Coming soon: Buddhism and Technology: The Convergence...

In doing an admittedly not too deep dive on Buddhist Geeks, the name of one Jerry Colonna, "Yoda of Silicon Valley" came up.

And I thought...this guy gets money for this? 

And I realized that maybe a post or two on Buddhist approaches to technology and business might be useful.  And if you want that I should profit from this, well, I promise I'll make less money than that guy from this, and I won't object.  But it's not really my point, which is that this information should be available, and it's not magic, and besides you can, if you wish, compare Yoda's wisdom to mine. 

It might save folks a bunch of money.  

Heck open-sourcing some information on that topic might accelerate better quality content and services from other Yodas. (I assume that's the plural of Yoda.)  But as a minimum it might de-mystify how a  Buddhist might approach those issues that come up day to day in businesses, especially technology companies.  Those issues need not - and won't - have me deal with any specific information related to my current work, of course.   But there's some general things I've learned over the years that could probably be of use to others.

Here's some ideas bouncing around in my head:

• Your project/proposal : what is the reality and what to do about "No."
• The impermanence of technology, dreams, existence
• The right time to do something.
• The right people with whom to work.
• Resources are finite.  Just do your best.
• Every organization is dysfunctional and that's OK.

I could go on...but I think this is a good example of what I might be able to provide in this area. 

Right livelihood and knowing one's bedfellows

While I was in the middle of what I do during the day, obviously some Buddhist blogs started talking about blogging and ads and making money and such (Nathan, James Ford, No Zen in the West, etc.).  And I've got a thing or two to say in response, which I'll list in no particular order other than how  they popped into my noggin:

• Today I'm making a decent living.  I don't know how long that will last  - I guess nobody knows until they're within a factor of 10 of Mitt Romney's income.  But if you're not managing your career like you would any other asset, I'd say you're not engaging in right livelihood.
• Increasingly I find discussion about how capitalism is bad Buddhism ...ummm...tiresome. Capitalism is problematic for a host of reasons, but if you're focusing on that all the time, chances are you're not engaging in right livelihood.  You're not even scratching your foot through your shoe.
• I've had ads on my blog for years.  I have tried to follow Google's policies in this regard; I don't find them overly burdensome.  
• I don't  pretend that I'm the most morally or ethically pure exponent of Buddhism in meat-space, and I certainly would feel stupid maintaining a holier-than-thou persona here.  
• The nice thing about Google's ad policies is that I have a choice of whether or not I want to block a particular advertiser. I'll admit that it's mostly laziness that keeps me from blocking out some that might have to do with a Maharishi guy or something.  I do sedulously block ads where I feel there is a chance of a conflict of interest potentially with my current employer.  And Scientology - I block them (to the best of my understanding here).
• Nobody at Patheos ever asked me to join them. I'm shocked.  Actually, I talked about Patheos over here. It's not out of any supreme moral purity that I'd decline joining them even if asked to do so.  It's that I think it's inherently absurd to create an even playing field, a mass of "he said, she said" views when it comes to the issues involving what people call "spirituality." I'd rather not go there.  I'd rather go where I can do good in meat-space and think about how to write about that here. Mais chacun a son goût. 
• I think the Freethought blogs bit is good.  They take advertising. They do not subvert "capitalist norms." They don't have anything to prove about their own moral purity and the marketplace.
• One's bedfellows may be one's own greed for purity instead of "the system."
• Capitalism is a strong force, but unless you know how to work in the midst of strong force, you will likely continue to feel impotent.  That's still the post I really wanted to write this morning instead of this one.  Ah, so it goes.
• Update:  "Too often, we Zennies speak of liberation, but fail to risk the whole nine yards of ourselves. To place the cultures and social norms we have built ourselves out of on the fire, and let it all be burned straight through if necessarily through deep inquiry."  Bah.  Nathan, do you realize the bizarreness of this passage? Have you inquired on it? Introspected on it? Placed it in historical context? In a Buddhist context?  To put it front and center: Why do you think "Zennies" "fail" to "risk" "ourselves" qua cultural and social norms? Maybe it's because...in order to help all beings, in order to be liberated, you don't have to be the kind of guy that could see eye to eye with the desert monks who called lice "pearls of god."  Maybe, in fact, if you get into such a state, it might actually prevent you from helping all beings!

Patheos and the True Person of No Rank...

Have you ever had the fortune to meet one, or have you  at least  met somebody who's at least had a modicum of success trying to attain no rank?

It is hard because a lot of folks kind of like the rank, even if the rank is pretty meaningless.  Some people like the rank of being Buddhists so they can set that in opposition to some kind of straw-man "scientist."  (And some scientists like to point out that some Buddhists...)

