Dharmacrank

2010-05-30T19:07:00.000-07:00

"...but in this, that I had to deal with a being to whom I could not appeal in the name of anything high or low. ... There was nothing either above or below him, and I knew it. He had kicked himself loose of the earth. Confound the man! he had kicked the very earth to pieces." Marlow, describing Kurtz, in a passage near the end of the Heart of Darkness.

Will the true Buddhist path lead to such freedom on earth? Will the true Buddhist be free of constraints, guided by only his realizations?

2007-10-05T11:40:00.000-07:00

Reading (again) “The Snow Leopard.”

Peter Matthiessen writes some beautiful passages about observing his son’s natural ease in the universe. His son is happy, carefree and without self-consciousness. To quote:

“The child was not observing; he was at rest in the very center of the universe, a part of things, unaware of endings and beginnings, still in unison with the primordial nature of creation …

As adults, I’m sure most of us have these fleeting moments of peace and clarity. But, these phantoms only occasionally penetrate through to our consciousness - as we grow, we necessarily put on what Matthiessen calls the “armor of ‘the I.’” We become individuals and inevitably lose this natural connection to the unified nature of things.

But why must this be lost? Well, it is quite simple isn’t it? We must separate ourselves from others, view the world as an arena of competition, because otherwise we would perish. We are bound to our earthly bodies, and these bodies suffer without food and shelter. By physical need, we must be hunters, gatherers and predators, protecting our subsistence against all others. And so, the ability to feel unified with all beings is lost. Our physical needs as human beings pull us away from our spiritual destiny.

Perhaps only in some utopian garden, where all our physical needs are provided for, and all competition banished, would it be possible to slowly regain access to the child’s perception of the universe.

2007-10-04T10:59:00.000-07:00

I think my first knowledge of Basho came from "Caddyshack." Chevy Case, strolling around the putting green, quips: "'A flute with no holes, is not a flute. And a donut with no hole, is a Danish.' Funny guy."

But here is the real thing:

"In the cicada's cry,
No sign can foretell
How soon it must die."

Ah, the present moment.

2006-05-12T07:35:00.000-07:00

You probably thought I would never post again!

Here is something to chew on:

"The Mind is like a painter who is able to paint all things, and the mind is like a slave who is ordered about and controlled by suffering and trouble. The mind is like a king who is able to do whatever he wants, and the mind is like a stupid thief who brings ruination onto himself."

It is entirely up to us, my friends, or, more precisely, to our minds. It is capable of all things. If there is a God, then this God is just an observer.

2005-11-18T08:10:00.000-08:00

A thought-provoking review of the latest Thich Nhat Hanh book:

http://www.powells.com/review/2005_11_18

2005-09-21T12:05:00.000-07:00

Now I think I speak for many of you buddhists out there when I say that we are in part attracted to the Buddhist philosphy because we don't have to ignore the discoveries of science when embracing its worldview. This review (from the NY Times Book Review) of the latest Dalai Lama work, "The Universe in a Single Atom," says a bit more about this:

"But this book offers something wiser: a compassionate and clearheaded account by a religious leader who not only respects science but, for the most part, embraces it. 'If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims,' he writes. No one who wants to understand the world 'can ignore the basic insights of theories as key as evolution, relativity and quantum mechanics.'

"That is an extraordinary concession compared with the Christian apologias that dominate conferences devoted to reconciling science and religion. The 'dialogues' implicitly begin with nonnegotiables - 'Given that Jesus died on the cross and was bodily resurrected into heaven ..' - then seek scientific justification for what is already assumed to be true."

But not so fast:

"But when it comes to questions about life and its origins, this would-be man of science begins to waiver. Though he professes to accept evolutionary theory, he recoils at one of its most basic tenets: that the mutations that provide the raw material for natural selection occur at random. Look deeply enough, he suggests, and the randomness will turn out to be complexity in disguise - 'hidden casuality,' -the Buddha's smile. There you have it, Eastern Religion's version of intelligent design."

2005-09-13T08:24:00.000-07:00

From a review of "The Gnostic Gospels of Jesus" in the local paper:

"The Gnostic gospels are sayings attributed to Jesus that are very different from those of the Jesus of the four Gospels in the Christian New Testament. ...
The Gnostic Jesus imparts knowledge so we might be enlightened. In these texts, Jesus imparts wisdom that is supposed to save us from ignorance. Ignorance of self is the real problem. The Gnostic Jesus teaches us that we have the divine within ourselves. We must learn to know ourselves, and this knowledge enlightens and saves us."

Intriguing to think of how Western development might have differed had the Gnostics not been so effectively suppressed. It would be heartening to see Gnostic philosophy gain some wider following; perhaps Christians could then become Buddhists without even knowing it!

2005-08-24T07:34:00.000-07:00

From the Sept/Oct issue of World Watch. “Hungry for More: Re-engaging Religious Teahings on Consumption,” by Gary Gardner:

“Consider, for example, the power of ‘Buddhist economics’ to turn western notions of consumption on their heads. From its starting position – the purpose of an economy –the Buddhist approach is distinctive. As explained in E.F. Schumacher’s classic, Small Is Beautiful, whereas market economies are designed to produce the highest possible levels of production and consumption, Buddhist economics supports a different aim: to achieve enlightenment. This spiritual goal, in turn, requires freedom from desire, the source of all suffering, according to the Buddha. This is a tall order in societies of mass consumption, where advertisers conflate needs and desires and where acquisitiveness is a cultural norm.
…

Indeed, from the perspective of Buddhist economics, having and consuming makes sense only as a means to a well-rounded sense of well-being, in which material needs are met in moderation, and in which cultural, psychological, and spiritual needs are also addressed. Consumption as an end – chasing the most prestigious house or the latest cell phone – is irrational. …

The consumption ethic of Buddhist economics appears to have taken strong root in Sri Lanka in a village-based development movement known as Sarvodaya Shramadana, now present in more than half of the country’s 24,000 villages. Consumption in the Sarvodayan experience is shaped by the Sarvodayan vision of development, which is summarized in a list of 10 major human needs:

· A clean and beautiful environment
· A clean and adequate supply of water
· Basic clothing
· A balanced diet
· A simple house to live in
· Basic health care
· Simple communications facilities
· Basic energy requirements
· Well-rounded education
· Cultural and spiritual sustenance”

2005-07-08T10:58:00.000-07:00

I haven't read the book, God Against the Gods, by Jonathan Kirsch, but it sounds like it could have much to say about the horrors that can be unleashed by monotheism. From his website:

"Kirsch's controversial and illuminating new book demonstrates that, contrary to the conventional wisdom of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, religious liberty and diversity were core values of classical paganism -- and it was monotheism that introduced the terrors of true belief, including holy war, martyrdom, inquisitions, and crusades.

...

The last stand of paganism against monotheism is one of the great "what-if's" in history: how would the modern world look today if the worship of many gods had been tolerated instead of persecuted? Breaking a long-lived taboo, God Against the Gods reveals the dark side of monotheism and the bright side of polytheism, and shows how the world we live in today -- including the horrors of 9/11 and the war against terrorism -- are rooted in the oldest traditions of monotheism. And it tells the tale by focusing on the real lives of men and women, and by illuminating the ancient roots of today's most bloody conflicts as well as the cherished idea of religious liberty."

A belief in an all-powerful, single God does not necessarily lead to intolerance and the need to compel others to the same belief, but the potential is always there.

2005-06-29T06:25:00.000-07:00

Borrowed from Sartre scholar Ronald Aronson (of Wayne State), writing in recognition of the anniversary of Sartre's death. This highlights that the great questions of philosophy are also the great questions of Buddhism:

"As he deepened his extravagant claims, Sartre embarked on a great adventure of the human spirit, aiming at solving one of our greatest perplexities: Do we make ourselves, or are we determined by conditions beyond our control, including those within our own psyche?

