly not indifference. The abbot could not be indifferent to the needs of others—the child, the grandparents, the mother, the monks at his abbey, the people of his community. He was able to be blind to his own preferences and in that way was far from indifferent, was, in fact, quite the opposite of indifferent—compassionate.

This is a question without easy answers. There are also many stories of those who purport to have achieved this freedom who, when tested, demonstrate that they have merely made themselves indifferent and, when pushed far enough, the true selfishness of their motives came to the fore. I don't pretend to have come close to having no preferences, but I see the outlines of freedom in the far distance. I intend to walk in that direction.