Notes in Samsara
Politics, Culture, American Buddhism, Economics, and Technology
OMG They're coming to Seattle...so I have some questions...
A whole Big Mind Weekend Workshop with Genpo Roshi in March of next year...and
they ask:
How often do you have the chance to work directly with a real Zen Master on the important issues of the Self and the Transcendent, and to learn practical and effective ways to tap into the infinite power and love you were born with?
Actually, here in the Pacific NW, we have a surplus of Dharma.
In the Seattle region alone there are temples in the Kwan Um, Rinzai, Japanese Soto (Jiyu Kennett), Sambo Kyodan, and Chinese Cha'n traditions!
As for myself, I live in the Portland OR, area, and I have been training "with a real Zen Master" for over 16 years, the last 13 of them, with one "Master," in this area we, too, have a smorgasbord of Zen schools from which to choose.
So given that question was trivial to answer with the aid of the Google, maybe it's time to pose a few questions for the Big Mind folks.
After all, they say right here:
Questions? Our staff will be happy to talk with you. Call 801-328-8414 in the US, or write us an email at bigmindoffice@bigmind.org.
So, I think it's time for a list of questions:
1. Why did the writers of this web page think it's a rarity for people to be able to work "with a real Zen Master," when so many opportunities abound?
2. The term "roshi" (老師) stems from the Chinese "laoshi" meaning literally "old teacher." Ven. Genpo Merzel seems to use this term as though it is a Zen equivalent of a Ph.D., whereas traditionally it is bestowed in old age or posthumously to a teacher. While it is true that many teachers in the west, such as Eido Shimano, and especially teachers in the White Plum Asanga use the term 老師 in this way, Ven. Genpo Merzel's organzation seems to use this term whenever his organization is referring to Ven. Genpo Merzel. Does Ven. Merzel think his title 老師 in any way distinguishes himself from other teachers of other traditions, even if in their tradition the use of 老師 is suppressed until late in life or after death? And if that is the case, is there any other basis for this other than an argument from authority, other than Ven. Glassman "allowed" the Ven. Merzel to call himself a 老師?
3. Does Ven. Merzel think that his "Big Mind" process will lead to 悟り or 見性 comparable to what real Zen students achieve after years of study, as has been widely reported and quoted? If so, how does his process comport with what is explained in the Lankavatara sutra?
That was the easy round. Now the questions get a bit more difficult...
4. Why were the people chosen for the Big Mind "advisory board?"
5. What advice do they provide?
6. How, if at all, are they compensated?
7. Who are the owners of the corporation which promotes Big Mind?
8. Why do people on the Big Mind advisory board overlap with people in the Frederick Lenz Foundation?
9. Why are
recipients of grants form the Frederick Lenz Foundation also, in some cases, members of the
Frederick Lenz Foundation Advisory Committee? Is it within the fiduciary responsibilities of either Big Mind or The Frederick Lenz Foundation to have an "Advisor" of one group involved making a decision on a "Grant" to another via a member of both groups?
10. Doesn't the association with the Frederick Lenz Foundation, which is still trying to hawk "intellectual property" originally owned by Dr. Lenz conflate the meaning of Buddhism as is commonly understood by practitioners in the United States as well as the rest of the world?
11. Why did Kanzeon Inc. (I believe that's the name of the entity) trademark "Big Mind" in 2002, when the term had already been in use in the American Zen community for more than 30 years? Doesn't this conflate the meaning of a process developed by the Ven. Merzel with a term well-understood within the Buddhist community for decades, if not longer, a term which correlates with terms in some of the oldest Mahayana sutras?
12. Given all these concerns, and given that the practice of Buddhism involves not merely meditation, not merely psychological insights, but also Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, as well as Right Effort, Right Mindfulness,
and Right Concentration, just why should someone fork over several hundred dollars to your organization for the chance to "work with a real Zen Master?"
Now I'm not saying that Genpo Merzel, or members of his organization engaged in any ethical or legal improprieties. Clearly, all I have mentioned above is concerns I have based on what I've read from Merzel's organziation's own site and those of the site on which he sits on in some kind of advisory role. But as a Buddhist in the Zen tradition I am concerned that much of what I read here is not complimentary to Zen Buddhism in much the same way that Tiger Woods' recent troubles do not bring fame upon professional golf.
