1. Compare Williams' description of the “Four Simple Truths” with what you have read (including Chodron) and learned about Buddhism’s “Four Noble Truths.” Is there a substantive difference in her teaching on the four truths, or is it merely rhetorical? What do you make of her claim that these truths and the idea of enlightenment have nothing to do with any religion but are universal?
2. Refer to her list of exploring yourself on pages 94 and 95: what criticisms might Carrette and King as well as Scharf make of this list? What are you thoughts?
3. How does she describe Zen meditation? Is there a danger of misinterpreting what she is saying and how she says it? Compare her description of the way to do zazen with Chodron’s description—do they differ substantially?
Williams Classic Buddhism
[1] Life is uncomfortable. The truth of suffering.
[2] Desire causes discomfort. The truth of the origin of suffering.
[3] It is possible to end discomfort . The truth of the end of suffering.
[4] Meditation and the 8-fold path The truth of the path that leads to the end
can end discomfort. of suffering.
I found Williams' differences with the classic Four Noble Truths only rhetorical- she's simplified (Westernized) the phrases but the meanings are identical. I think it was a wise choice because it makes them more accessible. I agree with her stance that these truths and the concept of enlightenment do not require a religion. They are universally available.
Going back through When Things Fall Apart, there was only a small reference from Chodron, but it's a strong observation: "The first noble truth of the Buddha is that when we feel suffering, it doesn't mean that something is wrong. What a relief. Finally somebody told the truth".
I think we need to be careful not to be overly critical of Williams' list for exploring ourselves. First of all, she's not claiming that it is traditional Zen. Her implied audience for Being Black is African Americans, an ethnicity that we don't usually associate with Eastern philosophies, and that hasn't had much exposure to them. I don't usually like to generalize, but aren't most Western Zen students middle-class/upper class and white? In a web search of "celebrity Buddhists" I found two notable exceptions that claim to be- Herbie Hancock (a renowned jazz keyboardist) and Tiger Woods. (With the latter, I can see it in his golf game; not so much in some other decisions that came out a few years back). But I digress, and I'm in no position to judge. Judging and criticizing others is the antithesis of what Zen is about.
Are her suggestions related to Zen? No, not very much. Some of them, I'll concede, lean toward the self-help, touchy-feelie brands of "spirituality" that Carrette & King hold in disdain. I couldn't recommend these ideas for someone wanting to practice as pure a Zen as possible. But Williams is at least offering some ways to get in tune with one's inner nature. It might have been a mistake in a book about Zen. I see this work as more of a hybrid between Zen and self-help. It could be a "gateway" book into a more serious study. Is a little taste of Zen better than none at all, or does it do injustice to the tradition? Is tradition what matters?
Sharf's viewpoint was interesting, but I think overly harsh. By his standards, nothing that exists in the West is true Zen. I think he misses the whole point. If Zen isn't allowed to migrate and change, then the Chinese and Japanese aren't Zen either. (Buddhism started in India). The essence of Zen is adaptability. It can't be held within borders or a certain race or class. Or time-frame.
icons at the top right corner of the subsection.