Sunday, June 14, 2015

Yes, Falun Da Fa is a Dangerous Cult. We shouldn't refrain from using those words.

In the past few days, two ideas  have come to me that merit blogposts in this all too infrequently updated Buddhist blog.  The first concerns the "Adverse Childhood Experiences" (ACE) studies I only now read about.  I have to write a significant post on that - the ideas that ACE triggers provide so many answers to so many questions, both personally and yes, globally.   But suffice it to say, there are reasons why we're all wounded in heart/mind that are pretty powerful, and make all of us responsible. 

It also makes a mockery of some of the more moralistic behavior we've seen in the Buddhist convert community.  Everything sticks on everything else like flypaper though.   

But sometimes things have to be said, and that brings me to my second big topic, which I'll write about today.  This topic is the fact that the organizers of this year's Portland Buddhist Festival (PBF) included Falun Da Fa  (aka Falun Gong).   To cut to the chase: The organizers of the Portland Buddhist Festival should not have included Falun Da Fa in their list of participating groups.   I was rather surprised that they did, given the inclination not to accept money from the Frederick Lenz Foundation.  Not surprisingly as well, there was a notable lack of real, actual Chinese Buddhist temples represented at the PBF.   That's probably the result of a confluence of things for which we're all responsible. 



I won't go into great detail in this post the reactions I got when I spoke to one of the organizers about my concerns about Falun Da Fa, other than to note that the person I spoke to was quite defensive, and took umbrage at the words "dangerous cult" as some sort of hate speech.  To her credit, though, the organizer admitted a lack of knowledge about Falun Da Fa.  

Well, I figured a post like this ought to make readers aware of what Falun Da Fa actually is.  First of all, compared to Frederick Lenz's cult (and I won't refrain from the use of that word either for Lenz's group or Falun Da Fa), it's huge.  In addition to its regular activities, it publishes the Epoch Times  and is the force behind that Shen Yun traveling show.   It appears in this way to be a bit like Scientology, in that there are several "coordinating" organizations which don't officially advertise as Falun Da Fa (or Falun Gong) but essentially are.

Now, I'd like to borrow some bits from the Rational Wiki page on Falun Gong, after which I'm going to go right to the source of course of course, and show you what Falun Da Fa actually says about itself.   If you think this is Buddhism in any way, well you don't know Buddhism. 

Anyway,  according to sources referenced by the Rational Wiki,  Falun Gong:

  • Regarding Falung Gong founder:
    Li Hongzhi claims to have miraculous powers. He claims that he is the savior of humanity, who has come to the earth to "rectify" the way and prevent "true" spiritual teachings from being lost. He claims that ancient Chinese knowledge is far superior to current teachings.[20] His propagandists are known for hijacking reprints of Buddhist texts and inserting him as the "Main Buddha of the Universe".
  • According to the Wiki: 

    An idea that once was prominent in Chinese Falun Gong is Yuan Man or "Consummation/Full Circle"[27], a state related to Moksha but not very specific. (Mis)Intepretation by low-level Falun Gong instructor and missionaries often blends this idea into the more indigenous notion of an afterlife, so self-flagellation from removal of palatine uvula to ritual suicides are not uncommon even a few years after the crackdown. Today, it is redefined after the more sane Moksha.

  • The Chinese government is apparently not so concerned with banning Falun Da Fa's materials, because, quite frankly, as we'll see, they  kind of refute themselves.  In fact, Falun Gong's "uncensored teachings are openly ridiculed by Chinese forum-goers and have given birth to the meme of calling any trend or popular thing a 大法 (or "Great Law"), combined with a ballad formatted after Falun Gong poems attacking the Chinese government. A collection of 'Great Law' copypasta can be viewed here."

So what do the Chinese people know, that the organizers of the Portland Buddhist Festival didn't know besides what's on the rational Wiki (and the Great Law of Google Chrome, evidently)?

Well...



Falun Dafa involves the cultivation of a Falun, or “law wheel.” The Falun is an intelligent, rotating entity composed of high-energy matter. The Falun that Master Li Hongzhi plants in a practitioner’s lower abdomen from other dimensions rotates constantly, twenty-four hours a day. (True cultivators can acquire a Falun by reading Master Li’s books, watching his 9-session lectures on video, listening to his 9-session lectures on audiocassette, or studying together with students of Falun Dafa.) The Falun helps practitioners to practice automatically. That is, the Falun refines the practitioner at all times, even though he or she isn’t performing the exercises at every moment. Of all practices made public in the world today, only Falun Dafa has managed to achieve a state in which, “the Fa refines the person.”


This is what they're saying about themselves!  You can get an "intelligent rotating entity" planted in your "lower abdomen from other dimensions"  by "reading Master Li's books, watching his 9-session lectures on video or studying together with students of Falun Dafa."

We Buddhists ought to be about transcending greed, hatred, and ignorance, which doesn't involve having intelligent rotating entities planted in our bellies from other dimensions.   Of course some of our practices involve the cultivation of 気, but that's something we cultivate ourselves, and is intimately related with the focus of awareness, with that which is within. 