Some folks want to be called European-descended, or Asian-descended, or don't care to be bothered that there are European descended or Asian descended...and amongst the two categories just mentioned there's a host of other sub-categories, too...(Asian? What kind of Asian? Laotian? Japanese? Nepalese?)

I could go on.  The "No Rank" in the title of course doesn't refer to the deliberate blindness to difference; it refers to the not making a big deal out of difference where it exists.  Sogen Roshi could make a 心 that could dance off the paper; mine ain't gonna be within a light year of that for this lifetime, perhaps. Perhaps not.  But vendors still sell me the paper and ink.

Assuming Rank or being blind to difference can cost you in the business world; I know of more than one manager who soured his relations with a company by not treating the very junior guy who met him with a modicum of respect. I can't remember how many times the gaijin　(外人) made a presentation to the locals assuming they were smarter, more capable, etc. than the  日本人 to whom they where presenting.  Deals have been soured because  vendors have perceived the customer as "Other" or because they became just a bit too aggressive and assumed to much of the customer.

All of which is to introduce - briefly - why I find the whole thing about Patheos more overblown than not, and  not because of the "Asian Thing." (What kind of "Asian?" Tibetan? Chinese? Is that a distinction or not?)  But because its kumbayasity is also creating a rank where none need exist.  The people who might ban the practice of Buddhism in the United States or fly planes into buildings or launch drones into places where they might kill innocent people aren't going to take the stuff at Patheos seriously.  Yeah, they won't take my blog seriously either; you got that right.   But I don't really pretend that it would; like I've said numerous times, the purpose of this blog is to more or less help in the struggle of memory against forgetting, and as a kind of practice in itself.   If somebody reads this and figures out that that they can still suck at 99.9% of what they do and perhaps improve, today, this moment some 0.01% of their life, perhaps in that moment their lives and the purpose of this blog can be made worthwhile.  And sometimes, - heck perhaps often - despite what this Ph.D. says,  it is profoundly difficult work of vital importance to change that 0.01%. (Kierkegaard was right - sometimes somebody's got to come around to make everything difficult.)  

I think the mission of Patheos is doomed to failure because it takes its "mission" too seriously to include that which would pop its bubble of inclusive self-righteousness.  Patheos's mission limits itself to the point where it excludes the very real fact that some folks are going to be jerks on the highways, including but not limited to yours truly on a bad day.  It excludes Kyle the Reformed Buddhist (sorry Kyle, but the "Men's Right's" movement reminds me too much of the He-Man Woman Haters Club to be taken seriously, even though I will grant that there are real issues with presumputions of the law and unequal treatment of gender that does give men the short end of the stick at times.)  It might include me; in fact I'm sure it would, but the reality is the work and the reward and the fun and the true changes that can be made are elsewhere for me.  I wish the folks at Patheos well, but when the Buddhist folks move en masse to the Next Big Spiritual Place (can the Huffington Post be far away?) well, re-read this.  Not to say the Patheos folks might not do some good, but as long as the on-line sutras and other stuff are elsewhere, I've no real need to poke around there very much.

Spiritual Materialism, Teaching, and Working at a Company that Makes Televisions

I, like so many others in the American Buddhist convert community, don't particularly look forward to the Christmas season.  As I was dining with my son yesterday at a Chinese restaurant (that will be open on Thanksgiving), I noted that Christmas music was already playing in this most un-Christmasy of places.    It is like North Korean propaganda - with sleigh bells.  For a month every year the United States turns into Christmasland; it's true.  And the whole damn country's transformed into this Republic of Shopping.

And it's also where retailers make 40% (or more)  of their revenue for the year. It's partly what helps fund my livelihood, and partly what helps fund Barbara's livelihood. (That is, the NY Times Corporation, last I checked, owns about.com, which in turn enables Barbara to blog there.  And indeed the NY Times does depend on advertising revenue at Christmastime for its revenue.)

As are often such confluences, I read Nathan's post yesterday, after working with one of the newer Wing Chun students, and without going to to much detail about that, suffice it to say that I, a guy who's managed a team of 6 or so for a number of years, walked away with tremendous respect for the way sifu is able to deal with a wide variety of personalities. 

So, like it or not, I feel compelled, within the narrow confines of this cyberspace, to put in a word for, uh, the Christmas season, as a guy in my position, and as a guy who understands that it's hard to deliver criticism sometimes that positively must be delivered to an audience not particularly willing or interested (or even aware that they need) to hear it.  But this is one of those things - I've had a few lately - where a "noble silence" is but spiritual materialism.