"One response, often associated with the political right, claims that we are completely responsible for virtually everything that befalls us. Another, the most conventional of left-wing replies, is that social conditions shape and determine who we become. After beginning by contributing the strongest argument of the 20th century to the side of the dilemma stressing total human freedom, Sartre went on to explore the social, economic and psychic conditions under which we exercise our freedom. Yes, he would say, we do make ourselves - but the situation within which we do, and even the terms in which we do so, are imposed on us and generally remain beyond our control.

"Sartre made clear that the whole truth lies with both sides taken together. And then, in works like his biography of Gustave Flaubert, he went on to demonstrate precisely how an individual creates himself from what his social class and family situation have made him to be. Like no one else, he gave their due both to freedom and to determinism. Like no one else, he sought to understand exactly what it means to be responsible."

Buddhism seems to argue for total human freedom: we are solely responsible for our actions and thus our fate. We banish the interference of Gods and deities. But we are not all born equal, and much is determined by the our family circumstances and the health of our society? We are born into an environment, and a station in life, which certainly shapes how we develop and how we grow, but this beginning point was not an accident but a product of our past actions? I hope I got this right.

2005-06-24T10:56:00.000-07:00

Protestantism has its work-ethic. Buddhism has something less?

Interesting bit from Philip Short's "Pol Pot: Anatomy of a Nightmare" (at p.295), explaining how the Khmer Rouge (and all proceeding rulers) had difficulty getting the peasantry to produce:

"But that was only part of the truth. Even Khieu Samphan estimated that on average Khmer peasants worked only six months of the year, and sometimes much less. Theravada Buddhism has never placed much value on the acquistion and consumption of wealth. ... a Khmer businessman seeking a regular supply of palm suger for sweetmeat manufacture, encounted exactly the same problem. Once the peasant farmers he employed had earned enough for the year, they stopped work, and neither blandishments, nor the promise of more money could make them start again. 'From their point of view it was logical,' he acknowledged. 'Once they had paid their family's expenses - seed for the next planting; fertiliser; clothes; offerings to the monks; school fees for the children - what would they spend it on? There was nothing more they wanted.'

To some, that may be indolence; to others, it is wisdom. But in either case it flies in the face of the way the modern world runs."

That was 30 years ago. Wonder if the reality of globalization and creeping materialism has changed all that?

2005-05-20T14:38:00.000-07:00

.... but maybe humor does have something something to do with Buddhism. Having a sense of humor about yourself seems a mighty powerful antidote to anger. Anger is a terrible obstacle to those trying to tread the narrow path of Buddhist practice. A great passage in the currently fashionable book, "The Heart of the World," by Ian Baker recounts this episode deep in the trackless jungle of Pemako:

"Today was particularly bad for me as the rain would not let up and the leeches were relentless. ... Sloshing along the muddy trail in the pounding rain I came across a large, slimy log that had fallen chest high across our brush-choked path. In my agitated state I viewed the log as a menacing obstacle that was clearly separate, in my way and against me. With no way under or around I jumped, stomach first, and slid over the top. Regaining my balance on the other side, I was infuriated at the mud and decaying mush that seemd to have covered the entire front of my body. Rubbing off the crud I cursed the log and the goddamned rain. It was my brother Todd who suggested that we wait and see how the Lama could handle this formidable impediment. Surely this test would break him.

"Hiding off the trail we peeked through the underbrush just in time to see him trudge up to the log. Ever smiling he took a couple of steps back and tried to jump with a running start. With not enough momentum - coupled with a portly belly - he slid back down on the same side of the log and landed on his back in a large puddle. Shaking his rain-drenched head he burst into spasms of uproarious laughter. Staggering to his feet he repeated the same manuever - with the same results - no less than 3 times. With each collapse back into the puddle his laugher gre stronger and louder. On his fourth attempt he made it over the top and slid headlong into the muddy puddle on the other side. Again, the laughter was knee-slapping. Continuing to chuckle, he wiped himself off as best he could - lovingly patted the log as though it were a dear friend - and proceeded up the trail - smiling. Todd and I just stared at each other."

Perhaps Buddhism for me doesn't involve trying to attain some higher meditative state, but just being able to handle life's hurdles with the same tranquility.

2005-05-19T06:21:00.000-07:00

Dear Crankarians,

This doesn't have much to do with Buddhism, but it is pretty darn funny. It takes alot to make the Crank laugh, but this did:
http://www.powells.com/review/2005_05_19

2005-05-09T06:59:00.000-07:00

Interesting article in current issue of First Things, a somewhat learned journal that claims to be "interreligous," but seems to me to be just a pulpit for Catholic Orthodoxy. Anywho, the article is "When East is West," by Peter J. Leithart, and the basic premise is this: the Buddhism now embraced by many in the West, is really just a fairly new creation stemming from the work of Henry Olcott. Even more provacatively, Leithart portrays Olcott's work as basically just "a reshaping of traditional Buddhism according to a liberal Protestant model."

Olcott (an easy target for critics of the western Buddhism, given his eccentricities) was undeniably a key figure in bringing Buddhism to the attention of Western audiences. Leithart doesn't really criticize Olcott, but wants to make this argument, I guess in an attempt to poke some gentle fun:

"Westerners who convert to Buddhism are frequently attracted to a form of Buddhism that is the creation of the modern world. Western converts are often attracted to precisely those features of Buddhism that owe most to liberal Protestantism: tolerance, elevation of reason, compatibility with science, hostility to elitism and hierarchy in religion and so on."

I suppose Leithart is trying to argue that the Buddhism now embraced by Americans is really just a religion drawn from the values of more progressive branches of Christianity. There is some truth in that, I suppose, but it hardly goes far enough in explaining the deep appeal of Buddhism among educated folks in the west.

An irritating subtext in the article is the author's obvious prejudice against the attempt by people in the U.S. to take what they see as the good features of Buddhist thought and create something new out of it for a U.S. audience. This is portrayed as a shallow corruption of traditional Buddhism, but plainly ignores I believe the well-documented history of Buddhism's being adapted to local cultures and needs as it spread throughout Asia. Why should it not do so when it moves into Western societies?

2005-05-03T12:20:00.000-07:00

Reasons I like Buddhism, #2:

You can be a good Buddhist and not even know it. Not being bound by worshiping a deity, not having to accept the words of some ancient text, not having to seek salvation through any intermediary, the Buddhist is a Buddhist simply by living in harmony, not harming others and letting reason and experience be the guide.

2005-04-27T08:30:00.000-07:00

Reasons I like Buddhism, #1:

The prominence of cause and effect in the Buddhist way of looking at the world. When I first encountered the term "dependent origination" I was a bit puzzled. One of the Dalai Lama ghost-written books had a good explanation, however, that cleared things up a bit:

"This principle means that all conditioned things and events in the universe come into being only as a result of the interaction of various causes and conditions. This is significant because it precludes two possibilities. One is that things can arise from nowhere, with no causes and conditions, and the second is that things can arise on account of a transcendent creator. Both possibilities are negated."

In our daily lives, we have no problem seeing cause and effect governing just about everything we do. Why jettison this knowledge when thinking of spiritual matters? I never understand people who have faith in science, modern technology, and all that has been created by the application of principles of cause and effect, but then persist in believing that everything is "in God's hands?"

2005-04-08T11:17:00.000-07:00

Purpose-driven claptrap. I'll admit that I've thumbed through some of the book, The Purpose Driven Life. It is pretty bizarre. The whole thrust seems to be that I'M SPECIAL.