The Fa I’m imparting today is immense—it can allow you all to reach different realms and levels through cultivation. This is by no means a small thing. A Fa this enormous has been introduced to the public, but if it couldn’t change people or couldn’t make people’s morality elevate again, then it wouldn’t matter whether it was taught or not. I know that since this Fa is the Truth and the Law of the cosmos, it will definitely have a tremendous impact on cultivators. So, every one of us knows what to do, and there’s no need for me to tell you specifically how to conduct yourselves.



Because practitioners of Falung Gong are only able to do what they do because of Li Hongzhi.  Now I'm not big on Tibetan Buddhism, but even the Dalai Lama doesn't talk this way.  This is guru sickness through and through.

But wait, there's more from that last link:


Back in the days when Buddha Sakyamuni was teaching his Dharma* there were over a hundred precepts. It’s said that Mahayana Buddhism now has over two hundred precepts. The purpose [of precepts] is to restrict you, and make you meet the standard and act accordingly. We don’t have any precepts today—we’re completely open. We don’t pay attention to any form, and instead we only look at people’s hearts and minds. That’s because our Fa has such mighty power. Also, from another perspective, no form manifest in ordinary human society is worthy of this Dafa. That’s why we have truly adopted a way suitable for spreading Dafa. What way is it? It is a “great way without form.” (Applause) We really have taken a “great way without form,” and only that truly fits our Dafa. So that’s how we have gone about things since I taught the Fa in the early days.


Li Hongzhi claims in that speech that he "chose to live overseas so as not to cause problems for the government."   Really? He's sparing the Chinese government problems by choosing to live overseas? Even if you attribute the worst of behavior to the Chinese government (and I'm not going to defend the Chinese government here), what sort of idea is Li trying to give his followers? 

OK, that was in 1998, although it's clearly not been refuted and is readily available on the Falung Gong website.   Here's something more recent:



You have read in Zhuan Falun that there are eighty-four thousand cultivation disciplines in the Buddhist System and thirty-six hundred cultivation disciplines in the Daoist System. In fact, that was said from the vantage point of a very small level, that is the understanding at a certain level, and it was taught only to the extent that human beings could comprehend. You know, there are Buddhas beyond Buddhas, there are Heavens beyond Heavens, and there are Gods beyond Gods. So how big is the cosmos? It is just boundlessly and endlessly immense. Having reached the point I have reached today in going about Fa-rectification, even though I am already taking care of the final matters, the most, most basic elements that make up the cosmos are gigantic beings that exist in such a way that even to the high-level beings in the cosmos they seem incomparably gigantic and unreachable, much less to humans. In other words, there are so many gigantic beings in the cosmos, and the gods all have their own ways of establishing themselves, and they all have Fa-principles that have formed based on their own understandings of the cosmos. Here I am using human language to describe it. Furthermore, there are also tens of millions of different, gigantic cosmic systems in the cosmos. And those gigantic systems are of course all experiencing the final Fa-rectification of the entire cosmos.


Think about this, if these gigantic systems are Gods, won't they wonder: "How is it you Buddhas are supposed to be better than us? You're teaching the Great Law of the Cosmos by way of Buddha Fa, and rectifying the entire cosmos with the Buddha Fa. But our system is not directly related to yours, so how could you Buddhas rectify our Fa here? How could the gods of your system direct things in our system? Are those Fa-rectification approaches of yours suitable for our system? We have completely different understandings about the ways in which lives are to exist, and many of our understandings are incompatible. What are we to make of how you come across? Given the incompatibility, how could you rectify our Fa?" The cosmos is incredibly complex and awfully immense, and there are huge differences in the ways that lives exist, think, and understand life. Human beings think human beings are pretty good, but some gods think, "Human beings walking down the street with their arms swinging to and fro are so ugly." (Audience laughs) "Look at my great wings and my lion-like body, it's so magnificent." (Audience laughs) And there are even greater disparities between our understandings of lives and those of the gods in the distant, gigantic systems. [They might say,] "What you think of as good and bad is different here, so how can Fa-rectification determine good and bad here, where we are?" The differences among the beings [themselves] are also huge. The Great Law that I am imparting is the fundamental Great Law of the Cosmos that encompasses all. It's just that the manifestation takes the form of Buddha images and Buddhist principles. They don't know about these things, and that is why they think that way.



It's really quite clear that Li Hongzhi doesn't exactly place his organization as a Buddhist organization, but rather something he views as superior to Buddhism, and as he says, not directly related to Buddhism.

So why are their followers going to Buddhist festivals and claiming to be Buddhist?  And why is the Portland Buddhist Festival giving these people a platform?    And when someone says "Great Law that I am imparting is the fundamental Great Law of the Cosmos ," shouldn't we give pause to consider whether the person saying that or not has reason to say so?  And if people are following such a person, should they not be helped? And if there are people giving out money to Li Hongzhi, isn't that enough of a harm? 

I myself have heard Li Hongzhi say that only he could profit from his teachings - meaning financially profit. You can read Chinese sources that say worse, but I'm conveying what I have heard personally. And I have heard that with a well known Chinese scholar who has recently produced an updated translation of the Tao Te Ching.  Li Hongzhi's own words show him to be teaching something that's hard to call Buddhism.   Inclusion of Falun Gong in a Buddhist festival was an embarrassment for the Portland Buddhist convert community. And if the organizers don't believe me, I entreat them to seek out Chinese Buddhists to get their view.  There's certainly enough of them in the Portland area.  I have been pretty deeply involved with various Asian communities for quite a few years now.  Is it really true that the European - descended US Buddhist convert community is so divorced from their Asian counterparts that they confuse Falun Gong with Chinese Buddhism? 

