Breathing

One of Pema Chodron's stories

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:59:49 GMT

A big, burly Samurai comes to a Zen master and says, "tell me the nature of heaven and hell." The Zen master looks at him in the face and says, "why should I tell a scruffy, disgusting, miserable, slob like you? A worm like you? Do you think I should tell you anything?" Consumed by rage, the Samurai draws his sword and raises it to cut off the master's head. The Zen master says "that's hell." Instantly the Samurai understands. He has just created his own hell, black and hot, filled with hatred, self-protection, anger, and resentment. He sees that he was so deep in hell, that he was ready to kill someone. Tears fill his eyes. As he puts his palms together to bow in gratitude for this insight, the Zen master says "that's heaven."

-Pema Chodron

Suzuki quote

Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:03:30 GMT

"The cause of conflict is some fixed idea, or one-sided idea. When everyone knows the value of pure practice, we will have little conflict in our world. This is the secret of our practice and Dogen Zenji's way. Dogen repeats this point in his book Shobogenzo, the Treasury of the True Dharma. If you understand the cause of conflict as some fixed or one-sided idea, you can find meaning in various practices without being caught by any of them. If you do not realize this point, you will be easily caught by some particular way, and you will say, "This is enlightenment. This is perfect practice. This is our way. The rest of the ways are not perfect! This is the best way." This is a big mistake. There is no particular way in true practice. You should find your own way, and you should know what kind of practice you have right now."

-Shunryu Suzuki Roshi

I can't die! Ha ha!

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:16:06 GMT

I've realized that I cannot die! :-) I can't die because I do not exist.

Ok, I'm sure that sounds existential at best, maybe disturbing, or even cultish at worst... unless you already understand what I'm saying from a Buddhist perspective.

The self is illusory. "I" is an illusion. Whatever I think I am, I am not. Same goes for you. I used to be sure that the essence of "me" was my thoughts, my ideas, and my ability to think. Many identify their minds as themselves in this way. Others though, identify their feelings or memories as the "essence" of what they are. Some even identify their beautiful bodies as the core of what they are. This is the most tragically sad perspective of course, because they very soon suffer greatly from inevitable aging. Still others identify themselves with what they own -- status symbols, fancy cars or clothes. Their constant pursuit of these things is a desperate pursuit to define what they are to themselves. Some, especially the young -- myself formerly included -- define what they are by the music they like to listen to. That seems in some way, the most unfounded...

But none of these things are what we are. It is in fact very difficult to know what we are. Deeds exist but no do-er can be found. All the things listed above and whatever else we may think we are, are just stories we tell ourselves in an attempt to define ourselves. Just stories. Nothing more, nothing more substantive than that. We are empty.

Further, whatever we may think we are, we definitely are not, because this is just what we think -- just a mind object, nothing more than an idea in our heads. We aren't what we think, precisely because a thought is what that is. Lets call a spade a spade. If we're going to think what we are is a thought, or some collection of thoughts, why not instead conclude what we are is some other random thought? Think of a feather -- is that you? No, our thinking it does not make it so. Er, at least not any more than it ever does... Everything in the dream is the dreamer... With our thoughts we make the world after all. ...Yeah, I'm just going to leave that apparent contradiction for those who know it isn't a contradiction at all. Thoughts exist, but they are not the thinker. And yet they are.

Each of the things listed a few paragraphs back raise the question of what you are without them, or without the things that make them possible. If you think your essence is thoughts, feelings, or memories, would "you" still exist without a brain? This is where many say "yes" and point to a belief in a "soul". But I don't think any thoughts, feelings, or memories can exist without a body and brain to make them possible. I mentioned before people who think their beauty is what they "really" are -- and how they grasp after it as it inexorably slips away with age. Those that define themselves by status, wealth, or power -- what happens when they lose it? "Nervous breakdown" is the euphamism we use for the sudden revelation that this is not what they are. Oh yes, and music. If you cling rigidly to the music you defined yourself with, probably during high school or college, soon you're living in the past. Are you still cool then?

I too used to think thoughts could continue sans a brain, when I was younger. It's just hard to imagine that whatever you've decided your essence is, could end. Because that would mean really dying! The only way I know of is the indirect route I'm pointing out here -- that there are many different things that many people fervently believe are their essence, and they can't all be right...

So on one level what we "are", is simply one small part of the endless becoming of the universe. The universe just keeps happening, and we are part of it.

So, no "I" exists, so "I" cannot die. That which does not exist cannot have an end, or a beginning for that matter. Of course the stories we tell ourselves begin and end, but these are just stories.

All that said, of course I will still die. This body is aging and will die. But now I'm thinking that moment may not really be much different from any other -- just more of the continuing change of the universe. My heart will stop, my brain will stop, my cells will stop. My living body will change to a dead body. But it doesn't end there. My body will decompose and perhaps be "food for worms". In the fullness of time all the molecules and atoms in my body will become other things.