Some answers would be appreciated.
Full disclosure: Thanks to Genpo's organization for putting up Google ads on my site.
It's awfully nice of them.
Labels: Spiritual Hucksterism
Just What *Is* Buddhism? Or: Why Conflating Frederick Lenz with Buddhism Reeks of Racism and Worse
If you don't know about the (still extant)
Rama Page, it's worth a look to see what this guy Lenz was really about, and why it's quite absurd to conflate what this guy was doing with what the rest of the world regards as Buddhism. Compare, for example, what's written in
this book from Sri Lanka on the Eight Fold Path, with what
this cult report wrote about Lenz, or
with what at least one ex-member said.
Real Buddhists - i.e., ones from around the world, know better, and not only is it a mockery of Buddhism, but it is also ethically questionable that t
he "Advisory Committee" of The Frederick Lenz Foundation consists of:
* Elizabeth Cecil
* Walter Goodwin
* Joaquin Lievano
* Dana Schwartz
* George (Dai En) Burch
Friends of Zen, Inc., East Brookfield, MA
* Fleet Maull, Sensei in the
Zen Peacemaker Order, Boulder, CO
* Dennis (Genpo) Merzel, Roshi
Kanzeon Zen Center, Salt Lake City, UT
* Gerry (Shishin) Wick, Roshi
Great Mountain Zen Center, Boulder, CO
many of whom appear to be legitimately ordained Buddhists. Now it is true that the official
mission of the Foundation:
is dedicated to promoting the benefits of Zen Buddhism, meditation, yoga and related Buddhist practices as a pathway to self-realization and the harmonious blending of the material and spiritual in contemporary American society. The Foundation encourages the study and practice of these disciplines so that Americans with a Western mind set may come to appreciate these ancient gifts of Eastern thought, and utilize them in a way that is relevant to American culture and values.
However, their "Vision" is:
Dr. Frederick P. Lenz, "Rama" to his students and associates, dedicated his life to the proposition that Westerners in a modern, fast-paced America can achieve spiritual enlightenment, without religious ceremony, and better enjoy the benefits of an American lifestyle by embracing and practicing the principles of Zen Buddhism, meditation, yoga and related Buddhist practices. Rama's vision is embodied in the Foundation's core values: to spread as broadly and for so long as possible throughout American society the knowledge and benefits of these disciplines, using where feasible Rama's own writings, tapes and music as an aid. The challenge for those who carry on in Rama's name is to translate this ancient body of wisdom, which includes for example Tantric Buddhism, Vajrayana Buddhism and Tibetan yoga, into a system of practice adapted for Americans so they may more easily share in its benefits. The Foundation seeks partners with which to establish such programs and will make grants to other qualified charitable organizations which share the Foundation's vision, or which offer programs that will promote the Foundation's goals.
Rama's vision is embodied in the Foundation's core values: that you can
get something called "enlightenment." Now there is such a thing as enlightenment, but when it is dangled out there as something separate and apart from the life you're living, it's not the thing in which Buddhists are actually engaged.
I daresay you'll be hard pressed to find much Buddhism in "Rama's" writings.
And how can this not but look like a joke to Asians, that Americans engaged in this are utter fools?
Lenz only got as far as he did because at the time he did it Buddhism had not penetrated much of American society; Chinese restaurants - think about that. That was Americans' experience with Asia at the time.
Buddhism still has not penetrated much of American society, and the evident lack of obligation some teachers seem to feel towards their ancestral teachers is appalling.
Labels: Spiritual Hucksterism
Needing a Teacher?
Aaron/gniz has two posts exploring "
How do we know a teacher is legit?" and "
Why a teacher might not be necessary"
I think it's good to have what, for want of a better term, is a teacher (I'd say "mentor," but that word's been ravaged by business-speak.) I think it's good to know someone who acts differently from you, whose behavior is not as dependent on your behavior.
Of course it is important that the teacher abide by ethical guidelines, and in my way of thinking a teacher who is not so financially dependent on keeping an institution running by soliciting funds from his sangha/congregation is of paramount importance. Ethical considerations follow in such positions that mirror the counselor/client or doctor/patient relationship, and these should be stated and maintained.