Addendum: The more I read about recent events surrounding this group the more appalled I am.  Here's a group led by a guy who's an obvious egomaniac, who has encouraged a regime that is often brutal to take actions that would clearly result in the regime called brutal to act brutal.  That's fairly dangerous. So yes, yes indeed the term "dangerous cult" is apt. It's also bad 功夫 - bad kung fu.  I'm also appalled that there are folks in the US who support this group, because "Chinese Communists".   Then again, it's a similar but even worse instance of the same logic applied to the Dalai Lama.   There's folks in the American Buddhist convert community who will respond with outright hostility when one mentions the Dalai Lama and his connections to the CIA and the economic issues associated with Tibet. 

Educate yourselves. 

Friday, April 03, 2015

Not actually Zen Buddhism...

I haven't had very much to say at all lately on this blog, as is evident.   And, because of the demands of time and life - I hadn't spent much time in the Buddhist blogosphere lately.  Part of it is that some of the old folks who used to blog don't do it so much anymore. 

And part of it is I think much of the Zen Buddhist community in the US is a bit too much, or to put it another way, the practice of Zen in America is not as well reflected in the blogosphere - including this blog - as it should be.  Genjo Marinello is a welcome exception, as is Brad Warner.

But now I have to show other examples, and I think it's relatively easy to discern the difference between them and the aforementioned men.  I had several reactions to a recent blog post by Myoan Grace Schireson:

  • There's less difference between her and her Zen predator bêtes noires than she'd probably like to admit.
  • "How do you do that, and how do you teach people to use the awareness from the cushion to self-reflect, observe, experience and transform their feelings? This is the technology we employ in the SPOT training."  The only other time I see the word "technology" coincident with text speaking about religion - or if you prefer (I don't) "spirituality" is in regard to Scientology.  I leave that with you, as the once-upon-a-time Long Island based "Psychic George" would say.
  • She thinks she's got a cure for something!
  • "SPOT aims to teach sangha leaders, priest or lay, how to trust the Dharma with their most vulnerable secrets and how to rely on the practice during their worst nightmare. When a sangha leader has done this work, the resultant faith in practice is palpable. His or her practice inspires confidence in students entering the sangha."  Because practice alone  is not enough?  Look, I'm all for integrating practice into day-to-day life.

And this is not to minimize the whole Zen predators thing - I'll get to that in a bit.   And I suppose Grace Schireson can offer something useful to people - like Eido Shimano - I'll get to that  in a bit.   But what she's advertising here is a "technology" that really ought to be part of practice itself, and therefore calls into question the quality of her own practice.

I mean, clearly you can kind of sort of see where this might go (but the dog won't hunt): Ms. Abbess Schireson has been creating at least on-line, a persona that is mostly rightly pointing out the issues with Zen "teachers" as "gurus," but then she - and a few others creates another guru, the guru of "certification" of "Zen teachers" by a certification body, or at least "SPOT" (not "Smart Personal Object Technology").  "SPOT" is her guru.

I must admit, it's my 詠春券 training that has started to open up my eyes in this area.  I've been fortunate enough to learn this from people who have had the "real deal" in terms of training.  Part of that real deal is that at least in some groups that study this stuff, there's not uniforms, belts, or ranks.  Really.  You know what your "rank" is because if you stay around and practice  詠春券 for any length of time your rank is the practice of humility.   And in  詠春券, the sifu  I have openly admits he can only take you so far.  He doesn't try to "inspire confidence," rather he tries to teach  詠春券.  He's good at that because he's practiced a very very very long time. 

It's why I tend to vehemently agree with Brad Warner when it comes to this whole certification of "Zen teachers" thing, and I must modestly dissent from Genjo Osho and Myoan Abbess.  Genjo and Myoan are "selling" "Only use certified 'Zen teachers'"  because you might not know what you're getting and it could be dangerous!!!

That brings me to Eido Shimano.  I recently had a good discussion with my Zen Osho, who had attended sesshin under Shimano at Dai Bosatsu.   I had never discussed that topic with him before, because it really wasn't particularly germane to what happened at our little sangha.  But that afternoon, over tea, we discussed various things, and Shimano came up.  He pointed out that, yes, Shimano is a very sick man, and could not explain why Shimano behaved as he did.  But there was useful teaching from Shimano.  I think Genjo Marinello has said similar things too.

That's the point: I, too, obtained useful teaching from Shimano.  However I think part of the reason for that is that I didn't jump in with both feet and go into guru worship or something, and I didn't do that because I'd seen enough cultiness elsewhere, I suppose. 

I suppose that's why some folks still are congregating around Shimano for Zen retreats.  Look at the people in the picture at that link.  What are they thinking about the Shimano situation? What would a conversation like be between one of them and Myoan Grace Schireson Abbess?  And don't get me wrong, I agree with Genjo Osho that Shimano shouldn't be teaching.   But at this point, those who congregate around Shimano can't be completely ignorant of what's gone down with respect to Shimano.   They are obtaining something useful from Shimano, but they have to realize the history of this man now.   And my osho - who as far as I know is not a member of one of those American Zen teachers' societies or what not - could give you at least some of what Shimano had to give, as could I, and I'm not accredited for anything, except as a technology guy who invented a bunch of stuff that people use for mobile phones.