But "I" cannot die, because there is no "I".

But what is it then that experiences? ;-)

Not going to be a monk

Sat, 29 Dec 2007 07:00:36 GMT

I've realized i'm not going to be a monk, at least not in this lifetime. I don't have the mind-set of a renounciant. In other words, yeah, I do like samsara. All things considered, in the end, I do like life, even in spite of all the suffering that comes with it.

Lately in my sangha, a Buddhist Meetup group where I'm pretty sure all the regulars but me have definitely chosen the Tibetan path, it's been said a few times, "you can't really renounce samsara if you don't believe in reincarnation". I bristled at this because it was starting to sound like we were making 'belief in reincarnation' into a litmus test for being a Buddhist. And I don't "believe in" reincarnation. Or the Christian afterlife either. Personally, what I really believe is that as wondrous and incredible as this mind is, it is none the less produced by the correct biological functioning of the brain and body, and when they die so does the mind. That this life is it, that we have just one shot at all this, and then it's over. But that is still a belief, not fact. No real good evidence for any of these ideas. So to speak in the realm of fact, instead of belief, I have to say that I do not know what happens after death, whether it's 'nothing' or 'something' and if so, what. Further, no one knows. Most have beliefs and opinions.

I came to the conclusion that I'm not going to be a monk after writing down -- laying it all out -- where I am with trying to understand reincarnation (which follows). So yeah, basically, since I believe this life is it, and I do not believe we are repeatedly bound to the six realm wheel of life, it follows that I wouldn't want to renounce this life to escape from something I do not believe is happening. That view, reincarnation, transmigration, the wheel of life, simply does not fit with what I do believe, plain and simple.

Still, as I said before, I do not know for a fact. So I'll hedge my bets and try to remember to go for the white (nirvana) or blue light (human rebirth) if when I die I find out it really is like the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Likewise, if I meet St. Peter, I plan to justify my life as a true and accurate execution of my nature as God created it. I am what He created me to be. Overall, I am living and have lived a "good" life per Christian teachings -- just not with the fear of Hell or belief in Heaven as motivation.

So if not release from the wheel of rebirth, what then is my interest in Buddhism? Simple. The wisdom of the Dharma has helped me immeasurably to deal with suffering in this life. I mean, just knowing I create all the suffering I feel... Whatever happens next happens, and I hope to have at least 40 more years before I find out what that is. But yeah, I could die tomorrow. Or tonight. That's another reality the Dharma has helped me make some peace with. So I still think of myself as a Buddhist, but label me what you will, it's all just a flapping door. Either way, I'll keep meditating and studying the Dharma.

* * *

Where I am now with trying to understand reincarnation

1) I understand and do believe in a physical reincarnation, it might be called. In short, we die and our bodies become food for worms and microorganisms. Part of our bodies become parts of worm's bodies. So we may first be 'reincarnated' as worms and microorganisms in this way... In the same way, we are what we eat. I am thus the reincarnation of countless cows, pigs, chickens and everything else I've eaten. I heard of a study once that said every person on earth now, has in their bodies a few atoms that once belonged to Mozart. ;-) There's also the idea I learned in 7th grade science that every cell in our bodies gets replaced on average every 7 years. So we are not even physically the same people we were 7 years ago. Maybe that is "reincarnation" of a sort. It's definitely impermanence.

2) Tibetans in particular have the idea that one may not be reincarnated as one being, but as several. This is why several tulkus may be considered as the reincarnates of the same Lama... That seems to me to support the idea of the possibility that I may first be reincarnated as several worms and microorganisms...

3) I do not believe in how reincarnation seems to be commonly misunderstood here in the west. Not exactly a "second chance" at life, no, and you won't be "you" either. Yeah, me, I think I'm going to be earthworms!

4) The Buddha was asked, if there is no self, what is it then that gets reincarnated? He answered, "karma". So yeah, the effects of the things we do will continue to ripple on after our lives are over. I have sort of an awkward example of this -- General James Wolfe. He was the British general who defeated the French in the battle of the Plains of Abraham, in Quebec in 1759. His victory is the reason most people in North America speak English now, and not French. So the very language we speak is the reincarnation of James Wolfe's karma.

P.S.

All this doesn't really change anything in my life. Becoming a renounciant never was a realistic possibility for me anyway, because even if I renounced every thing else, I could not renounce my family. So if I did want to become a monk, it would end up being something I wanted to do but that I was ultimately unwilling to make the necessary commitment for. Now, knowing renounciation is not for me, I do not have this conflict.

In the 5th grade in Catholic school, I also thought very hard at one point about becoming a priest. Later I concluded it was not for me. This is a little like that.

