Monday, October 6, 2025

A Zen reflection on Yom Kippur

 


For years, I had been hanging onto my resentment towards a person who really did abuse me mentally, emotionally, spiritually, and sexually. Something had to be done.


Then a Zen friend asked a good question: “Is forgiveness an act of will?”


Psychologists define forgiveness as a conscious decision to release feelings of resentment or vengeance toward a person or group who has harmed you, regardless of whether they actually deserve your forgiveness. It's a choice that allows a person to forgive another for an offense or act that was illegal or immoral. It is intentional. When a debt is forgiven, there is a release of any expectation or commitment to repay or compensate. When someone forgives someone, they let go of negative emotions. 


In terms of the law and psychotherapeutic practice, as well as perhaps even the Talmud, these definitions are helpful; however, as a Zen practitioner, I wondered if they went far enough. I’m going to posit forgiveness as a way to move beyond the past, in the sense that the trauma becomes a complete chapter of personal history without any lingering effects in one’s present, everyday life. I’ve set the bar quite high. But it is Yom Kippur today. Forgiveness is an act of God. It is a way to follow God. We all make mistakes. We all need forgiveness.


Some people define forgiveness as a command to forget the past and simply move on. I actually find that injunction extremely annoying. I’ve been told that I didn't have to condone the act, but I had to forgive to live fully and dispel the darkness, or something like that. My instinct tells me that if the past is not fully complete, part of being compassionate is to acknowledge what happened fully, rather than simply setting it aside. 


I also hate being told what’s in my best interest. Thanks for advice I didn’t request. But now that I’ve owned up to my off-the-shelf response, perhaps I can examine why I resist this blanket injunction to forgive. I want to decide when, what, and if to forgive. If the offense or event is not in the past because it’s not in the past, that’s a limit to simply declaring something ancient history. And suppose I’m being enjoined to dispel the darkness of past events that are blatantly evil and destructive. In that case, just dismissing them and their consequences under some command to “move on” is not particularly useful or helpful simply because it’s not honest. These are the sort of events that will inevitably repeat themselves.


My friend Susan Murphy, an insightful Australian Zen teacher, pointed to the story of Jesus at Capernaum when he healed a man whose friends lowered him through the roof of a house where Jesus was with some friends—the crowd so dense that this was the only way to get Jesus’s attention. Some version of the story appears in all three synoptic gospels.


The writers of the story clearly distinguish between two aspects of Jesus' healing. First off, Jesus says, “Your sins are forgiven.” That’s the most important one: the man’s faith and that of his friends have caught the attention of Jesus, and he does what he was sent to do, forgive sins. But it is, after all a teaching story, so there are objections: scribes and Pharisees, at least rhetorically present, ask, ‘How can you forgive? That power belongs only to God.’ And here are the words Jesus responded with in Mark’s gospel: "Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? “ The man stands and picks up his mat, demonstrating Jesus’s power, but it also says, compared to forgiving sins, that was the easy part. In the blink of an eye, the past becomes the past.


Why the deliberate separation of two events or two sides of the same event? Forgiveness is an act of grace and God. In the story, the disappearance of the physical impairment becomes the past. Jesus is neither a charlatan nor a soothsayer nor a fake miracle worker; the act of forgiveness belongs to God alone. However, in most cases, depending on factors we cannot fully understand, there may or may not be a sought-after, usually magical physical cure. However, this nuance is usually left for a commentator or preacher to address at a later date.


This is Susan’s observation: “When Jesus told the paralysed man who had been lowered through the roof for a miracle, ‘Pick up your bed and walk,’ effectively he was acting not in the name of supernatural power but in the name of the forgiveness he was asserting he had a right to bestow. ‘Justice is mine,’ says the Lord. What I see here is that the true miracle was not the performance of a nature-bending act. It was forgiveness. He veered away from performing miracles after that. They were cheapening his teaching. . . . Forgiveness is surely the actualising of love.”


I just let a Zen teacher provide the midrash for a Jesus story, so now I’ll spin a Zen tale from the threads of the Gospel..