So here goes. Nathan writes:

The way I see it, one of the mechanisms of a consumerist culture is to instill inadequacy in people so that they will want more, and buy more. And I think over the years, this inadequacy runs so deep in many people that they feel compelled to give others something of monetary value - often large monetary value - in order to feel ok about the relationship. You want to have a happy spouse - you better give her an expensive ring. You want to have happy children, you better buy them the latest video game machine. You want to keep your friends around, you better buy them some fishing gear, or a new dress, or something worth something.

That is likely true of a number of people who do this -and I know a few - but they don't know that they're doing this, and were you to tell them, well, words related to "sanctimony" might come to mind. And - to go a little further, people I know, people very near and dear to me - like to shop, not because they're greedy materialists any more than the next person, but because they like being part of an event.  And that's where they are, and the teaching you can give them is by being the teaching. 

So far, I'm sure Nathan might agree with what I'm writing here. But let me continue:

What I see in the folks buying cheap flat screen TVs, ugly sweaters, ties, useless plastic nick-nacs is a failure to experience love. They love their friends, family, and lovers, but what they are mostly expressing is a need to keep the relationships, to be a "good person" who gives to their loved ones. Sometimes, there is guilt there. Sometimes, there is a sense of duty there. Sometimes, there's a hope that whatever they give will appease their loved one for awhile. But all of it goes back to staving off that feeling of inadequacy, of not "being good enough," for awhile.

Those who actually allow themselves to experience love know how to respond to their loved ones. They override what the dominant culture is telling them to do, and listen for the opportunity to give wise gifts, and then do so. And if they give during this time of year, they do so having reflected upon their loved one first. 

 Nathan, I submit, it talking from where he is.  But where he is, he's frankly not aware of the motives behind those who make the flat screen TVs, sweaters, fashion products, etc., nor of the people who sell them and buy them.   That's the plain, hard cold truth.  I say this because Nathan goes on to say:

...Releasing judgment of the individuals in your life is vital. That's a core part of a spiritual path in my opinion. However, I also believe that those of us who see the deep damage being done by excessive consumption - the economic yo-yoing, the human exploitation, and environmental destruction behind those TVs, Old Navy shirts, and whatnot - must learn how to express ourselves better with those who don't see it. We must be brave enough to share what we have learned, and share our wishes for the world, with our family, friends, and lovers, even if it causes confusion and upset in the short term...

As a guy who's worked quite a few years where I do, let me provide some information, to share what I've learned, so to speak.  First of all, pretty much any major electronics company - I'd say including Foxconn, though I don't have hard data on that company, admittedly, only my own experience - any major electronics company is deeply concerned about environmental and labor issues.  They have to be, because, even if they're greedy capitalists on the take running the outfits (and by and large they are capitalists, but they're more like "us" than not), even if they're only interested in the profit motive, they do see expensive litigation as a possible side-effect of not making environmentally friendly devices and making sure that the labor conditions are as beneficent as they can be given their corporation's fiduciary commitments to their stockholders.

As I noted earlier I recently bought an iPhone 4s.  What some might not realize is that the packaging of the 4s is even more recyclable than the 3Gs I had before it, which in turn uses probably 100X less plastic than the earlier iPhones.  My company's products are designed to be recyclable - yes, the electronics themselves are designed to be recyclable. I can't think of a company at all today in the business that uses lead solder in its devices - companies like mine are always on the lookout for leaving a smaller environmental footprint, unless there's unscrupulous or ignorant rogue employees in places (and yeah, I'll concede that point).  But companies sure as hell have huge economic incentives to be more "green" and they're not simply putting in lip service here.

Regarding clothes, I'm afraid they wear out, and most folks do their yearly shopping for their clothes this time of year (except of course for summer clothes).  Clothes that don't wear out so easily must be manufactured to do so, and cost 3X -and more - to the stratosphere on up if you care for greater reliabilty.

I say this as a guy in the top 10% of incomes - I'm the 99% too, believe me - that the economic ecosystem in which we currently function is designed this way, and it is simply imponderable to me how, without major disruption and economic dislocation how anything but a gradual reform of the way in which we make, use and acquire things can happen. And folks in that business are doing their bit in this regard, perhaps not as fast as many would like, but it's there as surely as there are Zen Buddhists in the Marines (sorry Jordan for the tangential reference).  If you think the folks at high levels in Apple still don't wince at the scandal of Foxconn,  you might consider how you are like the Koch brothers.  (But please click through the last link; I'd hate to out of my own distorted self-righteousness deprive you of the pleasure of Matt Taibbi on a tear.  But Taibbi actually gets the conundrum of Jobs and Apple and Foxconn better than a few.)  I agree with folks like Naomi Klein that the basis on which society functions must change, and the endless expansion of capitalism must end.  And I vote and contribute money for that. The capitalist enterprise finances in part, its reform.  It's why I'm proud to be a contributor to the technology in an age where the monopoly of information and its dissemination has been smashed to pieces. Christmas shopping season helped make that possible.