No belts, no ranks. 

One other thing about my conversation with Osho: it raised the question "What does it mean to have compassion for Eido Shimano?"

And is that practice reflected in clumsy zombie metaphors raised in order to sell services?








 




Thursday, January 01, 2015

Mercy Killing

I have clearly heard teachers in American Zen Buddhism imply that mercy killing may be mandated by the precepts in certain circumstances.  So I guess I'm going to have to reconcile that with this bit from a Chinese Buddhist site that says mercy killing is necessarily a no-no.


Forming our own narratives..

I have a minor confession to make: our family went and saw The Interview on Christmas Day.   There's a lot of critiques of this movie out there,  that probably give every point of view possible already.  But you'll also find  - as often happens in movie reviews - that there's aspects of that movie that the critics miss. As this was written up as "frat boy humor comedy" blah blah, I expected that.   Another review mentioned some racist remarks by one of the characters.  My wife and son did not seem to notice (probably since the object of humor related to those remarks was Seth Rogen's character - that was left out of one of the reviews.)


So while I tend to agree with much of what was posted in some places before the movie was reviewed, I did want to see the film just to see what was behind this masterpiece of PR.  Yes, Rogen and Franco make things I usually don't want to see, still can't beat the way the PR was done.  While the final product did point out some of the nasty things about North Korea, it was done by this generation's answer to the Three Stooges, more or less.  And yeah, there's nothing here that any informed person would learn about North Korea.  But You Natzy Spy!  was similar fare, and so was Duck Soup, which was banned in fascist Italy, if what I've read is correct.

Happy New Year, all! I hope I'll have more chances to post here in the coming months.


Monday, December 01, 2014

Dukkha

This is why I have had my suspicions about the "business" sections of bookstores for decades.

In 1940, a young sociologist named Robert K. Merton published an essay called “Bureaucratic Structure and Personality,” in which he coined the phrase “displacement of goals.” Bureaucracy develops, Merton wrote, because large organizations require rules and procedures, lest they fall into the administrative and financial chaos and governance-by-whim of the kind that brought down William Durant. But eventually the rules and procedures devised to help the organization achieve its goals take on a life of their own, and become “an immediate value in the life-organization of the bureaucrat.” In other words, when people orient their lives around the rules, the purpose of the organization gets lost.





No matter what is tried there's no magic bullet to run one capitalist organization better than all the others, actually, because capitalism.   But then you also don't need the idea that there is a "Welch Way" or a "Google Way," etc.

Sunday, November 23, 2014

I don't think ultimately this will work...

"Mindfulness" and "meditation" are only going to be used in the service of capitalism so long as increased profits are made.  Critics of mindfulness capitalism - and I count myself among them - should note that as soon as profits aren't optimized via mindfulness, it will be spat out like a cherrystone. 

Sunday, September 28, 2014

It's skill we need, not cults

Ross Douthat - known as Chunky Bobo in some quarters - writes:


From the Franciscans to the Jesuits, groups that looked cultlike to their critics have repeatedly revitalized the Catholic Church, and a similar story can be told about the role of charismatic visionaries in the American experience. (The enduring influence of one of the 19th century’s most despised and feared religious movements, for instance, is the reason the state of Utah now leads the United States on many social indicators.) 
...[PayPal co-founder Peter] Thiel’s argument is broader: Not only religious vitality but the entirety of human innovation, he argues, depends on the belief that there are major secrets left to be uncovered, insights that existing institutions have failed to unlock (or perhaps forgotten), better ways of living that a small group might successfully embrace.



Of course whenever I study social sciences I always go to an associate of...um... well let's just say that this "we need more crackpots" argument is a bit self-serving.  (Why are "futurists" rarely dystopian?) 

No we do not need more cults.  We need amateurs who through their amateurish love of the practice of life get to be virtuosos.

That's what we need.

Saturday, August 09, 2014

本来無一物

Attributed to Hui Neng, it means - paraphrased of course - "Originally there is not one thing."   無一物 is "not one thing," or "having nothing."

It's good not to have things you might get stuck to.

 

Friday, August 08, 2014

Beyond the clichés...

I have at least one post pending on one Robert Sharf, who, I would submit,  despite his academic credentials doesn't get it.

That's a post for another day.

This blog-by-a-Buddhist has been going, on and off, for almost ten years.  I have tried to make this blog not merely some repetition of European-American Buddhist  paradigms.  I've tried to fit it to how an American Buddhist lives his life when he's somewhere between or among various cultures.  Unlike some bloggers I can't remember the last time I've ever removed something from this blog, if ever.

I just read a snippet of someone's blog post where it kind of sort of seemed they thought they were in the know because they knew a story about some old Buddha long ago, and then they go on to paraphrase thoughts and ideas that are in some of the more popular European-American Buddhist books.

If you go back in this blog, you can find some of that too, - you certainly can.   I won't delete that junk, and I would encourage the writer of that other blog post not to delete that junk either.  In fact, generally I would say don't delete your blog junk...at least not for a year or so, if at all. 