Dig this:

"You were planned for God's pleasure.
The moment you were born into the world, God was there as an unseen witness, smiling at your birth. He wanted you alive, and your arrival gave him great pleasure. God did not need to create you, but he chose to create you for his own enjoyment. You exist for his benefit, his glory, his purpose, and his delight." p.63.

In Buddhism, the goal is ego-reduction, the realization that I am not really separate or distinct or in any way special at all. We are tied up in the wheel of Samsara until we have worked our way through to enlightenment and cessation. I realize that the great majority of serious Christians are moral and kindly people but taking this sort of book seriously could be a very dangerous thing. If I am really God's special project, then I'm pretty damn important!

2005-03-31T06:16:00.000-08:00

O Samsarians! Read and weep of your folly. From a book review of "The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War," by Andrew Bacevich:

"Reeling from a newfound sense of American weakness, military officers seeking to recover lost prestige and autonomy, neoconservatives enthralled by Wilsonian rhetoric, and religious leaders transfixed by an apocalyptic reading of the cold war reached the same conclusion, namely that American military strength had to be restored, and once restored multiplied several fold. The culture industry followed, with 1986's Top Gun representing the apotheosis of Hollywood's newfound love affair with the American fighting man. (Lengthy discourses on Top Gun and Rambo: First Blood Part II make for some of the most entertaining moments in an unfailingly serious work.) These currents redounded to the advantage of a small clique of defense intellectuals, several of them associated with the RAND Corporation, others high-ranking civilians in the Pentagon, who had envisioned new forms of war fighting that promised to transcend the cold-war stalemate. Taken together, the result has been a vastly more expensive, more celebrated, and more frequently deployed military."

Public acceptance underlies this increased use and stature of the military. While all organized societies require self-defense, things have gotten just a little ridiculous.

2005-03-23T13:23:00.000-08:00

from A Journey in Ladakh, by Andrew Harvey, at p.41 (the author recounting a converstation with a fellow traveler):

"It is strange for a cynical psychologist to spend every day with people that seem, as far as I can judge, to have little interest in deceiving or impressing you ... And it is strange for me too to be among people who for the most part are happy. Don't get me wrong -- this is a harsh land. It is hard to get the crops to grow here on the rocky mountainsides, it is had to survive the solitudes of the winter and the lonely places ... But most of these people live simply and unsentimentally, they live with few needs, few prides, few vanities. They are tolerant to their old people, to their children, to each other. You know what they are taught by their priests? They are taught that every living thing has been their mother in a previous incarnation, and so they must respect it as their mother. I have seen very little cruelty. ..."

It is easy to idealize life in traditional, pre-industrialized societies, yet there seems to be something to this. Buddhism seems to be the key to creating such a content and kind society, but I suppose that Christianity (at least real Christianity, not what passes for Christianity in the U.S.) would produce the same results. Be content and frown upon pride and vanity. Treat other people and living things well. Pretty simple rules but they depend upon a rational and calm mind. Living here in the "land of the free", it is hard to imagine that an entire culture could ever achieve such a thing.

2005-03-15T07:08:00.000-08:00

What we need is a good Buddhist bumper sticker. Like me, you probably get a good chuckle from the various Christian messages you see pasted on the rear ends of cars and trucks chugging around town:

"Don't Let The Car Fool You - My Treasure Is In Heaven"

Now this one strikes me as a little smug, and certainly over-confident.

"My Boss is a Jewish Carpenter"

I assume this is a reference to Jesus. Personally I'm a little turned off by such an unapologetic recognition of a higher authority over my person and spiritual destiny. I do like the positive image of a humble manual trade such as carpentry, however.

How about:

"My boss is a 2500 year old Nepalese wandering holy man." Not very catchy.

Not surprisingly, you can actually purchase Buddhist bumper stickers. Here is one that catches my eye:

http://www.palyulproductions.org/May_all_beings_Bumper_sticker.jpg

It beautifully catches a central theme of the Buddhist, while wrapping it in the obligatory patriotism necessary for the U.S. bumper aesthetic (and, no, I don't have any financial stake in above-mentioned bumper sticker).

2005-03-11T06:21:00.000-08:00

Being a soldier isn't really an honorable thing. After all, it is all about be trained to kill other humans, and being willing to do so. The U.S., an alleged Christian nation, puts the military on a pedestal, only confirming that most people's religious beliefs are shallow.

Which leads me to this news story, which I find rather striking:

"As an 18-year-old soldier in Vietnam, Claude Thomas was good at his job.

Ordered to kill, he did it. But in the end, the killing destroyed him.

Years of drinking, drugs and violence would go by before he found Buddhist meditation, and eventually, life as a Buddhist monk.

...

"My job in Vietnam was to kill people," writes Claude Anshin, as he prefers to be called. "By the time I was first injured in combat (two or three months into his tour), I had already been directly responsible for the deaths of several hundred people. And today, each day, I can still see many of their faces."

Claude Anshin was a crew chief on assault helicopters. By the end of his tour in Vietnam, he'd won 27 Air Medals, a Distinguished Flying Cross and the Purple Heart...

Eventually, post-traumatic stress disorder and the accompanying addictions landed Claude Anshin on the streets. It wasn't until the early 1990s, when he heard Buddhist monk and author Thich Nhat Hanh speak at a retreat in upstate New York, that Claude Anshin was able to directly address the pain of both Vietnam and an abusive childhood.

In a telephone interview this week, Claude Anshin said he now travels to share Zen practices and help others understand both suffering and healing.

"How the roots of war and violence exist in all of us, and we are all responsible," he said. "What I do is share the tools that supported me: meditation practice, no intoxicants and a desire to live differently."

(from The Ann Arbor News).

Claude Anshin has put this experience into a book, "At Hell's Gate: A Soldier's Journey from War to Peace."

Turn the clock forward: if he were returning today from Iraq with the same combat record he would be greeted with a flag waiving parade and honored for "fighting for our freedom." And so it goes.

2005-03-02T06:32:00.000-08:00

The articulation of the ultimate reward is a hurdle for the spread of Buddhism, as the human mind is conditioned to seek what is pleasurable and enjoyable in our daily existence. The rewards of "heaven" are easily grasped by people: a happy place in the sky where we see family and friends again, sit at the side of God, and have peace and contentment. Comforting myths are an easy sell.

But striving towards enlightenment? The discipline and self-restraint of the path will be rewarded by the self being "extinguished?" The ultimate reward is hard to express in language and hard to appreciate when our existence is so tied to our material world. Alas, will true Buddhism always be an "elitist" path?

2005-02-22T15:00:00.000-08:00

From another review of the new book, "An End to Suffering: The Buddha in the World," by Pankaj Mishra (appearing in the latest New York Review):

"Perhaps the central figure among such thinkers is Nietzsche, who saw early on that the fading of the Christian god might propel people toward a rational philosopher from the East who proposed a struggle against suffering rather than a struggle against sin. Buddhism, for Nietzsche, 'is a hundred times more realistic than Christianity - it has the heritage of a cool and objective posing of problems of its composition, it arrives after a philosophical movement lasting hundreds of years; the concept 'God' is already abolished by the time it arrives."

Methinks Nietzsche was a little too optimistic about the West rejecting superstition and embracing rational thought as the basis of their spiritual seeking.

More interesting stuff from the same review:

"The Buddha, though entirely Eastern by origin, provides an example, in fact, of the very qualities that Mishra has long admired in the West: reason, rigor and the power of the mind (Buddhism can more easily be called a highly empirical 'science of mind" than a religion)."

...