A small band of Zen monks carries a paralyzed brother to meet Jesus in Capernaum and get his blessing. Like the throngs of people I see in India lining up for darshan, they’re seeking some relief for their sufferings, but following their training, our Zen monks don’t have too many expectations. There, I’ve set the stage for a Buddhist encounter with Jesus. 


Their Zen training actually adds a lot of work. They have to carry their brother a long way from a distant Eastern ashram. Then they find the materials and tools to fashion a ladder to get up to the roof. They certainly can’t steal one. After determining where Jesus was sitting, they carefully cut an opening in the ceiling, not hurting anyone in the room with falling debris. Each one of these actions is deliberate, requiring planning and effort. The work is performed as carefully and mindfully as possible. They’re monks after all. I didn’t mention that they might also have to learn Aramaic, but there’s already enough to do without that, so let’s throw in the magical appearance of a good interpreter.


Somehow they climb down into the presence of Jesus with the brother they’ve just lowered in a sling, and hear, “Your sins are forgiven.” 


They also hear the Pharisees' question: “Doesn’t forgiveness of sins belong to God?” "Good question," they say, and the dharma combat begins. The Pharisees are the fall guys in the Gospel stories, but not for our Zen monks: What is forgiveness of sins exactly? What is there to forgive? Are a misstep or an evil act the same? These monks live by the Law of dependent origination, Paticca-samuppada. Something in their brother’s past resulted in his paralysis. At least in that regard, on the surface, although Jesus does not talk about any cause for the man’s affliction, there seems to be a tacit acknowledgement that it was the result of something in his past, his sins. In Zen they were taught to chant: “All my ancient twisted karma from beginningless greed, hate, and delusion, born through body, speech, and mind. I now fully avow.” 


I promised therapy. Here is an examination of the mental results of past events.


I recognized my personal connection to this Jesus story, and I thank Susan for providing the context for me to work into. I am the paralytic lowered through the roof. Among my sins were sexual dysfunction and frustration; there was alcohol and substance abuse; there were the silly issues with partners that popped up—when I managed to find someone willing to put up with my defensiveness. I would have certainly preferred to exit the dead-end process earlier. I can imagine the possibility of having time and energy to explore other avenues, but daydreams are most often nothing more than dreams.


And yes, I regret those lost opportunities. It is not difficult to be truly forgiving and compassionate when you really comprehend the pain of your own life. But expanding the story just a bit, it also applies to another person’s life. It seems to actually spring up naturally without effort or responding to a command to move on. And, in my case, it happened in its own course after I was willing to do the work of unraveling the complex story of my abuse.


Why do intelligent people believe nonsense? Because when we’re vulnerable and in pain, we need to experience compassion. The real answer to the question about "moving on" is that the compassion and forgiveness had to be for myself. And because I’ve opted for the Zen route, it was not like just falling through a hole in the roof or being lowered into a Blessed Presence. I traveled from afar with the help of companions, and I remained angry long enough to get to the heart of the matter. That was my good luck, at least for me, that route could not be short-circuited.


The hip New Age coffee house sage will tell you that not forgiving only hurts you. There’s no one to break but yourself, so why not “Move On”? By contrast, in legendary Zen, a deceptively ordinary lady at the tea stand doesn’t order you around. Instead, she asks a simple, innocent-sounding, straightforward question: “Hey, Mr. Paralytic, is that ‘not-walking-mind’ past, present, or future?” A good answer might allow you to step into the radical present. The past is past because it’s past; the future might exist in hopes and dreams, perhaps sadly colored with regret; the only place to walk into is this moment.


If there was a tea stand in Capernaum, you can bet that there were crowds like the ones surrounding Jesus. Zen is oftentimes a lonely practice, but maybe a few stragglers found their way there after Jesus had performed enough miracles for one day. They might be lucky enough to come armed with some good questions. That might take some work, work that’s still to be done, like finding a path to forgiveness.