Aaron's right: you're going to make most of the progress on your own. I wasn't able to make it
all on my own though, and that's why a teacher was highly necessary for me. Luckily, I met a good one; the scam artists out there are more prevalent than they ought to be. But, as I'd written elsewhere, even an ethically challenged teacher might help some students sometimes. But be aware.
Caveat emptor.Labels: Spiritual Hucksterism
Maybe I've been too soft on Dennis Genpo Merzel
Although Aaron/gniz's posts
here and
here and
here seem a bit like guilt by association, they're not, because it's clear that the unsavory people around Merzel are an ongoing nexus.
I'd like to go somewhere slightly different here: how the hell could they have had the
cojones to
trademark Big Mind? Now although the recommended uses seem to be currently suppressed on the
Big Mind website, a trip to the US patent office website will readily reveal that as of today, "Kanzeon Inc." holds a trademark on "Big Mind," for "Education services, namely, conducting workshops and classes in the field of psychospiritual processes that facilitate a shift in human consciousness." (I'd hyperlink but hyperlinking from the US patent office is notoriously unreliable.)
The mark includes:
(3) DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS
26.01.03 - Circles, incomplete (more than semi-circles); Incomplete circles (more than semi-circles)
26.01.21 - Circles that are totally or partially shaded.
26.01.28 - Circles with irregular circumferences; Miscellaneous circular designs with an irregular circumference
So what they did was take a term that had been in use for at least 30 years within the American Zen community (at least since
Shunryu Suzuki's book came out), along with the classic
Zen enso and
claim that is a distinctive identifier of Merzel's organization's "Education services, namely, conducting workshops and classes in the field of psychospiritual processes that facilitate a shift in human consciousness."
I do not have the time and money to challenge this man's appropriation of what I think rightly belongs in the public domain, and the fact that he, and others have tried to conflate Merzel's marketed "shift in human consciousness" with
satori (as has been copiously documented by Warner & gniz) really does appear unethical, and is certainly in the direction of being a fraud, if not an outright fraud itself.
Now, of course it might be "my word against Merzel's word" as to whether or not he's selling the real deal or a cheap fake, except for one or two other things: 1) There already
have been others speaking out about this (namely Ven. Warner), and 2) You don't see a whole lot of other Zen masters (even the ones on the "Big Mind Advisory Board") lining up to give
inka shomei to those folks who paid for "Big Mind
TM" workshops.
Actually, I haven't even seen where Merzel's done that.
Labels: Spiritual Hucksterism
Guest Practice
Today's Thanksgiving; after sitting it's time for my family (they won't be sitting; I will) to prepare for guests.
Hope your Thanksgiving is fun & safe.
More on Vegetarianism...and the Lankavatara Sutra
I'd been going through the
Lankavatara Sutra, dealing with a hiatus to deal with a death in the family, and various work related things, but the recent posts on vegetarianism made me remember that the
Lankavatara Sutra, Chapter 8, is all about not eating meat.
How can a Buddhist not eat meat when it clearly, clearly says:
Said the Blessed One: Then, Mahāmati, listen well and reflect well within yourself...
Certainly, Blessed One; said Mahāmati the Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva and gave ear to the Blessed One.
The Blessed One said this to him: For innumerable reasons, Mahāmati, the Bodhisattva, whose nature is compassion, is not to eat any meat; I will explain them: Mahāmati, in this long course of transmigration here, there is not one living being that, having assumed the form of a living being, has not been your mother, or father, or brother, or sister, or son, or daughter, or the one or the other, in various degrees of kinship; and when acquiring another form of life may live as a beast, as a domestic animal, as a bird, or as a womb-born, or as something standing in some relationship to you; [this being so] how can the Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva who desires to approach all living beings as if they were himself and to practise the Buddha-truths, eat the flesh of any living being that is of the same nature as himself? Even, Mahāmati, the Rakshasa, listening to the Tathagata's discourse on the highest essence of the Dharma, attained the notion of protecting [Buddhism], and, feeling pity, refrains from eating flesh; how much more those who love the Dharma! Thus, Mahāmati, wherever there is the evolution of living beings, let people cherish the thought of kinship with them, and, thinking that all beings are [to be loved as if they were] an only child, let them refrain from eating meat. So with Bodhisattvas whose nature is compassion, [the eating of] meat is to be avoided by him. Even in exceptional cases, it is not [compassionate] of a Bodhisattva of good standing to eat meat. The flesh of a dog, an ass, a buffalo, a horse, a bull, or man, or any other [being], Mahāmati, that is not generally eaten by people, is sold on the roadside as mutton for the sake of money; and therefore, Mahāmati, the Bodhisattva should not eat meat.