"It is central to Mishra's story that we owe the rescue of the Buddha from complete obscurity to Europeans: it was Europeans, he tells us, who invented the very word 'Buddhism' around 1820 ... and it was European amateurs who worked hard to recover texts that had been lost ..."

It is fascinating to contemplate how Western admirers unearthed and promoted the Buddhism that many of us now find so attractive in the West.

2005-02-09T15:08:00.000-08:00

A couple of interesting observations from a book review of "An End to Suffering: The Buddha in the World," by Pankaj Mishra.

"the Buddha, as Mishra describes him, was not a prophet -- not a religious figure, but a secular one. Indeed, 'he had placed no value on prayer or belief in a deity; he had not spoken of creation, original sin or the last judgment.' He likewise ignored the question of why sin and evil exist in the world, which has obsessed nearly every major religion. The Buddha's concern was purely practical: to relieve suffering, both material and existential."

...

"But Buddhism ... is 'not easily practiced in the modern world,' where almost everything is 'predicated on the growth and multiplication of desire, exactly the thing that the Buddha had warned against.' In the United States, particularly, 'as Alexis de Tocqueville had noticed in the early 1830's, individual self-interest was the very basis of the brand-new commercial and industrial society that Europeans had created in the seemingly unlimited spaces of the New World.'"

2005-02-04T06:37:00.000-08:00

A summary of "Training our minds to the Happy," in the February issue of Psychology Today:

"Living in the present may be the key to happiness, says Carlin

Flora, a staff writer at the magazine. "Our sense of well-being

is intimately tied into our perception of time," she says.

Age also makes a difference, she says, citing research by a

professor of psychology at Stanford University. The professor,

Laura Carstensen, has found that younger people focus more on

the negative, while older people release bad feelings faster and

maintain good ones longer.

"Carstensen thinks this shift toward the positive occurs because

as we age, we become aware, consciously or not, that time is

running out," Ms. Flora writes. "The awareness of life's

fragility turns our attention to the present moment, so we worry

less."

Ms. Carstensen is also investigating how Buddhist meditation,

which involves an intense focus on the present, may affect the

brain."

"The finding suggests," Ms. Flora says, "that if we train

ourselves to become more mindful and slow down our sense of

passing time, we can learn to monitor our moods and thoughts

before they spiral downward. We can, in other words, make

ourselves happier."

So, mindfulness, mindfulness, mindfulness. Another field of study that confirms ancient insights. Alas that we live is such a magnificently unmindful society! Distractions and entertainment tossed at us constantly.

The full-text of the article is at:
http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20050119-000002.html

2005-02-02T10:55:00.000-08:00

Since Buddhism requires mindfulness throughout the day, I have found it helpful to keep short passages memorized. Here is one of the best that I have found. I have no idea where it originally came from, but it can be found in Edward Conze's Buddhism: It's Essence and Development:

OF whatever teachings, you can assure yourself that they are conducive to
Dispassion and not to passion;
To detachment and not to bondage;
To decrease of worldly gains and not to their increase;
To frugality and not to covetousness;
To content and not to discontent;
To solitude and not to company;
To energy and not to sluggishness;
To delight in good and not to delight in evil;
Of such teachings you may with certainty affirm;
This is the norm; this is the discipline; this is the Buddha’s message.

2005-01-27T06:24:00.000-08:00

The appeal of adopting Buddhism in the west is the ability to pick and choose what works and what is suited to the culture and temperment of the people. Others might see that sort of "cut and paste" approach as a dangerous watering down of traditions, but the same process has occured in every land where Buddhism has taken hold. The Tibetans surely didn't adopt Buddhism without grafting on their own historical and cultural needs. And so there is no reason to fear the same process in the west. I always think westerners dressed in Tibetan robes look silly. Buddhism's strength is its appeal to the logicial mind; one should not get attached to the traditions that are part of any particular branch. And so dress as you always do, and forget about learning texts in the original language, etc. Absorb the spirit and train the mind!

2005-01-20T10:54:00.000-08:00

I don't really know what this poem means, but perhaps Ezra Pound was trying out some meditation techniques? Anyway, it made me think of meditative states and paths for finding truths:

"I stood still and was a tree amid the wood,
Knowing the truth of things unseen before;
Of Daphne and the laurel bow
And that god-feasting couple old
that grew elm-oak amid the wold.
'Twas not until the gods had been
Kindly entreated, and been brought within
Unto the hearth of their heart's home
That they might do this wonder thing;
Nathless I have been a tree amid the wood
And many a new thing understood
That was rank folly to my head before."

"The Tree," by Ezra Pound

2005-01-18T13:52:00.000-08:00

The recent Tsunami disaster certainly has turned our attention to suffering. The images and stories show almost unimaginable physical hardship and mental sorrow of thousands of people.

Suffering, and the recognition of our existence as being inseparable from suffering was, after all, the driving force behind the Buddha's discoveries. I've often grappled with the fact that most western followers of Buddhism probably do not experience suffering as a day-to-day fact. I'll indulge in a big generalization, but most western Buddhists are probably fairly comfortable members of the middle or upper classes. Sure, I have plenty of stress in my life from work and family, but I can't say that I suffer.

And so what is there to drive our search for enlightenmenet? Is it just an intellectual exercise? Can there be real progress without the spur of suffering?

2005-01-10T11:55:00.000-08:00

Remarkable. Incredible. Everyday brings even more ridiculous statements from religious leaders about the "lesson" of the Tsunami disaster. Another chestnut:

"This (disaster) is one of the greatest opportunities God has given us to share his love with people," said K.P. Yohannan, president of the Texas-based Gospel for Asia. In an interview, Yohannan said his 14,500 "native missionaries" in India, Sri Lanka and the Andaman Islands are giving survivors Bibles and booklets about "how to find hope in this time through the word of God."

Yeah, "God" shares his love with us by drowning people in the sea. Oh, but there's still more:

"Shlomo Amar, Israel's Sephardi chief rabbi, has said, 'This is an expression of God's great ire with the world. The world is being punished for wrongdoing -- be it people's needless hatred of each other, lack of charity, moral turpitude.'"

Sorry, but it is so easy to ridicule other person's religious views. The lesson of the tsunami disaster seems to be that most people are seriously deluded in their understanding of the universe. Our physical environment is a place of uncontrolled and unpredictable forces that can easily hurt or kill. There is no "moral" basis for anyone being killed by an act of nature. It is called bad luck.

Now what does a Buddhist believe? A Buddhist believes, if I understand correctly, that upon our death (no matter how caused) our fate depends on the sum of our actions. A death by a tornado, hurricane or bolt of lightening is not caused by our being a bad person.

2005-01-06T10:00:00.000-08:00

A recent quote from an Islamic professor on the Tsunami catastrophes:

"If God loves a servant, he sends tribulation upon him,'' echoing the story of Job from the Old Testament and similar parables from other religions.

In Islam, all those who die in a natural catastrophe die in a state of martyrdom,'' Bazian said. They are not held accountable for their sins in life; they are given passage directly into paradise. For those left behind, he said, a tragedy of this scope is a reminder of God's power and our own mortality."

Now, isn't this quite absurd? Locating all our good fortune and woe in the actions of an unseen personality. If terrible things happen to me, this is just a test of our faith in God. If wonderful things happen to me, then this is a demonstration of God's favor. This is the complete negation of logic, rational thought and a true search for understanding.

I don't know if there is any good Buddhist explanation for natural disasters that randomly destroy people, but anything has got to be better than this.

2004-12-15T08:24:00.000-08:00

I think I know why so many people believe in god; it certainly makes things easier. Buddhism, true Buddhism, is hard work. Having to take responsibility for my own fate, advancing myself purely upon my own effort, not having the comfort of someone else who is watching over me and will make everything all right in the end. I think of monotheism as a child's view of the world, and Buddhism for adults.