So have a good Thanksgiving, however you choose to do what you do today, and in this season.  But remember the folks working and shopping at Wal-Mart (yeah, I avoid going there) are humans like you and you've got meet them where they are, and if there's any teaching you have to offer, make sure it's in your marrow first, and only offer it through your being.

That's all.

Boycott the Huffington Post

Visual Art Source is on strike against them. And in an update they've filed suit against the Huffington Post...

And here's their inevitable Facebook page.

I haven't linked to them for at least about a month now.

Much of their site is woo-laden nonsense. And void forbid they actually talk about, uh, cults such as MSIA. Some of us remember a book called "Life 102."  Some of us remember that lawyers were involved. Too, I can get by without seeing reposts of articles by Robert Reich (what's he doing there?) and folks like him.

But if you're concerned about right livelihood, you should not allow Arianna Huffington to walk away with many millions of dollars while she's stiffing those who work to make her site successful.

So...

• Don't link to the Huffington Post in your blogs. Drive their traffic way, way down, until this is settled.
• Don't even click on any Huffington Post article or the site itself. Arianna gets her revenue for the site just like any other paid advertising site, including this one: by selling ads. 
• Spread the word.  Make a mention on your blog, Facebook page, on Twitter, etc.  I'm not one for following internet memes/viral stuff, but if there's one thing that ought to be made as viral as what Glenn Beck might have done to that little girl in 1990 it ought to be this. It's one tiny thing you can do to make the world a better lace. 

I admit, the Huffington Post has at times been great fodder for explaining Buddhist concepts by contrasting what they put up with what I've observed and learned.  But if people are hurting for income, especially in these times, it's time to level the playing field a bit.

Useful Practice and Its Professional and Amateur Enemies

The title of this entry's a bit overblown, to be sure. It's taken from a book by Ivan Illich (which, oddly enough is not mentioned on the Wikipedia entry on him;  for more background on the thinker go here; start with Deschooling Society. )  The book from whose title I morphed into the title of this post is "The Right to Useful Unemployment and Its Professional Enemies.")  I thought I would visit this question because of recent posts on the subject from Brad Warner and Nate, . dealing with the question  of whether "Zen teachers" should be accredited in some way or not.

The reason I've quoted Illich above is because the  relevant and salient point Illich makes in his writing  is relative to the whole question of profession, and how we in the West have tended to turn "professions" into a kind of mystical priesthood, with a division between those who "know" and are "trained to know" and those who are recipients of that grand knowledge conferred by the priesthood of professionals.   In particular, Illich noted a couple or three decades ago or so, that the idea of a medical profession often result in people not actively taking responsibility for their own health. Yep. I read it in Illich first.  Too bad I lost the book.  I have no idea where it went, but if he had heard that he probably would have been pleased to hear it.

I tend to view this whole question of profession, qualification, and what-not from the perspective of my own déformation professionnelle: I am a "Doctor of Philosophy" in Electrical Engineering.  I am not, in the legal sense, a "Professional Engineer."  I can design communication systems, queuing systems a signal coding and processing systems, and   control systems.  I can  balance a portfolio according to some predefined risk/loss criteria, predict and estimate all kinds of things.  I've done all of the preceding. I cannot, at present, sign off on your building plans or even the wiring used in your house (though I've put wiring in my houses, thank you very much).  

As a systems engineer with a heavy focus on mathematics, operations research, statistics, and what-not the thing that ties all the aforementioned things together (which involve all kinds of things technical from natural resource  or space exploration to genetics, for Void sakes) is they all have expressions in the common language of mathematics.  One of the  ongoing frustrations/problems/"challenges"  of my work though is explaining and convincing to others who do not have this training that these analogues exist, allowing for new research opportunities.  It is often not understood that training in a specialized area such as I have means that training is highly adaptable to a number of areas.  But it is not readily adaptable in other areas: Even though much of my research work was very heavy on theoretical statistics even today I can only read about 2% of the papers in the Annals of Statistics.  And I am not trying in any way to minimize my responsibility for the aforementioned frustrations/problems/"challenges":  I not not without responsibility for shaping my organization's future; I am a part of that organization.