There might be people who are marginally stable mentally and who might post things on blogs they would not like posted on their resumé, especially if they underemployed, and the victims of this current economy.   They ought to think twice about what they put out in cyberspace.

I  have been more outspoken of late about our Middle East policy; it I think is the great moral challenge of our time.  But I try to think before I post; but I also do want things to be said that ought to be said. 

But - in general - censor less.  You're not going to get your dream job, nor are you going to get the 見性 you deny you want to experience if you just stick within the realm of insider jargon, whether it's business/marketing speak or Zen.  From a Zen perspective, censorship can be a kind of attachment.

Tuesday, August 05, 2014

"Buddhist sect leader detained"...?

So reads the headline in an article in the NY Times about the detention of one Wu Zeheng, who is said in the article to run a group called "Huazang Dharma."  The NY Times article links to his group's website.  The Times article states:


According to its website, the group calls on followers to perform a good deed each day and to fast several days a month and then to donate to charity the money they would have spent on food. The website also speaks of the group’s “commitment to the prosperity of the Chinese nation and world peace.” 
Mr. Wu, who is also addressed by followers as His Holiness Vairocana Xing Wu, founded Huazang Dharma in the late 1980s and traces its teachings back to the earliest days of Buddhism. A number of followers believe he possesses healing powers and say the traditional Chinese medicine he prescribes can cure cancer and other diseases. 
Nicole Ho, who lives in the United States and who credits Mr. Wu with saving the life of her ailing father, has been a devout follower since 1995. “His ability and level of wisdom is simply different from anyone else,” she said. “With Master Wu, you listen and feel good from head to toe.” 
Mr. Wu had been briefly detained twice by the police in recent years, but his followers said the current detentions of him and his followers suggested the authorities were determined to crush the group. 
According to several witnesses, the police entered Mr. Wu’s home in Zhuhai on July 29 saying they wanted to examine his residency registration papers and then took him away. A number of followers living in apartments in the same complex were also detained at the same time, including children who were studying meditation and martial arts. Meanwhile, the police in the nearby city of Shenzhen raided two businesses affiliated with Huazang Dharma and the homes of people working there.

Nobody can support taking kids away by police, assuming that's what happened. 
But... His Holiness Vairocana...?  According to his website:

Mr. Wu Zeheng, with an alias Xin Yu and Buddhist name His Holiness the Vairocana Xing Wu, is the Patriarch of Buddhism, the 88th successor of Buddha, the 61th Successor of Zen Dharma, the 51th Successor of the Caodong Dharma, and the 32nd Successor of the Offspring Sangha Dharma. Holding the Symbol of Buddha Dharma - the”Kashaya and alms bowl ” (the hundreds patched robe and the alms bowl) that is the direct line of descent from Supreme Shakyamuni Buddha.


Well all right...seriously... there's claims there about being a direct successor of the Buddha, "61st successor of Zen Dharma,"... elsewhere on the site you can see claims about faith healing and what-not. Such a person who makes such claims isn't so much a Buddhist leader as a Buddhist antagonist, and one who really obscures the Way.

My point is,  as you might expect, I'm not overly fond of charlatans, and I'm not overly fond of propaganda critical of the Chinese government that glosses over the chicanery of folks like Wu.  And donning Taiwanese scarves prominently on one's website is going to be just about as popular as honoring the Naqba in some West Bank Israeli settlement.

I really can't get all that worked up on the "religious freedom" of hucksters like Wu - to me he comes across as more or less a Chinese Frederick Lenz.







Monday, August 04, 2014

No ethnicty is excluded



Many early images of the Buddha look like this one - came into being after Alexander the Great invaded Bactria.  It's the Buddha, not Apollo.

It's images like this that come to my mind when I hear people make generalizations about Buddhists, and Western Buddhists in particular, as to whether they are authentic or not.  It's the flip side to the other problem - the relative invisibility of Asian Buddhist communities to Western Buddhist communities.   And so occasionally I have heard remarks from some people who do not take Western Buddhists seriously (and they are not all of European descent).  But as the above picture shows, it is likely there were Western Buddhist practitioners before there were Korean or Japanese practitioners.   And yes,  indeed, it is because of Western imperialism...usurping Persian and Indian imperialism  all of which had long been rendered irrelevant by the time the Mongols arrived. 

And the history's not so important as the practice. 

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Mindful Leadership

If you go to see people speak at a conference on "Mindful Leadership," you are probably a follower.  If you think the speakers are "thought leaders" on "mindful leadership" then you really aren't being a mindful leader, even if you fork over approximately 400 bucks for the "early adopter fee."

If you think:

Workplace leadership is all about growing the business, meeting the deadline, closing the deal, and finishing the project. And the speed and pace can be intense - getting it done faster, better, cheaper and smarter. Such a work style with all its ambition and energy has its benefits no doubt, but it also has a profound blind spot: in our relentless pursuit of ‘success’, we often forget to live our lives. When we lead a career that is excessively focused on being more successful, more admired or just more comfortable, we can deceive ourselves into neglecting the world around us, where we end up managing our lives rather than actually living them. 


and you're not some guy named Michael Carroll, that's another person's narrative, somebody else's picture of a rice cake, so to speak. 