Now to really make it anywhere in the U.S., your religion has to appeal to the military mindset (forget about the pacifist nature of real Christianity). So perhaps we should view the mind as an arrow, being trained to pierce. Buddhism as a way of sharpening the mind, intellect. The Buddhist as a mind soldier?

2004-12-10T07:02:00.000-08:00

An interesting article about the relation between religion and morality:
http://magic-city-news.com/article_2566.shtml

The quote from Harry Truman in the article is astounding. Imagine the reasoning (or lack thereof) of persons who believe their God would sanction wholesale destruction of other persons. Monotheism seems to pave the way, or at least "open the door," for all sorts of horrors.

2004-12-02T09:53:00.000-08:00

Just how serious do we take the concept of karma and rebirth? I recall a striking article from a few years ago, where an inquisitive American was granted a few moments with the Dalai Lama. He probed the D.L. with several questions about karma, to see just how far he could go with it. After a few minutes, the D.L. was asked about disabled children. Was their condition the result of bad actions in the past? "Of course" replied the D.L., as if this was a terribly obvious answer. The American noted that at this point the D.L.'s handlers quickly intervened and explained that this was "only for Buddhists," as if an American should not be exposed to such ideas.

And surely the D.L.'s handlers were right. If the laws of karma and rebirth really do apply, then indeed "we can't handle the truth." Is this a concept that the West has outgrown, since science has so many explanations for things unknown in the past?

lightsource_at_gmail.com

2004-11-30T18:58:00.000-08:00

Society mired in entertainment and distraction. Cellphones glued to ears as listeners stumble around oblivious to all. Music blasting from cars (can there be anything more annoying than rap/hip hop?). So what is a mindful boy to do?

A little bit from Thich Nhat Hanh:

I remember a short conversation between the Buddha and a philosopher of his time.
"I have heard that Buddhism is a doctrine of enlightenment. What is your method? What do you practice every day?"
"We walk, we eat, we wash ourselves, we sit down."
"What is so special about that? Everyone walks, eats, washes, sits down . . ."
"Sir, when we walk, we are aware that we are walking; when we eat, we are aware that we are eating. . . . When others walk, eat, wash, or sit down, they are generally not aware of what they are doing."

In Buddhism, mindfulness is the key. Mindfulness is the energy that sheds light on all things and activities, producing the power of concentration, bringing forth deep insight and awakening. Mindfulness is at the base of all Buddhist practice."

Mindfulness needs, if not silence, then a reasonably quiet space for concentration. Our gadgets, our games, our blasters, our tweeters, and our televisions in every room, all build a wall between us and mindfulness. Alas, is there no going back?

2004-11-19T10:59:00.000-08:00

Meditation is best understood as "...mental culture in the full sense of the term. It aims at cleansing the mind of impurities and disturbances, such as lustful desires, hatred, ill-will, indolence, worries and restlessness, skeptical doubts and cultivating such qualities as concentration, awareness, will, energy, the analytical faculty, confidence, joy, tranquility, leading finally to the attainment of highest wisdom which sees the nature of things as they are, and realizes the ultimate truth, Nirvana." from "What the Buddha Taught," by Walpola Rahula.

So there it is. If one wants to be serious about this thing, there is only the hard road of the practice of meditation. There is much else that passes for Buddhism in this world (prayers, prostrations, good deeds, the impulse to save "all sentient beings,") but this is the way. You must save yourself before you can save anyone else.

2004-11-02T11:08:00.000-08:00

Of course a crank like myself would naturally love Edward Abbey. Abbey's "Desert Solitaire" is surely one of the great books of the 20th century. Abbey doesn't worship nature, but he knows that it is a place where man can be free. Humans become trapped by their possessions, goals and comfort. Nature, with its solitude and isolation, offers hope for whatever realization you may seek.

Abbey would certainly never identify himself as a Buddhist (or any other religion), but his work often revels in passages that show man as one with the universe. Such as:

"Looking out on this panorama of light, space, rock and silence I am inclined to congratulate the dead man on his choice of jumping-off place; he had good taste. He had good luck -- I envy him the manner of his going: to die alone, on rock under sun at the brink of the unknown, like a wolf, like a great bird, seems to me very good fortune indeed. To die in the open, under the sky, far from the insolent interference of leech and priest, before this desert vastness opening like a window onto eternity -- that surely was an overwhelming stroke of rare good luck."

Desert Solitaire, from the chapter "The Dead Man at Grandview Point"

2004-10-29T10:49:00.000-07:00

When mulling over which tradition (theravada or mahayana) is best to use as a starting point, I find this to be instructive:

"Few among men are they who cross to the further shore. The others merely run up and down the bank on this side." Dhammapada, no.85

What this reveals to me is that it is damn well hard enough to save myself, much less all sentient beings. How many among even those devoted to Buddhism can be said to have achieved the goal? It seems that all efforts must be directed to working on reforming our own being. The mahayana schools seem generally to be a concession to those persons (the majority of mankind) who really don't have a chance of achieving enlightenment anytime soon. This opens the way to prayer, worship, ritual and all other types of distraction. The western buddhist would seem naturally to be attracted to the Theravada tradition.

2004-10-23T09:18:00.000-07:00

You might want to send a word of encouragement to the good people at the Buddhist News Network. This website has been the best available for English-language news and feature articles on Buddhism. The replacement site is scheduled to launch next week at: http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/

2004-10-14T08:20:00.000-07:00

Dharmacrank. Why dharmacrank?

crank = ill-tempered, grouchy person, and
crank = a device you turn to get something going

I like the double-meaning (he says smugly).

Speaking of crankiness, you've probably run into your share of really awful buddhist blogs (this one excluded of course). Are there any good parodies out there (how about a blog called "gentle droppings"?). Lots of bad poetry, personal stories, endless ramblings that surely no one will ever read. Of course, that covers pretty much the whole universe of blogging. I hope the laws of impermanence apply here!

This one is not bad, however: http://www.woodmoorvillage.org/zendo/

2004-10-10T09:42:00.000-07:00

I love the idea of Robert Thurman, but confess that I find his books impenetrable. Some of his writing I find downright strange. In "Inner Revolution," he claims that the European renaissance may have come about because of the good spiritual vibrations emanating from Tibet. In "Circling the Sacred Mountain," he and his co-author compare the sacred Mountain of Kailash not once, but twice, to a "cum-covered" phallus. Now maybe that's some sort of tantric thing, but I think it is weird.

Many in the west love the romantic idea of Tibetan buddhism, but the study of the actual teachings and practices leaves one with the conclusion that this is not really what we want in our buddhist searchings. It is all too supernatural, tied down to gods, personalities, realms and cosmology.

I have not yet read any histories of Tibetan society before the Chinese invasion, but when I do so how disillusioned while I be?

2004-10-01T07:47:00.000-07:00

PBS has an interesting website up, "The Question of God." Lots of pro and con prattling on about whether God exists, etc. They thankfully put up a section offering some differing perspectives, and here is the link to Suzuki's thought:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/suzuki.html

This really cuts through all the clutter piled up by those caught up in the monotheistic view of the world.

2004-09-23T14:02:00.000-07:00

It is interesting how you can find such a wide variety of practice passing under the name of "buddhism." From the intellectual approach of some, to the brand that seems to be little more than ancestor worhip and superstition. I always thought that one of the strenghts of buddhist teaching was the availability of different teachings for different audiences. After all, the struggling peasant in the field living on the edge of survival seems an unlikely candidate for the practice of sustained meditation necesssary to reach enlightenment. He or she needs comforting thoughts, not advanced lectures.