In Zen, forgiveness is an act of will if you refuse to settle for an easy way out. Then the Blessed Presence thing just happens. That cannot be willed.



For Jon Logan, John Piane, Eddie Logan, Lilly Logan, and their families. In deep gratitude.


Saturday, September 20, 2025

It's More than a Taboo Against Knowing Ones Self

The world is not as it appears to be.

How much can we really know when it comes to the difficult task of knowing ourselves?


In most spiritual practices, there is a notion that the world we see and experience is an illusion. It is called māyā in both Hindu and Buddhist world views, a blindness that prevents humans from having a complete experience of life. The word māyā in Sanskrit points to a mental condition of pretense or deceit that’s a hindrance on the path to realization. Its Hindu roots also carry some notion of magic that the gods use to create illusion unless they are appeased. In Buddhist and Hindu theology, samsara indicates the perpetual cycle of enslavement to birth and death and the pain of being caught up in the grip of illusion. Samsara simply means “world” in Sanskrit, but has been extrapolated out to include an endless cycle of birth and rebirth, spelling out continuous suffering.


The monotheistic religious traditions attribute our alienation from God and ourselves as the result of sin. In Christianity, particularly after Augustine, Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden, and Adam’s complicity, cursed all mankind to Original Sin until the sacrifice of Jesus. While any broad statement is, of course, misleading, it is enough here to point to the role of sin and alienation from God that traps us in misfortune’s clutches.


Religious and spiritual teachings have proposed various ways of digging ourselves out of this hole. Christianity and other monotheistic traditions advocate “conversion,” repentance, prayer, and good works; Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism veer towards the meditation/introspection end of the spectrum, coupled with an analysis of the condition itself. 


Gurdjieff (I mention him because he is the subject of other posts on Buddha, S.J.), as well as various disciplines that have emerged more recently, attempt this analysis in the more neutral terms of being asleep. Gurdjieff said, "Man is immersed in dreams... He lives in sleep… He is a machine. He cannot stop the flow of his thoughts, he cannot control his imagination, his emotions, his attention... He does not see the real world. The real world is hidden from him by the wall of imagination." 


These characterizations are simplistic and miss a lot of nuance, a fault for which I will be criticized, including by my inner critic, but my purpose is to point out the predicament, not necessarily to argue the merits of any particular solution. 


A conundrum

“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”― George Orwell


Why can’t we know the entire universe as it is? I will briefly outline three distinct ways that humans know (or imagine they know) the world: first, the gold standard, measurable data, and the instruments that humans have developed over time to explore, record and verify our knowledge; second, information that we “get” in conversation with other men and women about events in our lives, either in present time or from our history; and third, the information that comes to us from memoires, dreams and self-examination, as in therapy, and more broadly from what we might call the numinous sphere of our experience.


On December 25, 2021, the Webb Space Telescope was launched into space. Fourteen days, eight hours, eleven minutes, and three seconds later, after full deployment, when I logged into the NASA site, I was able to see the first images transmitted from the deep reaches of space. It required a 10 billion dollar, highly engineered instrument rotating at 1.5 million miles from Earth to expand the scope of our universe. My vision was extended by 13.5 billion light-years, allowing me to observe galaxies that formed only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. 


Closer to home, remove the scientific device, and I am limited by the range of my hearing — sound waves landing on my eardrums and my brain recognizing their origin and source. I had the experience of sitting in the same room with a friend when she began talking about a car coming up on the road, but I hadn’t even heard its tires on the stony path. I had to wait to experience their rumble, but I trusted my friend and, because the driver was a person we both loved, we also had a story that we could talk about in the future.


I don’t know all the dimensions of what I refer to as “myself.” As an adult at 81, I still don't realize how all the emotional, physical, and spiritual trauma (or joy, but trauma has a tricky way of hiding because we tend to avoid pain) of years past affects me now. If I were completely aware, I would not have been stunned last week by that “ah ha” moment that shed light on some personal behaviors that have been troubling me for years. I’m calling this knowledge domain subjective as it relies on information about our reactions to past events that we store in our brains, or more broadly, our somatic systems.