Where do you find yourself?

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

The conversation moves on...







I was sitting the first mini-retreat I'd been able to have in years  - or returning therefrom - when Joshu Sasaki died.

Brad Warner somewhere talks about saying something about Sasaki and getting a bunch of vitriol in return.

The vitriol was in hindsight reasonable to have been expected.

But...  the retreat....


We have an essence that is fundamentally empty and awake, and we can know that fundamental emptiness and awareness of subject and object, host and guest,  ailing and caregiver.  Putting all thoughts and conceptions away - including the one about putting all thoughts and conceptions away - is key to this awareness.


This awareness is very....important...it's sort of the thing that is.

In view of that, your transgressions, my transgressions, Joshu Sasaki's transgressions are not excused,  and are certainly not condoned or encouraged, but they're also ... harmonized, or in a sense "justified."  By justified I don't mean that it was in any way morally or ethically correct for any of us to transgress, but rather by justified I mean that word in the sense that the transgressions are exactly in the place and time they are in, and in the presence of boundless compassion, are not really so problematic.

It presents a couple of new koans though... such as OK, so we're all awake fundamentally, so what to do with perpetrators of transgressions, those who've done things significantly more harmful than dropping cigarette ashes on a stone Buddha?  And what to do with those who can't even get to the vantage point to be able to ask the last question?

It's why I had some questions recently about some teachers' "teaching," in response to the scandal thing.

But I must say I don't have great pat one-size-fits-all answers to those questions, and perhaps we're not supposed to have them.  Your view? 

Monday, July 28, 2014

36 Hour Tahoma Sesshin

Just enough for legs.

Very long ferry line on the way.

Clouds on Tahoma.

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

People are actually asking this question?




I find it very difficult to think that in this day and age people have to address these issues, though I'm kind of glad Warner did - though I did not read all the way through.

Though any reference to Eckart Tolle should tell you enough (though again I am supportive of the sentiments of the author of that last linked piece too.)

But...Eckart Tolle is not what Zen Buddhism is about.   As to the author of that piece writing this:


This was the case with Zen Buddhism in Japan during and before WWII, the cultivation of stillness, compassion and love can co-exist with the worst fascism and imperialism. The entire institution of Zen Buddhism – the masters, monks and professors supported the cruel and colonizing efforts of the state and emperor. They defended the “wars of compassion,” gorged themselves in killing and advocated merging the small self with the larger self of the state. This was all done within the monastical, academic and ethical systems of Zen Buddhism.


Some of it was.   Some of those folks lacked ethics and some did not.   This does not mean those who lacked a practice of ethics were not Zen Buddhists; but the ethics is a real thing with Zen Buddhism.

But let's put it this way: when one has understanding - which is one way in which awakening is put - one really can move about the world in a way to more effectively help people - or hurt them if one lacks an ethical practice.

If you're relying on Eckart Tolle for any kind of "wisdom" you already have difficulties.  Not only because of what Warner & Ms. Scofield say, but rather because things like what Tolle is saying have nothing to do with awakening, as far as I can tell.

I disagree with Warner though - meditation by itself won't save the world.   It can help, for sure, but it's in the day-to-day conscious life practice that world changing actually happens.

Monday, June 30, 2014

I'm still around...Let True Dharma Continue

It's been a while since I posted something here; there's been major "life" stuff happening of late.

I am hoping to have a substantial post next week about My Experience with Federal Jury Duty, but that won't appear before Wednesday.  But it might be a few days later.


I think there's still a need for a blog like this.  In some Rinzai based temples in the United States they still chant "Let true Dharma Continue.  [ Temple name ] become complete.  The fact that some abbots have become discredited because of scandal does not mean the invocation is a bad idea, but instead underscores the need for wholeness. 

Too, there are still points to be made about clarifying practice given the predominance of certain practices in the West and some of the statements by some of their prominent "teachers."  Not to mention points to be made in response to certain superficial "Buddhist" publications in the West.  (On the lower right hand corner of my version of the Tricycle website, there's still an ad shilling Frederick Lenz's dreck.)

And then there are the big mistakes I make and sometimes make and bake into this blog.  There's a need to get past them.

Let true Dharma Continue.


Saturday, June 07, 2014

I'm wasn't a big fan of Neil deGrasse Tyson anyway, but...

I guess there is a place for Prof. Tyson in explaining The Science to everyone.  I get that.

And I really should stop reading Salon.  But, alas, today I did:


It’s also worth noting the difference between a full conception of philosophy and the caricature of it that Tyson has in mind. When Tyson, in the Nerdist podcast, laments the fact that philosophy seems to be overly concerned with deep questions, he cites the old Zen koan, “What is the sound of one hand clapping?”
This reductio ad absurdum of the spirit of philosophy may be the root of his own ignorance of the importance of the discipline, as well as his open hostility toward it. (None of this is even to mention that he’s confusing Western philosophy with an Eastern spiritual practice.) But the perspectivism and nuance of full-strength philosophy provide the catalyst that can transmute the lead of knowledge into the gold of flourishing.


I think I will try to contact him and explain something about Zen to him...if I can't get a hold of him I will publish a response to him here.