And so, the reality that some teachings will be only for a more elect few. Not that I read Nietzsche often, but an interesting line of his:

"Our highest insights must--and should--sound like stupidities and sometimes like crimes when they are heard without permission by those who are not predisposed and predestined for them...."

2004-09-16T15:00:00.000-07:00

"Buddhism had special appeal to urban trading groups, seeking a moral rather than a communal framework for their lives." From Michael Mann's book, The Sources of Social Power.

So Buddhism appealed to persons who often dealt with people they had never met before. In a society where the ties of family and tribe had been softened, if not lost, a new vision of how society should hold together was needed. Very interesting, in a sociological sort of way.

As one who will probably be a successful Buddhist only on an ethical level (if that), this is an interesting topic. And let's face it, as the persons with the time, disposition and commitment to succeed on a higher level, that is reaching "enlightenment," are probably very few in number, the study and application of Buddhism as an ethical system is immensely important.

comments? lightsource_at_gmail.com

2004-09-09T10:56:00.000-07:00

Much has been said and written about how buddhism appeals to westerners because of its basic compatibility with modern science. But are basic buddhist beliefs really able to fit smoothly into what science tells us to be true?

I often grapple with the path of human evolution and the human presence on Earth. Our world, and certainly the Universe, have existed for an extremely long period of time (really beyond our ability to comprehend). During this vast period of time, humans have only been on the scene for a tiny fraction.

Now, were any beings in existence before humans that had sufficient ability for self-reflection to achieve enlightenment? Could there be an enlightened being in our world before there were humans? Is enlightenment a concept that makes sense only in the context of the assumption that humans exist? Is there buddhism without enlightened beings?

Certainly the core buddhist beliefs center upon the trials of human existence, our suffering, the concept of karma placing us higher or lower in the order of living beings. Can buddhism explain the Universe in the absence of humans? Maybe you have to return to something I read somewhere: even all dharmas are impermanent.

2004-09-03T19:08:00.000-07:00

In light of the horrible massacre of school children in Russia at the hands of muslims, it is reassuring to be reminded that there is a rational religion available to the world. Here is an interesting excerpt from a recent posting on the Buddhist News Network(the best source of current buddhist news I think). It is a nice summary of what we strive to believe in and practice:

The mercantile community had found Buddhist philosophy acceptable and suitable. Trade is a rational activity and Buddhism is a rational religion. It does not revile against the pursuit of wealth and well-being, but only urges moderation. The two gelled remarkably.

Though the members of the monastic order (Sangha) had to live a life of renunciation, they were expected to situate themselves within society. The laity is expected to live a normal life, though following the "middle path" (majjhimapatipada) and avoiding all extremes. For the Buddha, hedonistic self-indulgence as well as self-mortification or extreme denial was equally unacceptable.

In Buddhism, everything in the world is impermanent (anitta) and illusory (moha). Attachment gives rise to dissatisfaction or sorrow (dukka). "But the Buddha said that dukka could be eliminated with the development of a humane and intellectual personality through the practice of morality (sila) and meditation (Samadhi) and through a search for wisdom (panna). The realisation of dispassionateness (viraga) through this path provides complete mastery over mind and matter resulting in the ultimate cessation of the mental process or the realization of nibbana (nirvana)," Seneviratne explained.

Despite the exhortation not to have attachment to material things, Buddhism was not an otherworldly religion of self-abnegation. It only sought a realistic approach to life. The Buddhist theory of knowledge is a very progressive one. It serves as a good basis for modern scientific inquiry and indeed all-rational activity.

The Buddha wanted the truth or reality to be realised by oneself, through investigation and inquiry, and not by following what is said to have been revealed to someone, or going by tradition or a teacher's word.

"This is, in fact, a sound recipe for modern research, methodology, freedom of thought and expression," Seneviratne pointed out.

2004-08-31T06:41:00.000-07:00

You know, we reap as we sow. An interesting book review at Powell's describes the appalling cruelty practised by American hunters and settlers towards wolves and other wild animals during the "settling" of America:

http://www.powells.com/review/2004_08_31

If one believes in karma, then our nation is peopled by a race that probably has many generations to go before these past evil actions will be washed out. Could you or I be paying for these sins? Only thing to do is to practice with vigilance.

2004-08-25T10:04:00.000-07:00

from a book review in the current issue of The Economist, reviewing "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason," by Sam Harris:

"moderation is a self-deluding 'myth' which 'springs from the fact that even the least educated person among us simply knows more about certain matters than anyone did 2,000 years ago -- and much of this knowledge is incompatible with scripture.' In other words, religous moderates (who are certainly the vast majority of the faithful) are forced constantly to reinterpret supposedly immutable revelations of the truth in an attempt to reconcile their faith with their reason.

... only when we renounce the impossible paraphenalia of religion -- for example, the virgin birth (attested to by only two of the apostles) or the ascension of Muhammad to heaven -- will reason be free to rescue mankind from religious terrorism ..."

Buddhism does not have to engage in this struggle (at least not among those who have not imported deities, etc. into their practice). With reason as the touchstone to faith, the Buddhists have no fear of what scientific discovery has told us or might tell us in the future.

2004-08-23T13:52:00.000-07:00

To me, becoming a “better Buddhist” is a struggle; it is a battle to overcome our instincts. Instincts that are hard-wired into our physical make-up (appetite, lusts, pleasures, the need for stimulation). This struggle is made all the harder by living in a society that makes pleasure and entertainment so ubiquitous. I seek inspiration in examples of the battle that the Buddhist must wage in order to overcome. I found a nice example recently:

“Peacocks range the poison-plant jungle,
Never drawn to the medicine-flower bed,
Since they thrive on the essence of poison.

The elegant spiritual heroes
Likewise range the jungle of the life-cycle;
Not fond of the sweet gardens of pleasure,
They thrive in the jungle of sufferings."

From the opening verses of The Blade Wheel of Mind Reform, as presented in Robert Thurman’s “Circling the Sacred Mountain.”

The Buddhist is a warrior, not a drowsy contemplative.

2004-08-19T07:23:00.000-07:00

"Bathing the Buddha?" Our local IBPS Buddhist temple has photos posted of various activities from their Buddha's Birthday celebration. A month or so ago they had a display of very famous relics (the Buddha's finger?) that is traveling the country.

This is exactly what the Western buddhist seeker is trying to avoid in a religion. It is commonly observed that there is quite a split between Asian immigrant buddhists and western converts. This split is easy to understand. The Asian buddhist (I know this is a generalization) sees his or her religion pretty much like Christians do in the U.S. -- full of ceremony, regular days of attendance and ritual. The typical western convert is interested in avoiding this aspect, or at least of making it secondary to the real practice of meditation and striving for enlightenment.

So I wonder - can these two streams converge?

2004-08-13T07:24:00.000-07:00

Still seeking a more robust image of the buddhist for the western audience. I can't help but think of Elvis Costello's angry delivery in "What's so funny about peace, love & understanding"

So where are the strong?
And who are the trusted?
And where is the harmony?
Sweet harmony.

'Cause each time I feel it slippin' away, just makes me wanna cry.
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding?

2004-07-22T10:47:00.000-07:00

"... each one of us has an ego, a desire to assert ourselves and our existence as something separate and cut off from the rest of life around us. We hang on to that ego, thinking that independent self is the only thing that lets us survive, thinking without it we'd perish. But the truth is that we all are one, all part of the same organic whole, no separate me or you ... True freedom means giving up ourselves, letting that old ego die so we can be free ..."

from a dharma talk of a Buddhist master? No, actually how Charles "Tex" Watson (the main killer of the Manson family) describes how the Manson family girls described Manson's philosophy to him. See his autobiography, "Will You Die For Me?" at p.54.