New Metta Phrases

Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:56:56 GMT

Listening to Jack Kornfield teachings, he suggested directing the loving kindness (Metta) practice he was teaching toward anyone anywhere. Waiting in line at the grocery store, on the bus, or -- and I really liked this -- in slow traffic. What he was teaching at that moment (which must have been in the 80s, from references to the Soviet Union as a going concern) was a simple loving kindness practice, basically the wish "may your heart be filled with loving kindness". Concise and to the point.

But I'm partial to my own Metta phrases (it's a preference, I know). I want to direct all four of them at other drivers, and not just in slow traffic, but speeding down the highway too! But trying this I found that they're a bit cumbersome and numerous to remember and get out quickly enough. I also thought more about the traditional Metta phrases, having long since taken Sharon Salzberg's suggestion for taking what's most meaningful to me and crafting my own personal Metta phrases. But the traditional phrases (from Pali) are pretty darn good too -- that's probably why they're traditional.

So I want to combine my Metta phrases with the traditional Metta phrases, and also put them together in such a way as to make them easy to think at you as I speed past. :-)

The traditional Metta phrases:
May you be free from danger. (safe)
May you have mental happiness. (happy)
May you have physical happiness. (healthy, it seems to me)
May you have ease of well-being.

My Metta phrases:
May you be happy.
May you be peaceful.
May you be wise and understanding.

Combined:
May you be happy.
May you be peaceful and healthy.
May you have safety and ease of well-being.
May you be wise and understanding.

So I'm going to try to remember those seven things in those four phrases. I also found that while driving by, and unable to get either set out completely, that to me, just the wish "may you be happy" seems to sum it up and say it all. So I guess it's ok if that's all I manage to get out, but I've taped these to my steering wheel! :-)

May you be happy.
May you be peaceful and healthy.
May you have safety and ease of well-being.
May you be wise and understanding. :-)

Using attachment to establish a regular practice

Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:47:02 GMT

I have been challenged over the years, in trying to establish a regular meditation practice. Establishing it and getting into the habit of it, so that I can just sit, daily, just because I do. Now I'm actually using attachment to try to establish a regular practice.

I thought of the signs you may see in factories that say "x days without an injury", and that it's a running count that will start over at zero as soon as someone is injured. It's a motivation to practice safety, to keep the count going up. I wrote a similar sign on a post-it in my meditation space: "x days since I have not meditated". So, I am deliberately attaching to that number and using it as further motivation to get into the habit of a regular sitting practice.

So far so good! The sign says "17" as of today. I noticed though that when I really just don't feel like meditating, when it's really hard to go sit anyway, that I also don't care much about the number either. But that's only happened once, at about 4 or 5 I think, and the count did prove just enough to tip the scales -- I meditated that time.

I figure if this works, and I can establish a regular practice this way, I'll deal with attachment to a number then.

Who can say what is good and what is bad?

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:56:20 GMT

Here's a Zen story you may have heard, but it bears repeating, at least to myself.

One day in ancient China a farmer's best horse ran off. His neighbor came over to console him saying, "Your best horse -- this is terrible."

The farmer just said, "Who can say what is good and what is bad?"

The next day the horse came back, with a herd of wild horses following her. The neighbor came over again saying, "This is great! Wonderful! You have so many horses now!"

The wise farmer just said, "Who can say what is good and what is bad?"

The day after that the farmer's son broke his leg trying to ride one of the new horses. The foolish neighbor came again saying what terrible, bad fortune it was.

The wise farmer just said, "Who can say what is good and what is bad?"

The next day the Emperor's army came through drafting conscripts for a war. The farmer's son was not drafted due to his broken leg. "Wow, that was lucky!" said the neighbor to the farmer.

Again the wise farmer just said, "Who can say what is good and what is bad?"

The story continues on like that (though that's as much as I've ever heard!).

Indeed, who can say what is good and what is bad? I need to keep this in mind. This is the attitude I should have had with my last post.

Is

Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:53:42 GMT

What is

is the way it must be.

It cannot be any other way.

If bad things will happen in the future due to the present change...

Well it's inevitable that bad things would at some point happen either way, isn't it?

And it simply cannot be any other way than how it is.

The change had to happen.

Things cannot be the way they were before.

The way things are is the only way they can be.

* * *

My realization here makes it sound too dramatic. "The change" is a trivially minor one. It just exposed some grasping issues I did not realize ran so deep. Bummer.

They're moving me into another group at work. One I agree, in my head, is a better fit for me. But it feels like a step down, even though it is not. That is a point I've argued myself several times in the past. It feels like a statement that what I do is not as important to the company any more, even though that is almost certainly not the case either.

Well, maybe I can stop suffering now.