I have sketched out the concepts of observation, recognition, and remembering or retrieval, with an emphasis on their limitations. Again, I accuse myself of gross over-simplification, but for the purposes of describing our conundrum: When I acknowledge the extent of my blindness, do I simply feel frustrated or unfulfilled in some existential sense, or do I undertake the practice of observing myself? Let me explore some of the ramifications of the philosophical argument behind my dilemma to see what, if anything, holds water, makes sense by congruity, and where there are holes in the bucket.

 

The first part of this argument I would like to examine is that, as humans, our perception of the universe is limited; however, we believe that the information at our disposal provides a complete representation of the world as it is. Even if we admit that the world is not as it appears, we imagine that with investigation, we can discern more accurate information and, like a sleuth, uncover the culprit and save ourselves. This is simply hubris.


Self-observation is at least partially what the language points to: we investigate ourselves. But there are limits to any claims about the reliability of our human experience. What part of the “self” comes into play is not altogether clear, but this much is true: it is “subjective.” How do we examine the data? Is it real? Can it be verified? Is it useful for understanding past personal events as well as predicting the results of present and future actions?


Common sense demands — correctly, I think — that I can only believe what’s in front of my nose is indeed what’s in front of my nose if and only if I limit what I assert about the way I see my world to what’s actually under my nose. I know the immediate world I directly perceive. Unless I can verify it, all the rest is an assumption. Suppose I allow my mind to stray into the world of made-up stories, half-remembered or repressed memories, heavenly illusions, or sexual fantasy. In that case, I can no longer legitimately assert that I am seeing the world as it is. I want to believe that I can be as stone-cold sober as a hanging judge, whether or not I really can wield judgments best left to God. I will convince myself that I won’t stray into the forbidden territory of false opinions or prejudice by taking the moral high ground, but in fact, I am deluded into believing that the world I see is objectively real. A small portion of what I see can be reliably verified by measurable data, but in fact, most is almost entirely subjective, buttressed with the few agreements that I’ve managed to wrestle into my corner from family and lovers, political allies, or friends from church. Yet we claim that common sense provides a reliable indicator of the validity of our varied experience.


Some would argue more strongly that common sense doesn't just advise, as in “take aspirin if you’re feeling a bit woozy.” Normative logic prescribes limits for my world, drawing boundaries for the experiences I can assert are true and can reasonably trust. The process of expanding my world requires another level of investigation. I am obliged to account for the way I want to see the world. This demands that I undertake a careful, critical examination of subjective factors, from yearning and dissatisfaction to remembering with Proust the smell of my mother’s cookies, the elation of catching my first fly ball, or the humiliation of being punched in the nose by the class bully. 


This simple observation may point us in the right direction. We begin to see and understand the mechanisms of the apparatus of our perceptions, the thoughts, feelings, sensations, visual perceptions, and the registration of this experience in our memories. Our worldview is very limited unless we are willing to admit other factors, including, for example, our conversations with other people, our reading of history, and, most importantly, empirical scientific evidence, which, along with an understanding of the instruments of observation (including both physical science and psychology), allows us to test and verify our assumptions. This is also common sense.


However, I don’t want to let my argument devolve into complete solipsism. Surmising that what’s in front of my nose is also what’s in front of my friend’s nose is possible only if I have an agreement with my friend that he or she describes what’s in front of his or her nose with similar identifiable characteristics, mass, color, along with the collection of data from my other sensations, within a range of probable predictors. This will include an agreement to use a common descriptive language. Digging through this complex web of linguistic and psychological machinations tests the limits of human intelligence, but it does seem to be a worthwhile project. It can lead to freedom, but it can also verge on the preposterous.


I have drawn this picture as extensively as I could to describe a gap in our understanding. We neglect what we know empirically both in the way we conduct our lives and in what we allow ourselves to believe. We would like to believe that our understanding can get us out of trouble, and when it doesn’t, we look elsewhere to fill in the gap.