Thursday, May 29, 2014

Sort of Buddhist, you know...

John Steinbeck: some people didn't quite like his politics in the day...

Yeah," said Tom. "He didn' duck quick enough. He wasn' doing nothin' against the
law, Ma. I been thinkin' a hell of a lot, thinkin' about our people livin' like pigs, an' the good rich lan' layin' fallow, or maybe one fella with a million acres, while a hunderd thousan' good farmers is starvin'. An' I been wonderin' if all our folks got together an' yelled, like them fellas yelled, only a few of 'em at the Hooper ranch—"
Ma said, "Tom, they'll drive you, an' cut you down like they done to young Floyd." "They gonna drive me anyways. They drivin' all our people."
"You don't aim to kill nobody, Tom?"
"No. I been thinkin', long as I'm a outlaw anyways, maybe I could—Hell, I ain't
thought it out clear, Ma. Don' worry me now. Don' worry me."
They sat silent in the coal-black cave of vines. Ma said, "How'm I gonna know 'bout you? They might kill ya an' I wouldn' know. They might hurt ya. How'm I gonna know?" 
Tom laughed uneasily, "Well, maybe like Casy says, a fella ain't got a soul of his own, but on'y a piece of a big one—an' then—"
"Then what, Tom?"
"Then it don' matter. Then I'll be all aroun' in the dark. I'll be ever'where—wherever you look. Wherever they's a fight so hungry people can eat, I'll be there. Wherever they's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there. If Casy knowed, why, I'll be in the way guys yell when they're mad an'—I'll be in the way kids laugh when they're hungry an' they know supper's ready. An' when our folks eat the stuff they raise an' live in the houses they build—why, I'll be there. See? God, I'm talkin' like Casy. Comes of thinkin' about him so much. Seems like I can see him sometimes."
"I don' un'erstan'," Ma said. "I don' really know."
"Me neither," said Tom. "It's jus' stuff I been thinkin' about. Get thinkin' a lot when you ain't movin' aroun'. You got to get back, Ma."
"You take the money then."
He was silent for a moment. "Awright," he said.



Then again sometimes doing the right thing leaves with choices that you wouldn't make if you just went along with society.  

Monday, April 21, 2014

Watch where you're aiming that thing. You could hurt yourself.

One of the best things about the internet is that it is possible to juxtapose things that in their "native" contexts would not be against one another; you can contextualize almost anything with anything.

Here's a few links today:



I could link more, but I have enough links here to make my point, or rather points:

  • Inviting the wealthy to tread a path that transforms greed, hatred, and ignorance into wisdom, generosity and love is not a harmful or bad thing.
  • That said, that path needs to involve ethical behavior.  That includes concepts of great compassion (大悲, だいじ ),  and benevolence 慈悲心 (じひしん) or  (仁、じん ).
  • I haven't taken any polls, and have no demographic information per se, but I would wager the folks who are going to those Wisdom 2.0 conferences as well as the large majority of folks working in that imaginary Oz called "Silicon Valley"  are in agreement with the above points, as well as their critics.   Why do I say this? Well, for one thing,  though I'm not "in the Valley," I am not doing badly relative to most of the country and I agree with most of the critics.  Yeah, I'm one data point, but I know other people too, evidently.    Plus, in the "Wisdom 2.0" link above there's a quote from New Age person Marianne Williamson - I suspect her tirade about wealth was not badly received, at least because the article doesn't mention an adverse reaction on the part of her audience.
Which brings me to my main point: the real, ultimate issue in the wealth disparity issue is not addressed by attacking your natural allies, just as racism, religious bigotry,  and sexual identity oppression are not addressed by attacking one's natural allies either.  It benefits an oligarch to have those who are not in the club squabbling with each other,  and I'd suspect the folks at Wisdom 2.0 aren't in that club.  That club goes to Davos, or elsewhere. They would not  stand for having the usual mindfulness suspects hawking their "wisdom."  Don't get me wrong, I fully agree; a lot of that "Wisdom" stuff is shallow, and if it takes Marianne Williamson to make a dancing monkey remark, you know there's problems.  But I don't see the point of assuming that the folks at Wisdom 2.0 are responsible for the conditions under which electronics are manufactured, at least any more than anyone else.

And even in the case of a Steve Jobs (who gets way too much credit and blame for everything, even now),  as flawed as he was, not budging an millimeter from a position seeking care and justice for all, we should not wallow in the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.  Jobs was a Buddhist.  Maybe Jobs didn't move the world in a direction that produced utopia (Nicholas Kristof has an opposing view that I don't think needs expounding here, other than to point out that  such views exist, and I abhor them, frankly.)   But that did not mean he was not a Buddhist.

And if you're a Buddhist, chances are you're still suffering as well. There's always a potential that class enemies can be identified a little too close to home, if we're in the business of hunting down class enemies who are called that because they're not the poorest of the poor, or the most marginalized of the marginalized.  

I applaud Nathan's views about the commodification of mindfulness (though he should change the word "gates" in his post to "entrances.")   I would go in a slightly different direction, and not want to posit an "us versus them" scenario, but at the same time I, too, insist that progressives actually make progress, which is what I would expect of myself in my own life. 





Sunday, April 20, 2014

Evolution and Buddhism?