For the sake of love of purity, Mahāmati, the Bodhisattva should refrain from eating flesh which is born of semen, blood, etc. For fear of causing terror to living beings, Mahāmati, let the Bodhisattva who is disciplining himself to attain compassion, refrain from eating flesh. To illustrate, Mahāmati: When a dog sees, even from a distance, a hunter, a pariah, a fisherman, etc., whose desires are for meat-eating, he is terrified with fear, thinking, "They are death-dealers, they will even kill me." In the same way, Mahāmati, even those minute animals that are living in the air, on earth, and in water, seeing meat-eaters at a distance, will perceive in them, by their keen sense of smell, the odour of the Rakshasa and will run away from such people as quickly as possible; for they are to them the threat of death. For this reason, Mahāmati, let the Bodhisattva, who is disciplining himself, to abide in great compassion, because of its terrifying living beings, refrain from eating meat. Mahāmati, meat which is liked by unwise people is full of bad smell and its eating gives one a bad reputation which turns wise people away; let the Bodhisattva refrain from eating meat. The food of the wise, Mahāmati, is what is eaten by the Rishis; it does not consist of meat and blood. Therefore, Mahāmati, let the Bodhisattva refrain from eating meat.
In order to guard the minds of all people, Mahāmati, let the Bodhisattva whose nature is holy and who is desirous of avoiding censure on the teaching of the Buddha, refrain from eating meat. For instance, Mahāmati, there are some in the world who speak ill of the teaching of the Buddha; [they would say,] "Why are those who are living the life of a Śramaṇa or a Brahmin reject such food as was enjoyed by the ancient Rishis, and like the carnivorous animals, living in the air, on earth, or in the water? Why do they go wandering about in the world thoroughly terrifying living beings, disregarding the life of a Śramaṇa and destroying the vow of a Brahmin? There is no Dharma, no discipline in them." There are many such adverse-minded people who thus speak ill of the teaching of the Buddha. For this reason, Mahāmati, in order to guard the minds of all people, let the Bodhisattva whose nature is full of pity and who is desirous of avoiding censure on the teaching of the Buddha, refrain from eating meat.
Mahāmati, there is generally an offensive odour to a corpse, which goes against nature; therefore, let the Bodhisattva refrain from eating meat. Mahāmati, when flesh is burned, whether it be that of a dead man or of some other living creature, there is no distinction in the odour. When flesh of either kind is burned, the odour emitted is equally noxious. Therefore, Mahāmati, let the Bodhisattva, who is ever desirous of purity in his discipline, wholly refrain from eating meat.
Pretty obvious that the writers of this did not want aspirants to eat meat.
There
is a kinship with all living things, let there be no mistake about that.
But... it's more complicated than
Gary Steiner's vegan views published in the NY Times on Nov. 22.
Some letter writers seem to have echoed some of my sentiments in response, I'd also note.
I'd like to make a few other brief points:
- This part of the sutra, as the editor/translator noted, and as can be easily seen by appeal to the lengths and styles in subject matter, is clearly a later addition. It is indisputable that at the time the Lankavatara Sutra was written, vegetarian, eating meat was not a paramount concern of the writer(s). It was about as prominent on their radar as gayness and abortion were with Jesus Christ.
- Now admittedly, someone who was vegetarian did later add this stuff.
- But...then...I must go to more fundamental issues in Buddhism, as I see it: what do my senses, knowledge, science tell me?
- Humans clearly evolved as omnivores. This is not something that would have been obvious to the author of this chapter.
- Humans clearly must carefully consider the effect on the environment of all their actions. That means whether or not eating meat is prohibited by one's self or not, what is not optional is careful consideration of the environmental effects of eating (or not eating) meat.
- The conundra of an absolutist vegetarian position might boggle the mind. If all animal life is precious, what are we to do with carnivores? Kill them? Let them die by keeping them from their prey so the prey over-reproduce and lead to havoc on their ecosystem? And then there are animals that depend on carnivorousness for their very survival: should we make tapeworms extinct? (HT: PZ Myers) Why not? Aren't they our kin too? (And make no mistake about it, they are.)