The Lacunae. The Unknown is simply unknown. The rest is just shit we make up. Enter the Guru!


There’s a natural lacuna in our experience where we don’t have reliable information. In my view, it is unknown because it is unknowable. We as humans do not have access to the data required, or our physical bodies and minds simply do not have the capacity to experience or know what remains hidden. There is no ontological reason; there are no secrets. 


It’s a normal human instinct to seek certainty. We all want peace of mind, but because we are afraid, or lazy, or greedy, or insecure, or arrogant, this creates an opening for the guru’s stealthy entrance. This ignorance becomes the playground for superstition, magic, wizards (sorry, Harry Potter), myth, and deception. Any appeal to a supernatural or unseen world that uses our inability to know creates a loophole and opens a vast playground for all kinds of mischief, from the taboo against walking under a ladder to believing your daily horoscope, supplied, of course, for a fee.


Even after we’ve observed and accepted that we as human beings have a limited range of perception due to physiological constraints, the limited capacity of our sense organs, as well as the neuro-physiology of our brains, our mind plays a trick; we tend to forget and set this aside, but we still experience dissatisfaction: we don’t get all the things we think we want or imagine we need. Plus, there are psychological consequences that come from the firing and misfiring of synapses that distribute endorphins to our pleasure centers. It makes no difference whether or not these actions and reactions are random or follow some predictable pattern; we experience an imbalance coupled with limited data to account for it. Voilá, from chemistry set to ontological predicament!


As a matter of fact, our suffering always seems to get the upper hand. When our unhappiness or dissatisfaction reaches a tipping point, we reach out for an answer, even if it means grasping for straws. Enter the person, book, practice, or belief system with an answer. It doesn't even have to be a good answer. Searching for answers to existential questions can require suspension of belief; perhaps the answer imposes an alternative set of beliefs and demands submission to its authority. In some sense, it operates like a narcotic or psychological addiction — the high it produces needs to be repeated for it to be effective. 


Over many centuries, our answers have taken the form of tribal ritual. In the small village where I live, when I’m in northern India, I rented the first floor of a lovely new building; my flat had been designed and built by a trained architect; the rent was relatively high. A good friend rented a smaller room on the ground floor, but there was a problem with the ventilation and the sewage. It really felt unsanitary. It had been built on the cheap by a local carpenter. Complaints got no results. Tempers flared. My friend left; there were bad feelings all around. The Nepali woman who owned the property called on a village priest to solve a problem. I saw with my own eyes the bloody sacrifice of a young goat to create favorable circumstances for increased guest house revenue ― and sanitary plumbing. My solution would have been to hire a competent plumber, but my owner opted to pay a witch doctor for the magic of animal sacrifice. 


At another end of the spectrum, Bob Hoffman, the psychic tailor and inventor of a process psychic therapy recommended by Claudio Naranjo, sits in a Berkeley coffee bar, gazes off into space; he delivers a prediction or confirmation about a life choice or personal problem, allegedly from his spiritual guide, Dr. Fisher. I can hear the certainty in the psychic’s tone of voice when he divines the root of your predicament and says, “Doors will open.” The door actually remains shut until we see for ourselves what is posing as an answer. Snake oil doesn’t even loosen the hinges.


I still haven’t really answered my own question about knowing ourselves. I’ve just pointed out some of the false claims. Knowing that there are limits to what we can know doesn’t invalidate what direct experience teaches us or weaken those experiences. It simply rejects their infallibility. I can be satisfied with my own experience. In the words of Jack Kerouac, “One day I will find the right words, ... then it sounds; you just can't fail when you get into the rhythm of the dance.” 


Note: I would like to acknowledge Geshe-la Kelsang Wangmo’s course on Dignaga, which was taught at the Institute of Buddhist Dialectics, McLeod Ganj, HP, India, during the Spring semester of 2014.



Tuesday, September 16, 2025

Hearing the parable of the Good Samaritan—for the first time!

A teacher of the Law approached Jesus and tried to trap him. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to receive eternal life?”