Not much I can do

Thu, 15 Mar 2007 02:13:34 GMT

There is very, very little I can do to help the world. Which makes it all the more important to actually do what little I can. This idea of Kishitigarbha, Jizo, the idea of a patron of lost causes... Has completely changed my outlook on things. Better to see clearly the near total futility and be resolved to actually do what pathetic little I can, than to get caught up in idealistic notions, which are illusions, and after they burst to be paralyzed to complete inaction by cynicism and disillusionment.

So what can I do?

I can dedicate the merit of my meditations to those who may need it. Even though this is really nothing at all, at least to the overwhelming majority of those I dedicate them to, intentions matter.
I can not be a jerk. It's always hard not to be a jerk.
I can be kind. Remember that everyone has problems they're working through. And if they're not dealing with any major problems now, they may have had great trials in the past. And if they have not, they may in the future. And if they never have had big stuff to deal with and never will, then they can't see the little problems for what they are, and may mistake many of them for big problems. That's a problem too.
I can send money to charities.
I can make lunch for that homeless guy with the cardboard sign.

I'd like to find a way to make the time to actually volunteer for charity.

There is very, very little I can do to help make my government better. Which makes it all the more important to actually cast my one tiny pathetic vote.

Governments

Sun, 11 Mar 2007 02:58:10 GMT

Governments... I have some thoughts on governments. All our most lofty, seemingly untouchable, seemingly greater than us institutions -- governments, empires, religions, are all just constructs created by people. Just built up by people. In a way they're all more or less arbitrary because of that.

I was watching "China from the Inside", a series that was on PBS last month. They covered a village election. A democratic election for who the leaders of the village would be. There were 5 or 6 candidates, all but one of which were Communist party members. There was a stage and rows of chairs set up in the mud. Each candidate spoke about what they'd do if elected and then the people voted, paper ballots into boxes. One was elected mayor and a few of the others were elected as some kind of council, including the non-party member.

At first I was struck by the fact that the only thing any of the candidates were talking about doing if elected, were economic things. How they'd bring in business and improve local businesses, and what they'd do to strengthen the local economy. No taking of stands on any kind of controversy, just their economic plans, resulting in a choice simply of who would do the best job. This I read as evidence that this election was a mockery of democracy. Then I thought, "Well wait a minute here. This is a local election. When was the last time I heard of any local election here in the U.S. that was not also dominated by local economic development concerns?" I mean most of them are; that's all people really care about at a local level, especially at the lowest local levels like this. So unless your mayor decides to take a stand on some controversy, say by legalizing gay marriage for example, your local election will most likely be all about economic development, perhaps with a smattering of judges or educational/school board stuff on the side. So I realized, this is no "mockery of democracy" -- this is no different than here really. Then I saw how the show was trying to cast, no matter how mildly, this in terms of a "communist" country "experimenting" with democracy. But remember, this is China -- a country with thousands of years of government tradition not with communism, but with bureaucratic dynastic monarchy. Communism started with the ideas the ideas of that German guy ya know, Karl Marx. China may be experimenting with democracy, but they are also really experimenting with communism. It's only been a little over 50 years after all.

Oh, and about the non-party member who was elected to the council, one villager when interviewed said of him, "Oh he'll probably join the party. Anyone who's any good is in the party." Woah! That's when it finally hit me that the Chinese Communist Party is not at all like the political parties here. A political party here mostly represents and is strongly tied to an ideology, its "platform". It's really about the ideology, not as much about working in the government. Sure, the Chinese Communist Party does have an ideology, but what it really seems to be is more of a professional organization for people who work in the government. Certainly there is no opposing party to make for an ideological struggle. And for the most part I think the Chinese are too practical to care much about that sort of thing, the surviving ones anyway. So the idea of "party as professional organization" strikes me as very Chinese, reminiscent of the shi, the literati, the wealthy, educated class of people who had the resources to pursue a Confucian education and then take the Imperial Examinations for bureaucratic positions in the Chinese Imperial government. So yeah, if he's any good, he would be one of them. It makes a lot of sense that the party would be the modern analog of the shi, because 800 to 1000 years of tradition of doing "government in general" that way isn't going to vanish just because the Imperial government isn't around anymore...

So at the same time as I continue to see through our own country's propaganda about China and its government to realize it's really not quite that bad, I also grow disillusioned with just how far short our own government falls from our ideals. To me, the two are getting closer and closer to meeting in the middle. All governments I think are just the results of people trying to make things better. While "better for who" is certainly a very relevant question, my point is that no one in any government is ever trying to make things worse for the group they care about, though this may result inadvertently. So maybe at the most basic level government -- any government -- is just about trying to make things better for people. Again, definitely need to ask "which people". Maybe there's not anything inherently superior about American "democracy" (I still hold Athenian democracy up as a golden ideal). Certainly few, relatively speaking, really give a rats ass about the government, in spite of Benjamin Franklin's (or was it Thomas Jefferson?) excellent arguments as to why they should. I'd have to say Machiavelli won that one. As long as we're comfortable we really don't care too much, though maybe just a little, about what the government does. And here we are awash in demagoguery, plutocracy, and politicians that really represent powerful interests much more than us, if in fact they really represent us at all. I wouldn't call our government a democracy at all really. I'd say what we have is some kind of representative republic that is now real damn close to being an outright plutocracy. We're F'ed and we don't really care as long as we're making enough money to buy everything we want. Enter Consumerism... Coupled with the Machiavellian desire for comfort, these may be two powerful forces that combine to create a positive feedback cycle, pulling us irresistibly into plutocracy. What our founding fathers set out to do, I think by now may well be a complete failure. Did it last for 200 years really?