What's the point? Not sure, but the same lesson can obviously lead to either good or evil, depending on the motivation of the teacher. Or, maybe how a superficial understanding and application of a truth can lead to bad things when preached by a bad person.

Comments? email me at: lightsource@gmail.com

2004-07-17T12:36:00.000-07:00

I think buddhism in the U.S. would benefit from a bit of an image change. Buddhists are usually seen as passive, peaceful beings, content to meditate quietly in their inner quest. Actually, I think the truly committed buddhist would more appropriately be seen as a figure of strength, endurance, following a much more difficult path than most everyone else. The self-discipline and spartan rigor of a buddhist practice is much tougher to achieve than the lives of comfort and material pleasure and distraction that most of us pursue.

This is a country that loves the action hero. Might buddhism create the "inaction" hero?

2004-06-30T07:56:00.000-07:00

From a recent interview with Stephen Batchelor:

"I would understand greed, hatred, delusion, the big "baddies" in Buddhism, to originate from within our physical organism, our nervous system, our brain, which has developed over millions of years. The origins of hatred, craving, and so on would seem to be found in our own evolution. I can’t see where else they could come from. Unless, of course, one adopts the supernaturalistic notion of a formless, ethereal mind that somehow inhabits and affects the body while being essentially different from it—a dualistic idea I find hard to comprehend. And if our delusions are physiological in origin, then we have to ask how and to what extent a spiritual practice such as meditation can transform or remove them. Meditation would seem, as research suggests, to be capable of changing certain neural patterns in the brain. But can it completely eradicate such primal instincts as fear and desire? Maybe—but as long as we remain embodied animals, I doubt it."

How does Buddhism cope with evolution? Can it deal with evolution? I'm speaking here of the evolution of both the human animal and the human mind. This seems to be a huge and difficult topic. The monotheistic religions I suppose deal with it, in a predictable way: God was guiding it. But Buddhism professes to be rational, and would need an explanation that makes sense. I've read quite a bit of Buddhist thought, but have never seen much discussion of this.

2004-06-08T19:36:00.000-07:00

from "Semper Sensitive" in the current issue of Harper's magazine:

"Arabs do not believe in cause and effect but rather in isolated incidents or the will of Allah. Speeding on a winding road did not cause the wreck. Allah willed it to happen, etc."

Now, if indeed this is true as a generality, then here we have an example of entire societies living in delusion. How can a rational society come into being if the immutable laws of cause and effect, our concept of dependent origination, are not seen in the physical, mental and emotional worlds in which we move?

"Truly, monks, a noble disciple who is learned and has understood for himself, independent of faith in others, that 'When there is this, then there is that; with the arising of this, that arises ...'

2004-03-18T08:33:00.000-08:00

There are two avenues for one who desires to travel down the dharma road. Both roads must be traveled and (to strain the analogy) at the same time:

compassion. This is easy, for we only have to be alert to being compassionate to all living beings. It is a matter of being mindful and actually requires little effort.

Meditation. Ah, here is the hard one. Consistent, sustained, dedicated effort is required. This is avenue by which we acquire wisdom, and realize the truths, for ourselves, that the Buddha announced. This age is not conducive to meditation, with the constant distractions about us.

2004-03-06T14:07:00.000-08:00

Much ink is spilled on what Buddhism is and how to practice. You would be wise to simply return to the source, and put the eightfold path into practice. Somewhere it has been written that the greatest contribution one can make to fellow beings is to achieve enlightenment (in answer to the call for proper Buddhists to engage in social justice activities). And so here it is:

1. Right understanding. See things as they really are, through mindfulness and direct observation. Not letting others think for you, but instead simply using the inherent powers of logic and analysis that humans possess. This "clears the deck" by ridding your mind of opinions and beliefs that others would impose upon you.

2. Right thought. Keeping our thoughts focused on positive and wholesome ideas. Avoiding harmful, wasteful and foolish thoughts and fantasy. The eightfold path is not easy and demands self-control and restraint. This probably accounts for the fact that few people ever truly master it.

3. Right speech. The idea is that what we speak certainly influences our state of mind. By consciously avoiding profanity, lies, words of anger, gossip and other harmful and "useless" talk, we help ourselves along the path. Logically, this would also extend to the written word as well, which is just an extension of speech.

4. Right action. This is a broad concept relating to the right way of living. This is often discussed in terms of the "Five precepts," which are actually activities you must avoid, instead of things you must do. One must refrain from killing, refrain from stealing, refrain from sexual misconduct, refrain from false speech, and refrain from the use of intoxicants. There are variations on this, depending upon the school.

5. Right livelihood. Avoid occupations which compromise your integrity and force you act in harmful ways, or produce harmful objects. Obvioius examples are any trade involving weapons, drugs and alcohol, gambling, etc. In the modern age, this is an interesting topic for debate. Any occupation which requires you to carry a gun?

6. Right effort. While this may seem duplicative, it emphasizes that the eightfold path is extremely arduous and can only be achieved with sacrifice and perserverance. Remove unwholesome thoughts and activity, and cultivate wholesome thoughts and activity.

7. Right mindfulness. Again, you may think this is somewhat duplicative, but the thrust of this is the need to incorporate the demands of the path into our whole daily routine and never to let down our guard. It is a constant effort which is required. One must be mindful at all times that he or she is working to achive the goals of the eightfold path.

8. Right concentration. This is really a recognition that serious mediatation is a key to achieving the insight and self-control necessary to succeed. There are many different schools within Buddhism, but all emphasis that true progress requires meditation, which has its own techniques and skills. Powerful meditation can screen out all the harmful distractions that surround us, especially those of us living in a society of constant entertainment, noise, comfort and pleasures.

2004-02-16T19:36:00.000-08:00

It seems to me that a legitimate test of a religion is whether there would be anything left of that religion if all present traces of the religion were abolished. The test would then be if that religion, whatever it would be called, re-emerged anew at some place and time among human communities. Buddhism, as a path of truth that is discovered by direct experience and insight, would emerge again and flourish. By contrast, it is inconceivable that any religions "of the book" could exist once their current texts and tradition ceased. Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Islam are tied to their history and elaborate theologies, and once that is forgotten, they would cease to exist. Unless you seriously believe that some divine creator exists to restore that religion, they would cease as soon as humans ceased to believe in them.

2004-02-04T19:27:00.000-08:00

"All things are mastered by mindfulness." The Buddhist stress on living in the present moment, really trying to see how things are, helps us cut through distractions. Calming the mind, eliminating random thoughts that bounce from place to place. This is the beginning of insight, which will lead to liberation. I think "liberation" is a much better way to phrase our goal than "enlightenment."

2004-02-02T10:38:00.000-08:00

Practising is to be separated from desire and evil thought, and by degrees to enter the way of Enlightenment

This is a sutra excerpt presented in Beatrice Suzuki's Mahayana Buddhism. What is striking is how our salvation is only achieved through a slow process, by degrees, until we reach the summit. Many religions stress the sudden act of being "saved," where the individual passes from the darkness into the light in a single instance. This later approach is based upon the idea that a savior must reach down and extend grace in order for you to achieve salvation. Buddhism is no doubt a harder path, for those willing and able to see the reality of our existence.