Jesus answered him, “What do the Scriptures say? How do you interpret them?”


The man answered, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind’; and ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ ”


“You are right,” Jesus replied, “do this, and you will live.”


But the teacher of the Law wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “Who is my neighbor?”


Jesus answered, “There was once a man who was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho when robbers attacked him, stripped him, and beat him up, leaving him half dead. It so happened that a priest was going down that road; but when he saw the man, he walked on by, on the other side. In the same way a Levite also came along, went over and looked at the man, and then walked on by, on the other side. But a Samaritan who was traveling that way came upon the man, and when he saw him, his heart was filled with pity. He went over to him, poured oil and wine on his wounds and bandaged them; then he put the man on his own animal and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Take care of him,’ he told the innkeeper, ‘and when I come back this way, I will pay you whatever else you spend on him.’ ”


And Jesus concluded, “In your opinion, which one of these three acted like a neighbor towards the man attacked by the robbers?”


The teacher of the Law answered, “The one who was kind to him.”


Jesus replied, “You go, then, and do the same.”

 

My friend, a Jesuit priest, Joe Devlin, said Mass in the Zendo at Hartford Street in the early 1990s. Joe was visiting friends in San Francisco, and I asked him to come by to say Mass for the Catholic men in Maitri Hospice. I told Issan about my plan, and he said he was happy to have Mass and very excited to meet Joe. 


It was a Saturday evening. Joe was due to arrive at 5. I was scrambling, assembling a few basics, actually just the essentials: bread, wine, and a clean tablecloth for the dining room table. Issan, who was at the time in the final stages of HIV disease, came downstairs in his bathrobe to ask when “Father Joe” was due to arrive and see what I was doing. After I explained, he said with a big smile but firmly, “Mass will be in the zendo, not the dining room.” Then he took over and directed all the preparations with the same care that he would have given to a full-blown Zen ritual: the table he wanted for the service, the tablecloth, the candles, the cup. He went back upstairs, and when he came down again, he was dressed in robes. He greeted Joe at the door with a hug and kiss, thanking him for coming and telling him that Mass would be in our chapel, the Zendo.

 

Issan and five or six of us sat in meditation posture on cushions while Joe improvised the ancient Catholic liturgy, beginning with a simple rite of confession and forgiveness. I noticed that Issan brought the same attention to the Catholic ritual as he did Zazen and Zen services. When it came time to read from the Testament of Jesus, Joe took a small white, well-worn book out of a pocket in his jacket and said that his mother had told him that the story he was about to read contained all the essentials for an authentic Christian life. Sometimes, even Jesuits get their best theological training from their mothers.

 


Then he read from the gospel of Luke, chapter 10, the parable of the Good Samaritan. For any of you who need a refresher course in New Testament studies, this is a story about a man who is robbed, taken for everything he has, savagely beaten, and left by the side of the road to die. All the people who might have helped, even those who should have helped, chose to walk on the other side of the street when they saw him—except for the Samaritan. Now the Samaritan in Jesus’ day was the guy whom good upstanding members of the community might have called the equivalent of “faggot” or “queer.” He was an outcast, but he was the only person who stopped and took some real action to help the poor fellow out. Jesus teaches us that real love is shown through actions, not words.

 

The following day—Sunday mornings were the usual gathering of the Hartford Street community—Issan began to talk about Fr. Joe and the liturgy. Catholic Mass in the Zendo was not universally welcomed. So many members at Hartford Street carried the wounds of discrimination in the religion of their parents that Christianity was rarely spoken about. And the Irish priest from Most Holy Redeemer, who came to administer the Last Rites to hospice residents who requested them, was friendly but rather perfunctory. However, Issan was exuberant. He’d fallen in love with Joe. He said that during the Mass, he had the experience of being forgiven, which allowed him to feel peace and even appreciation for his early religious training. 