Now I'm thinking that there may be only two relevant, important questions for evaluating a government. 1) how well does it do at providing a good, comfortable Machiavellian lifestyle to its people, and 2) how many people does it kill and persecute unjustly? And I think many, many more people will care a lot more about the first question than the second. It's very comfortable here in America, and China is catching up very fast on that, at least in the cities. That one is pretty clear cut. But the "killing people" part... There's the Tian An Min square massacre, the cultural revolution, and the invasion of Tibet. There are uncomfortable human rights questions about political prisoners, prison labor, and the one child policy. But before you think "we're the good guys", consider the My Lai massacre, Abu Grahib, and really the hell on Earth we've created in Iraq in general. And that our president not only created that hell, but sent our young men and women over there to die to do it. He did all this and sent a nation to war for a personal vendetta. And after all that we re-elected the bastard. So don't tell me we as a people care what our country is doing in the world. He got himself re-elected -- and just barely I'll emphasize -- on demagoguery and fear.

So I'm not denying that government of China has committed many great and horrible atrocities. I'm just saying maybe we shouldn't be throwing stones.

Frustration

Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:29:27 GMT

Wow, I'm really getting a lot of opportunities to practice with frustration these days. Time pressure, schedule pressure, and things not being in place so I can do what I need to do, cause powerful frustration with each failed attempt to get there. This leads to equally powerful grasping and suffering.

I greet my frustration when it arises, I hold it like a baby, I breathe mindfully. I remind myself that ultimately none of this matters. All is impermanence. It's all just Brahman's great game of existence, nothing more. Brahman pretending to be me, getting all wrapped up in all this, as if it were important. Ha!

Reincarnation and Karma

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:54:22 GMT

The Buddhist doctrine of anatta teaches that there is no soul, that we do not have souls, that thinking we do is illusory. Whether it's strictly part of the Dhamma or not, most Buddhists in the world believe in reincarnation. When the Buddha was asked, if there is no soul, what is it then that gets reincarnated, his answer was "karma". Karma is the causes of the effects and conditions we create. The analogy is drawn of a fire spreading. Once done, the effects, the karma, of our actions spread like a fire that has been lit. Like a fire, efforts can be made to contain those effects, or to change those effects, and like a fire they can still easily get out of control, or at least have far reaching consequences.

All this leads me to another interpretation of the word "reincarnation", different than what we usually think of. What if it does not mean you are literally born again into another body in another life? Buddhism also teaches that we have no essence, that there is nothing that is essentially us, that what we are is a collection of the five khandhas -- the five phenomena of body, feelings, perception, volition, and consciousness. Like all forms, we are emptiness. So if karma is the effect of the causes that are our actions, and that is what gets "reincarnated", is the notion of reincarnation just a skillful means of getting us to think about the long range consequences of our actions?

If you live in North America and speak English as your first language, as opposed to French, you owe this to James Wolfe, the general commanding the British forces in the Battle of the Plains of Abraham (aka the Battle of Quebec) in 1759. The victory of this battle by the British, leading to the surrender of New France to the British, led to the domination of the English language on this continent, instead of French. So are not all us North American native-English speakers reincarnations of James Wolfe? That we speak English is his karma, reincarnate... I mean, personally, my German ancestors arrived about 100 years after the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, yet I and two generations before me grew up in America speaking English, and not French... Then again, it's not just his karma that's caused English to be our language. It is also the karma of every British soldier in that battle who intended to win. It's also the karma of most if not all of the British chain of command above general James Wolfe, all the way up to king George II. It's also the karma of everyone who had a political or business interest in the expansion of the British colonies in North America...

"Bob"

Fri, 29 Dec 2006 16:34:36 GMT

Well thank "Bob" for parody religions! That's the god J.R. "Bob" Dobbs of the Church of the SubGenius, I mean. I especially liked the reasons the Earth failed to be destoyed by alien invasion on X-Day, July 5, 1998. Particularly the one that the scripture had been read upside-down, so X-Day is really in the year 8661... :-D

We are here at the orbit of Earth, where we've secretly replaced the fine Earth they usually serve with Mars Crystals. Let's see if anyone can tell the difference!