- Finally, to rephrase points made previously, the effects of not eating meat may be worse than eating meat. We know from experiences with wolves in the Western US that removal of predators has dramatic adverse consequences on many many species. The prey may be eaten, but other life forms depend on the predator eating his prey (and not just the predator species.
This is why, I think, many meat eaters don't like it when vegetarians get in their faces, so to speak.
The moral issues are actually more complex than would be made by many vegetarian activists.
What is very, very important for all of us is to reduce our footprint on the planet, and to be mindful of our effect on all living beings.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Labels: Lankavatara Sutra, vegetarianism
Those ads here...
I'll get back to meat eating and the Lankavatara sutra, but while this was fresh in my mind I wanted to get to it. Probably when the end of the year vacation comes I'll refurbish this site; I notice some links are (again) obsolete, there's more blogs to which I want to link to here, and the general look and feel of the place is due for an upgrade.
Anyway, I've got ads on this site. To some extent, it's because I'm a guy fascinated by algorithms, algorithms by Google determine which ads go here, and it amazes me who decides to bid on the spaces I have here.
Of course, in no way do I endorse "Quantum Jumping," "Maharishi University of Management," or of course, Genpo Roshi. I'll let 'em in though a) because if you want to find out what they are you can always google 'em anyway, and b) if they want to pay me, and I call them bunk, who am I to turn down their ad-click dollars? (I do block Scientology, though, as I think that is beyond the pale when it comes to religious hucksterism. I also wouldn't sponsor crack-dealers on this website.)
And, as Donald Sutherland famously said in "Little Murders," it's all right. Evidently my credibility of criticizing certain groups, Buddhist or not, and the credibility of those groups is only affected insofar as they respond directly to my critiques, and vice-versa.
Or at least that's what Campbell's and Progresso might have discovered:
Companies that were once content to fight in grocery-store aisles and on television commercials are now choosing a different route — filing lawsuits and other formal grievances challenging their competitors’ claims. Longtime foes like Pantene and Dove, Science Diet and Iams, AT&T and Verizon Wireless, and Campbell Soup and Progresso have all wrestled over ads recently.
The number of complaints over ads from competitors filed with the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, the industry’s main self-regulatory program for national ads, is on track to set a record this year. There have been 82 formal complaints so far in 2009, after last year’s record of 84 challenges, a sharp increase from 62 in 2007 and 52 in 2006.
The number of complaints over ads from competitors filed with the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, the industry’s main self-regulatory program for national ads, is on track to set a record this year. There have been 82 formal complaints so far in 2009, after last year’s record of 84 challenges, a sharp increase from 62 in 2007 and 52 in 2006...
Last fall, Campbell Soup started an ad campaign that said its Select Harvest soups were “Made with TLC” while labeling Progresso soups, from its rival General Mills, “Made with MSG.” Progresso responded with its own campaign, and then both companies complained to the advertising review division, which recommended withdrawal of some ads from both sides.
The damage was already done. Unit sales in the General Mills category that includes Progresso (called, unappetizingly, ready-to-serve wet soups) rose in the fourth quarter of 2008, compared with the same quarter a year earlier, said Information Resources, a research firm in Chicago.
But since then, unit sales of wet soups at both companies have declined every quarter. A UBS analyst, David Palmer, attributed the drop largely to the advertising battle.
So there you have it.
What fascinates me is how reptilian the Google model is by comparison.
They don't care where they advertise, and most advertisers don't care what the forum that they're using is saying about them.
There's limits, though.
But just in case you see some wild and wacky ads on my site, please don't think I endorse them, but if they endorse me, even though I think they're bunk, who am I to turn down their money? As long as they're not doing what I think is measurable, serious harm to people I don't think I'll ban them.
And feel free to click, click, away at those wacky websites! Every click grants me more money!Labels: ad policy, Spiritual Hucksterism
Also..
I wanted to do a post on some of the ads I see here, how wacky some are, why I leave them here, and why it's probably still effective for them to advertise here ( evidently the soup wars prove that not respnding to yourproduct's critics might be a good strategy).
But that's going to have to wait.
BB, like everything else is impermanent
I wanted to follow up the last two posts by a consideration of what the Lankavatara sutra says about eating meat. But Clear ain't accomodating me this day. Might be a spur to do the other things I must do today.