2004-01-28T20:02:00.000-08:00

From the excellent Twelve Principles of Buddhism, an appendix to Mahayana Buddhism, by Beatrice Lane Suzuki (the wife of D.T. Suzuki). The twelve principles were drafted by the London Buddhist Society early in the 20th century:

(4) The Universe is the expression of the law. All effects have causes, and man's soul or character is the sum total of his previous thoughts and acts. Karma, meaning action-reaction, governs all existence, and man is the sole creator of his circumstances and his reaction to them, his future condition, and his final destiny. By right thought and action he can gradually purify his inner nature, and so by self-realization attain in time liberation from rebirth. The process covers great periods of time, involving life after life on earth, but ultimately every form of life will reach enlightenment.

There are no miracles; everything arises because of understandable causes. It is a painful idea, perhaps, since we are solely responsible for our circumstances. But hopeful in that we can better our state simply by willing it and following through with the proper effort. We are at the mercy of no one.

2004-01-11T19:18:00.000-08:00

Entertainment. A society, like ours, that seems obsessed with seeking entertainment, will probably never find time to devote to inner progress. Cell phones, game boys, Sunday football, blogging. We have filled the nooks and crannies of our days with pleasant distractions. Ours is an age that does not seem suited for the time and energy needed to learn the dharma and put it into motion. I hate all these distractions around me, but they are very hard to resist!

I often feel that I am just playing with Buddhism, learning it at an intelletual level, but not really changing inwardly in response to what I think I am learning. I think that it will be hard to make any real progress without the time and effort needed for a serious attempt at meditation. With jobs, kids and family, that is just something I don't have the time or energy for now. But I am also often reminded of the figure of Tukten, in Peter Matthiessen's The Snow Leopard. Matthiessen holds him up in the end as his real teacher, this humble porter who has no pretensions at all of being a spiritual guide. Near the end of the book, Matthiessen says:

In his life in the moment, in his freedom from attachments, in the simplicity of his everyday example, Tukten has taught me over and over, he is the teacher that I hoped to find.

And so, perhaps we can be quite accomplished, without even knowing it.

2004-01-06T19:52:00.000-08:00

Came across this interesting article on Slate.
The author fails to make a good case against Buddhism, but raises some interesting issues.

2004-01-06T19:36:00.000-08:00

Will Buddhism gain a large following in the United States only by de-emphasizing the traditional temples, dress and other trappings which clearly link it to asian cultures (at least in our minds?). I recall reading a passage by a prominent asian master, who said essentially that buddhist temples in the U.S. should be built to look like the White House, instead of importing the style of temples as found in asia. This master recognized that many Americans would never be able to get past the "foreignness" of the outward appearance of buddhism and this would be a significant barrier. Thus, it would have to be put in a package that was acceptable and familar to a U.S. audience. Now this may seem offensive to some, but hasn't the spread of buddhism throughout the many and varied cultures of asia been possible only because of its being adapted to local conditions and attitudes?

2004-01-02T20:28:00.000-08:00

from an Edward Conze book. I think this is a nice statement of basic buddhist ethics and right-living:

Of whatever teachings, you can assure yourself that they are conducive to dispassion, and not to passion; detachment, and not to bondage; to decrease of worldly gains, and not to their increase; to frugality, and not to coveting; to content, and not to discontent; to solitude, and not to company; to energy, and not to sluggishness; to delight in good, and not to delight in evil. Of such teachings, you may with certainty affirm; this is the norm; this is the discipline; this is the master's message.

2003-12-19T13:57:00.000-08:00

The concept of karma is one fraught with difficulty. A typical statement: "Thus from a Buddhist standpoint, our present mental, intellectual, moral and temperamental differrences are mainly due to our own actions and tendencies, both past and in the present." (from "Buddhism in a Nutshell," by Narada Mahathera, available freely all over the web).

Our, as they say in the bible, we reap what we have sown. So, if you are poor, disabled, destitute, or dim-witted, this is your own fault. Isn't it easy to ignore the suffering of others, since they have brought it upon themselves? From what little I understand of Indian culture, I gather that it is this attitude towards karma that keeps the caste system in place. The people on top are there because they have earned this privilege based on their accumulated merit; those on bottom, well, it is the result of their bad deeds.

Buddhism asks that we accept the results of karma, but the key is not to be proud and disdainful. Instead, we must feel compassion for those who suffer. Yes, you were born into poverty, and you are there because of the laws of cause and effect, but I still feel sympathy for you and hope that you may better your condition. Keep in mind that we could well end up in such bad conditions ourselves, if we too are harsh and judgmental towards others. So, I guess it is in our own self-interest to have compassion for the less fortunate?

Or, there, but for the grace of my past good deeds, go I.

2003-12-17T15:05:00.000-08:00

A nice summary giving voice to the appeal of Buddhism to people who are willing to make up their own minds about why we are here, how the universe works and how we should act:

Higher Buddhism is pure science. It has no place for theology, and it has got nothing to do with creator gods and fighting lords. It rejects the phantom of a separate soul entity residing somewhere in the body. It rejects a saviour by whose favour one can go to heaven, it rejects the superstitions of an eternal hell and an eternal heaven, it rejects the idea of prayer to bribe the god, and it repudiates the interference of Priests. It is the religion of absolute freedom, which is to be gained avoiding all evil, doing all good and purifying the heart. It is against alcoholism, and killing animals for food and sport. It is a brotherhood, embracing all humanity, and the world of animals as well as gods. It preaches the inter-relationship between man and man. Whole humanity is one brotherhood. It is the friend of enlightened progress, and preaches the sublimest Truths of meritorious activity and shows the Path strewn with the flowers of good thoughts, good words and good deeds, right insight, right aspirations, right speech, right profession, right effort, right fixity of thought and right illumination of mind. Only by self sacrificing activity happiness can be found. It preaches against asceticism and Sensualism. It preaches against unscientific monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, nihilism. Its teaching is that ultimate Truths are to be realized, not simply believed as dogmas.

From: Our Duty to the Peoples of the West, by Anagarika Dharmapala (1927)(Maha Bodhi Journal, Vol.35, Sept. 1927)

2003-12-16T07:29:00.000-08:00

From the book "What the Buddha Taught," by Walpola Rahula (Grove Weidenfeld, publisher):

Among the founders of religions the Buddha ... was the only teacher who did not claim to be other than a human being, pure and simple. Other teachers were either God, or his incarnations in different forms, or inspired by him. The Buddha was not only a human being; he claimed no inspiration from any God or external power either. He attributed all his realization, attainments and achievements to human endeavor and human intelligence. A man and only a man can become a Buddha. ...

Man's position, according to Buddhism, is supreme. Man is his own master, and there is no higher being or power that sits in judgment over his destiny."

Hmm. Again, the responsibility rests entirely on our shoulders, no pleas to an outside force to save or help us. Man is the center of things, at least as far as raising himself up to enlightenment and escape from this physical world. For a "do it yourself" generation, that rejects authority, what could be better?

2003-12-15T07:33:00.000-08:00

2003-12-15T07:27:00.000-08:00

From "Toward a Meaning of Buddhism for Americans," an essay by Philip Kapleau:

Among Buddhists he [Buddha Shakyamuni] is revered not as a deity or a savior who takes upon himself the sins of others, but as a fully awakened, fully perfected human being who attained the liberation of body and mind through his own efforts and not by the grace of a supernatural being.

Buddhism thus has an appeal to the person who knows there is no God controlling and directing our lives, but knows there is something behind this world we inhabit. Only through our own efforts will we discover it. I think of the phrase "self reliance."

2003-12-12T10:13:00.000-08:00

I will use this site to post material that I have found useful when studying Buddhism and thinking of methods that might help it sink some roots in the U.S. My vows:

-I will not pontificate;
-I will try to regularly update;
-I won't talk about how my day has been.
-I will not shamelessly violate copyright law
-I will endeavor to make this a helpful site.

comments? I'm at: lightsource@gmail.com