"Enlightenment"

Fri, 01 Dec 2006 23:10:36 GMT

It is often pointed out, usually in writing about Zen, that enlightenment is nothing real, not a real thing. That "attaining" it, you realize you have attained nothing.

I finally realize that enlightenment really is nothing real, not even a state of mind. Before now I misunderstood. I thought enlightenment may not be very useful, but was still a real thing. I thought enlightenment was like a degree in liberal arts, to overuse the cliché, where after graduation you may find what you have is not very useful for finding a job, but none the less you are "culturally enriched" and may know a lot about Shakespeare, T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, etc. I may have misread Alan Watts to get that idea...

So I thought being enlightened was a real state of mind, just not a very useful one. I thought enlightenment was a "completeness" of wisdom. Now, finally, I realize it really is nothing whatsoever. Not a thing. And that increasing in wisdom will never be complete. Thich Nhat Hanh points out that when walking towards the north star, no one expects to actually get there. It's just a direction to walk, not a place you can ever arrive at by walking, no matter how much you walk (not to mention that you'd get stuck at the north pole). Pursuing enlightenment is the same way, not even a state of mind that you can achieve.

This reinforces my earlier conclusion that what is of value in "walking the Dharma path" is the wisdom that is gained along the way. The things you learn and realize while moving in the direction of "enlightenment". It really is about the journey, because there really is no destination whatsoever.

Further, with no destination, there is no "further along the path" and "not as far along the path", because who is to say for example whether North America or Japan is closer to the north star? So to say someone is "further along" the path than someone else is to apply value judgments to what one person has realized vs. another. There is only "on the path" and "not on the path". So this I think is all "enlightenment" is -- the people we call "enlightened" are those who have realized things we respect and place high value on. If you have realized even one thing that you consider valuable, you might just as well call yourself enlightened, it's just words, just a flapping door. But no one calls themselves enlightened, especially those we call enlightened. "Enlightened" is just what we call others who have realized things we value; enlightenment is nothing itself.

What'cha think about that?

Defining the Self

Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:37:21 GMT

I am a "tea drinker". Or so I've been defined by a co-worker. I do like tea and have been drinking it a lot lately because it helps with my cough (hot tea). Having given so much thought to the illusory self, as many Buddhists are wont to do, when she labeled me a "tea drinker" I was profoundly struck by how casually we define ourselves and others by the things we do and like. The things we do are not what we really are after all.

As I understand what is meant by term the "illusory self", it means that what we usually think we are at the core, our very selves, the core of our beings, is really nothing more than a constantly changing story we tell ourselves about ourselves. It's just a story. A collection of attributes we've chosen to define what we think we are. These things range from physical facts -- man, woman, girl, boy -- to ideological affinities -- republican, democrat, Buddhist, Christian, artist, sports fan -- and everything in between -- manager, employee, Wal-Mart shopper, tea drinker (which reminds me, I need to go get more tea). The point is the self is not our core essence, it's nothing more than a running story we update as things change. It's as impermanent as everything else.

So what is the difference between a "tea drinker" and one who drinks tea? A difference in quantity is implied. Why then did she label me a "tea drinker" instead of just saying I drink a lot of tea? Because it's more fun to say it that way. And that's what struck me, the casual way we define ourselves and others -- even just for fun. Wow.

Joseph Campbell and Dante

Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:23:28 GMT

Here Joseph Campbell and Dante collaborate across the centuries to interpret some Christian symbolism metaphorically -- instead of literally, as it all too often is. This is interesting.

"What is Hell? In Dante's reading: Hell is the state of a soul for eternity attached to what it was attached to in life, when what it is attached to is simply the temporal entity. Purgatory is the state of those who are learning to break past that binding thing that holds you to your life's concerns, which Dante there calls pride. Pride is the holding to the ego, not letting go, not opening. In Purgatory, those are being broken, those various prides. Heaven is the state of various degrees of the experience of the radiance of love, God's love, which fills the world. What then is the virgin birth? The virgin birth is that new life. The virgin birth is the awakening of the religious, divine consciousness. The magical consciousness that carries you past the bounds of a normal biological birth. That's why the whole thing is simply to be confused when one thinks of "the problem of a virgin birth" as biological. Christ as one born of a virgin simply means that he is the embodiment, the image, the model for one who is going to live in terms, not of biology, but of the spirit. And we all have that spiritual "plane" within us, and when it is awakened there is a new fascination that is peculiar to the experience of man, not of beasts."
-Joseph Campbell

Interpreted this way, the parallels with Buddhism are incredible, and intentional. Hell is a metaphor for the suffering that comes from attachment. To be in purgatory is to be on the Dharma path. Heaven is enlightenment or wisdom. The radiance of God's love is bodhicitta compassion. And the Christ is the Buddha, the model of wisdom and how to live a spiritual life. The virgin birth is just a metaphor -- a label for one who has committed to living a spiritual life, like the honorific of referring to a buddha as being "lotus born". Does anyone believe that they were literally born from a lotus bud? I think it's just an expression. Perhaps at one point in time, the virgin birth was also just an expression...