Someone on the Twitter asked me about whether I knew any references regarding Buddhism and Darwin/Evolution.  It was mentioned that natural selection was kind of like karma.

Well, I'm not sure about that.  Or to put it another way, taking one aspect of science, and "comparing" it to Buddhism seems somewhat odd to me.   Contemporaneously with the question I received (more or less) there were articles in Salon about "Charles Darwin's tragic error"  and "Science doesn't disprove God: Where Richard Dawkins and the New Atheists go wrong." Every now and then Salon goes right off the deep end with junk such as this.   

I tend to be wary of the metaphors where "science" "proves" some aspect about religion.  I am also skeptical of religions that make falsifiable claims about which we don't have answers, although I suspect as well that some ethical and behavioral claims that Buddhism makes can be observed, tested, etc.  Recent activities on Twitter, especially in regards to racists and witch hunts, seem to practically shout such observability.   In the latter article in Salon above, there is a dash of anthropocentrism mixed with a lack of understanding of the nature of consciousness. 

The former article is perhaps more relevant to the question at hand.   Again, I view questions like, "How does Darwinian evolution relate to Buddhism?" along the lines of "How do Maxwell's Equations relate to Buddhism?"  Which is to say,  the science might explain some observables  about who and what's around, but, um, so what? 

The former article about Charles Darwin's "error" I think is more telling here, and more illustrative of the problem of imputing ideology to scientific observations:



Modern racism had several different intellectual sources, and only with difficulty could one say which of these was most important. I will focus here on the “scientific” strand of racism, which drew its inspiration from Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection. Several factors dictate  this emphasis on Darwinian racism. First, Darwinist racism explicitly motivated Hitler and many other leading perpetrators of the Holocaust. Second, Darwin inspired the researchers, most notably in biology and anthropology, who gave racism its aura of scientific certainty.  Third, Darwinian thought may well have been more popular in Germany  than anywhere  else during these years, in part because Germany was the world’s leading center of biological research before World War I and the Germans were exceptionally literate. Finally, Darwinist racism was the brand of racism most easily understood by the widest number of people, in part because Darwin’s theory was astonishingly simple and easy to explain. 
As Darwin’s theory gained widespread acceptance, thinkers of every stripe began to find lessons in it for understanding the politics and  society of their time, using Darwinian thought to support their own agendas. This so-called  Social Darwinism ran in many different political directions. The right-wing branch of Social Darwinism—which was not necessarily the most popular strand of it—promoted racism, justified social and political inequality, and glorified war. It also inspired Adolf Hitler and his ardent supporters to launch a world war and exterminate the Jews of Europe. 
Right-wing Social Darwinism produced several ideas that were attractive and convenient to the ruling classes of Europe and North America, and especially to Germany’s warlike and antidemocratic elites. The most important idea may have been “struggle,” the notion that all relations between individuals and between nations were defined by a merciless battle for survival. Struggle followed inevitably from the laws of nature as discovered by Darwin, and therefore had no moral significance.  The Christian injunctions to “love your neighbor” and “love your enemies”  had no place in the animal  kingdom;  neither should they control the behavior  of human beings, who were not made  in the image of God,  but rather counted  as nothing more than an especially clever type of animal. 
From these assumptions about struggle followed the argument that extreme social inequality was natural and permanent. The poor were poor because they were less fit than the rich. Charity for the poor blocked humanity from evolving to a higher plane, because it kept unfit members of society alive, allowing them to reproduce and pollute the gene pool with their inferior intelligence and moral weaknesses.  The belief in permanent struggle  also supported  a bias  toward violence  between nations, a glorification  of warfare. “Superior” peoples had every right  to conquer, exploit, and even exterminate “inferior” ones. If such aggression let superior peoples expand and become more numerous, the entire human race would  improve in the long run;  the extinction of lesser races was a cause for celebration rather than pity. In international relations, might made right: by winning a war, the victor showed that he deserved his victory, because his people were more fit to survive than were the losers...




Several points here are worth noting:

1. The author has at best a superficial understanding of Darwinian evolution; "love your neighbor," for example,  as well as other forms of altruism are indeed aligned with the notion of the "selfish gene" as Dawkins has put it.

2.  People co-opted Darwin's models outside of Darwin's field of discourse becomes "Darwin inspired" and therefore "Darwin is responsible."  This is dishonest.  If you want to put the fig-leaf of "intellectual" in front of that,  fine, but it is dishonest.  Yet people did do that. 

3. Social Darwinism is not biological evolution.  And even though Darwin's work was polluted with such co-option, it doesn't invalidate what Darwin wrote! 


The laws of natural selection are facts; to impute them as "proof" of a way of thinking is as useful as saying "it is raining now" therefore Buddhism is true.   There are a myriad of conditions, including some of which we have contributed, for which  the current weather can be explained.   Darwinian evolution, as observed, is a reflection of events transpired in environments, but it, too, is not the way. 

I will say this though: I think the two articles in Salon are an example of a certain type of greed and attachment: we want to believe we are special; we want to believe that our chosen practice is in accord with the universe(s) and by Jove, we've really got it!

Maybe we don't.   I think any good practice of the Way ought incorporate such a disclaimer, including any practice of the way associated with the writing of this post.  I.e., I might be wrong.