Issan had also fallen in love with Luke's parable. He turned to me and asked, “What was the little white book that Fr. Joe read from?” Startled, I said that was the New Testament. “Oh,” said Issan lightly, “it must have been in Latin when I heard it as an altar boy, but it was exactly how we should lead our lives as Buddhists.” 

 

Issan saw Maitri as much more than just a Buddhist hospice, though it was deeply Buddhist to its very roots. He shaved his head and wore a Soto priest’s patchwork robe; he bowed and chanted in Sino-Japanese, but he clearly understood that genuine wisdom, what Buddhists call prajna, is not the sole property of any religion. I think he took the Teaching of Jesus to a new, heroic level: the definition of friend included building an inn for the injured traveler when he couldn't find one in town.

 

When Joe and I had dinner together the night before he flew back to Boston, I told him what Issan had said. A few days later, the small New Testament in his jacket, which had been in his jacket for years, arrived in an envelope addressed to Issan. Before Issan died 6 months later, during one of our last meetings, he asked me to thank Joe again for the Zendo mass after he was gone. I did. And that New Testament passed from the pocket of Joe’s jacket to Issan’s bookshelf at Hartford Street to my altar. I have since passed it on to a person who asked a dharma question about one of the stories in the Gospel of Jesus.


Monday, September 15, 2025

Shopping List for the Dragon King

For Bob Ochs, who told me this story


With some American devotees

Yogi Chen

Went shopping in Chinatown

For the Dragon King

Who lives off Timber Cove

In the Pacific Ocean.

Yesterday Chen bought two bags

Of Industrial scrap diamond chips

And cheap bead necklaces, all colors,

From the Woolworth Dime Store.


Today

Master Chen and the devotees go to a Chinese grocery

To look for red sea horses — need one or two per month

He says he wants a male fish with a long snout

A female who carries babies

Penis and vagina

The Yogi said

“Full Moon coming, love and good fortune,

Ghosts and demons love you.”


Next, the Chinese pharmacy

Basket by the door, dead beetles

Bulging-eyed

Chen scoops up a handful

Gives to the clerk who crushes them with a pestle.

The clerk knows all mysteries

Pours the contents out of the bowl, wraps in paper.

An American lady asks for antelope horn

She said she has a cold

Chen offers

Dristan tablet.


Yogi Chen and devotees go to lunch

Hunan Restaurant on Kearny

Chen is from Hunan, near Szechwan

He was a classmate of Chairman Mao.

As a Buddhist scholar, he fled the Communists

As a hermit in India, he meditated alone in a house for 15 years

Till he dreamt of the Big Sacrifice in California

On the Dragon's belly.

He came to the U.S., uses geomancy.

On the Dragon’s mountain spine that curls from Puget Sound to Baja California

He finds its belly button on three green hills

In Sonoma County

He buys the land

And prepares 

Big sacrifices.


Hunan waitress takes their order,

Rice and vegetables

Chen turns up his smiling face

Flirts with the waitress 

Tells devotees the next sacrifice

For Love Goddess

Will be in February

For the sacrifice, he’ll need fire

From a brothel.

Devotees giggle.

Sorry, not a laughing matter.


Afternoon

Yogi Chen said Now we need goldfish

So we won’t have another war.

Devotees pile into the Volkswagen and

Go to Lucky Dog Pet Shop.

600 goldfish cost nearly a 1000 dollars.


600 goldfish in 10 plastic bags of water

600 goldfish in the car’s back seat.

Chen directs now we must drive to Walnut Creek

Devotees drive and drive.

Eventually find Walnut Creek

running behind chain fence.

Devotees ask, “How do we get to creek?”

Chen points to a hole in fence.

The car stops. Doors open.

Devotees carry bags of goldfish through

fence hole,

climb downhill to creek.

Yogi Chen comes with bells and skull drum

Motion devotees gather round.

Chen prays that Kissinger brings peace

Rings bells, beats the skull drum

Dumps $1000 worth of goldfish

in creek

Keeps one big bag

Scrap diamonds.

That’s for the Dragon King.


“May our sacrifices find their Way

To the Big Sea Dragon.”