Two teachings I've heard recently

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 01:47:55 GMT

Here are two teachings I've heard recently that have resonated powerfully with me.

Though our vision may be as vast as the sky, our attention to our actions should be as fine as a grain of barley flour.
-Padmasambava

The wisdom of all the traditions of Buddhism is expressed in one line: "Nothing whatsoever is to be clung to as 'I' or 'mine'." The Buddha said that whoever has heard this has heard all of the teachings; whoever puts this into practice has practiced all the teachings. "Nothing whatsoever is to be clung to as 'I' or 'mine'."
-Joseph Goldstein

And I'll just let those speak for themselves. Just thought I'd spread the Dharma a little. You know, mindfulness reveals that whenever I hear or use that expression, "spreading the Dharma", I get an image in my head of spreading peanut butter. :-) So I'm spreading the dharmic peanuty goodness! ;-)

Cynicism?

Thu, 14 Sep 2006 00:55:57 GMT

In promising a better life in the here-after, Catholicism says "yes, this world is really messed up, but don't worry, the next life will be better and last forever." But I think it's an empty promise.

In saying "all is impermanence", Buddhism says "yes, this world is really messed up, and that's just the way it is. So don't take it so seriously. For your own sake." The bad things won't last, but neither will the good. That's certainly not an empty promise. But it also points out that you do not have make yourself to suffer just because things are hopelessly messed up.

Both seem to acknowledge that things in this world are really screwed up and cannot realistically, practically, be fixed. Except in small instances here and there, within your own sphere of influence. There is no "way things should be." There is no overall solution to this mess. Only what you can do right here, right now, today.

I got it!! I got my koan!

Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:43:31 GMT

I got my koan! At least I figured out one interpretation that I imagine might be acceptable to a master... Yes, it was right there in front of me all along. ;-) When it hit me I just kept yelling "I got it! I got it!" ;-)
(Previous posts about this koan)

The Koan:

Baso and Hyakujo were walking. Baso pointed to a wild duck and said, "What's that?" Hyakujo responded, "It's a wild duck." A second later Baso asked, "Where did it go?" Hyakujo replied, "It flew away." Then Baso reached out and grabbed Hyakujo's nose and twisted it. "See? It didn't fly away at all." Baso said.

Consider the first part of the first verse of the Dhammapada:

We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.

There was a duck. The duck was created in Hyakujo's mind, Hyakujo's reality, when he saw it. When it flew away, he may have forgotten it. If in fact he did, there was then no duck in his reality. But when asked what had happened to it, of course he thought of the duck again. The duck in his mind from memory was every bit as much a part of his reality as the duck that was in his mind when he actually saw it with his eyes. Regardless of whether he was seeing the duck with his eyes or just thinking about the duck, it was one of the thoughts with which he made his world. Asked about it, it had not "flown away" at all. Thinking of it, it was again part of Hyakujo's reality. Not realizing this is why the master twisted his nose...

Right now I am surrounded by wild ducks!

Whatever you do, do not think of a blue elephant right now. You're thinking of a blue elephant, aren't you? Of course you are, you can't help it because I mentioned it. It's called "listening", or in this case "reading"... Anyway, this is what Baso did to Hyakujo, asking where the duck went.

Right Speech

Thu, 31 Aug 2006 04:00:04 GMT

Before admonishing another, one should reflect thus:
In due season will I speak, not out of season.
In truth will I speak, not in falsehood.
For his or her benefit will I speak, not for his or her loss.
Gently will I speak, not harshly.
In kindness will I speak, not in anger.
- The Buddha

Just seemed worth posting...

"Enlightenment"

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:18:24 GMT

Now I'm thinking "Enlightenment", with a capital E, may be illusory. I'm just not sure what it is, really. I've read, mostly from the perspective of Zen I think, that enlightenment is not a discrete achievement that can be attained -- you know, that we're all already Buddhas and we only have to realize it -- and that you should not be hung up on enlightenment as a goal, should not strive for it. Hang ups are the cause of suffering, in Alan Watts' interpretation. That interpretation rings loudly of truth to me. Striving can indicate a hang up.

So holding up "Enlightenment" as a goal may be reifying a thing that is no thing. It may be that the best we can realistically hope for is to continue to increase in wisdom, which in truth is and has always been the heart of my interest in the blessed Dharma. Maybe what enlightenement is, is that a person can increase in wisdom so much that at some point other people start calling them "enlightened", but it's really only a difference in degree. Though certainly a big one.

My aspiration is not for "Enlightenment" but only to continue to increase in wisdom, grateful for the gems of wisdom already found.

Practicing with offenses to the ego, almost

Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:22:55 GMT

It is amazing, the things mindfulness reveals. Have I said that before? ;-) Anyway, I've noticed that these days when things happen to offend my ego, that I notice this happening, but I still do not quite take it all the way to practice asking who it is that feels offended. This happened today and I thought, "wow, I feel offended, the ego is taking offense at this." Then I thought, "well, the ego is illusory, so there is no one to be offended." This took the edge off, but I still felt offended. It was not until later that I realized I had not made it to the point of asking who it was that feels offended.

Though I do truly understand that the ego is just the story we tell ourselves about ourselves, and not the little homunculus calling the shots and taking the credit, though it always tries, I still wonder if I was just dismissing the feeling of offense... as not really valid. I'm really not sure. Of course feelings are always valid, but I think realizing that there is no ego to be offended helped, because I do really believe that. But I could have taken it further. I find it interesting to notice my mindfulness only took me halfway, and then later noticed that too! Oh well. I still think it's progress in the right direction. Maybe next time I'll actually ask who it is that feels offended, at the time.

Wow. I actually forgot about all the wars.

Thu, 10 Aug 2006 22:14:23 GMT

It is amazing, the things mindfulness reveals. I actually forgot about all the wars. Didn't think about them even once for at least a week, and only briefly for quite a while before, I can't say how long. I mean Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, and Palestine, and don't forget Afghanistan. I forgot Afghanistan, and the rest. Just from being busy with work, career, family, life, Dharma study, reading a very engaging book about Australia, all of the above, and hardly ever watching TV. Really forgot about all of them until I read this from Tony Blair, which really puts a lot of the pieces together into a complete picture of what's happening in the middle east. Such a complete picture as you'll never get from the so-called "news" media I might add.

But this post is just to express amazement at how just by being absorbed in the details of my own life, I could actually forget that from the eastern Mediterranean all the way to Pakistan, maybe including Pakistan, it's almost one big war zone, with only the odd country here and there that has not been actively pulled into war. And those are certainly involved behind the scenes. Wow.

I must dedicate the merit of my meditations to the families and those who have survived all those that have died in these wars.

Sympathetic joy

Wed, 28 Jun 2006 04:18:11 GMT

Today as I was going to lunch, as I was waiting to turn out of the parking lot, I watched a lady turn in to the lot. She had the biggest smile on her face. I felt happy that she was so happy -- this complete stranger. I had no idea why she grinned so. Could've been something funny on the radio, or it could have been her own joyful thoughts. Regardless, I felt sympathetic joy.

Practicing sympathetic joy comes easily to me, for which I am grateful. I did not always do this, but it was a short trip from where I was. Used to be, if I noticed someone happy I'd just wonder why, indifferent. As if they had no reason to be happy just because I did not see it -- not that I felt there was anything wrong with that. In learning about the practice of sympathetic joy in my wanderings through the Dharma, I read that some people actually feel jealousy when they see someone else obviously happy when they are not. Some people I read, react to other's happiness this way most of the time. As if they view happiness as a zero-sum game -- the more someone else has, the less they can get. This view I had great difficulty imagining. But I searched and finally remembered having felt this myself, a few times, when I was a kid in grade school. I felt jealous at other kids laughing -- probably because I was afraid they were making fun of me. They may have been, or they may not have been, I don't know. The point is that it took me quite a while to realize this feeling was not completely foreign to me, even if so rare that I could not immediately remember having ever felt this way.

I now share the opinion of His Holiness The Dalai Lama of really being just baffled as to why anyone would choose not to practice sympathetic joy, for the simple reason that every time you see someone who is happy, it's another chance for you to be happy too. I mean, if that's not just plain enlightened self-interest, I don't know what is.

If you practice sympathetic joy, you'll be happy more often yourself. Happiness is not a zero-sum game. It comes from inside you and it is not limited in quantity. Everyone wants to be happy. Maybe people just need to know more ways to be happy. This is one.

An insight! Ho!

Mon, 26 Jun 2006 01:18:42 GMT

This morning I thought of three things I did not want to happen. Things I was afraid might happen, you might say. None of them were a big deal, I don't even remember all three anymore. But with each one in turn, I saw that the reason I did not want them to happen was attachment. Something I was attached to, that was causing suffering with all three thoughts. And they were just thoughts! Ha!! The cause of suffering in the first was attachment. The cause of suffering in the second was... attachment. And the cause of suffering in the third was attachment!! Satori! Ho!

Wow, the cause of suffering really is attachment!

So now I'm going to try to be mindful of things I'm thinking that I do not want to happen, and look for attachment! Then I'll just let it go... Ha!