In a nut, the "professional" training and education I've achieved has given my very narrow - and yet broadly applicable - skills. It's useless for skydiving - or even designing a parachute.  To get back to "Zen teachers," then, let's consider what  Brad Warner writes:

Zen is not in the helping profession. Zen teachers are not professionals.

A Zen teacher is someone who has chosen to do serious work on herself or himself. Our experiences in doing this work on ourselves can be useful to others. Many of us allow other people to join us in this work. Those who join us in this work may very well be helped. And most of us will try our best to help them when we can.

But fundamentally a Zen teacher is not a professional who helps students who are non-professionals in exchange for compensation. The so-called “students” are actually companions in work that is being undertaken by both teacher and student. The only real difference is that the teacher is someone who has done this work for a bit longer than the student. Yet the teacher is no more advanced, because the concept of “advancement” is an illusion.

This is why I refuse to accept students. I do not wish to share my work with anyone who defines herself or himself as my student. That would be unfair to both of us. Such a person is only a hindrance to me. They get in the way of what I need to do. Frankly, students are a nuisance. Furthermore, their attitude of viewing themselves as students is a hindrance to them. It’s such a hindrance that it makes it impossible for me to help them even if I wanted to.

Zen teachers are not in the helping profession. That would imply that we charge money to people who come to us to be helped, the way a professional therapist does. It would imply that we promise to help heal them in exchange for that money, the way professional doctors do. It implies that we promise them concrete results from our paid efforts to help them, the way professional lawyers do. No decent Zen teacher I know of views what he or she does in that way.

I am doubtful that one can be a "teacher" if there are no "students." But that fits with my own "teacher's" point in that there is no teacher.   On the other hand,  Warner's not entirely incorrect here: "Zen teachers" are like swimming coaches, or perhaps martial arts teachers: they are also perfecting their skills as they try to impart what they know to others.  If you're not trying to impart what you know, then I can't really think you're a teacher, and if you are ignoring those to whom you're trying to impart your experience of "serious work" on yourself,  I can't really think you're a teacher.  All the rest is form, and form has its place where it has its place. And I personally do think it has its place in the fact that a Buddhist clergy is needed to minister to a sangha.  But also, let's face it: if you wanted to learn how to scuba dive, you'd want to learn it from someone who would teach you how not to get the bends.  If you wanted to learn to fly, you'd best learn it from a guy who already can fly.  And in a very real sense, Zen training is just like that.  So you'd want to know that the person from whom you're learning is good at a Zen Buddhist way.  But, unlike PADI certification or whatever the pilot's certification society is called, you, dear reader, will ultimately have to authenticate your "teacher."

There's a real problem with errant Zen teachers, entrenched organizations, and the very real fact that the great innovators in Zen have often been outsiders.   I've written in the past that the student authenticates the teacher as much as the other way around - and I qualify that to note that I agree with my "teacher's" saying that "There is no teacher."  Ultimately, this way though is about "your" way - and making "your" way is not isolated from the 10,000 things and All The People.

Warner makes another point with which I agree: you can't charge for this service. So I largely agree with Warner, but I do think that some form of a meta-sangha - to coin a phrase from cojoining Greek and Sanskrit - is necessary.  But I think the whole "professional Zen teacher" thing is an entree into all the abuses we've ever seen by clergy of all kinds of religions.  "Zen teachers" should be able to support themselves  and should support themselves and their families in ways separate from their official clergy function.  If they're hermits, that's another story.  And mention of hermits brings to mind the wild sexual escapades of some cloistered monks I have been told about second hand.  That's why to me, why they're another story: (as well as solitary hermits).  I'm sure there's  solitary hermits and monastic communities for which "outside means to live" does not apply; maybe it doesn't even apply for a majority of such communities.  I'm sure those monks who still beg for a living have a few of them that haven't become cynical in the original derogatory sense of the world.  But then again I'm not qualified to sign off on your building plans. I know what I know.

Nathan writes:

One thing I wonder, as someone who experienced the drift towards professionalization in the Minnesota adult basic education (ABE) field, is the longer term impact. Many of those in the beginning days have been focusing on the benefits - such as teachers having more formal education and training. However, in the case of ABE, the potential negative aspects are either being downplayed or just can't be seen yet. The increased focused on ABE professionalization has come in almost direct response to a rise of high stakes testing that few in the field support. How much of the decisions being made about what constitutes an ABE professional are coming not out of a creative and diverse understanding of the field, but out of a fear that "not professionalizing" will doom all the adult education programs out there?

Which brings me back to American Zen teachers. Is the drive to professionalize Zen teaching coming from, at least in part, a fear that not doing so will doom Zen in America? And if so, is that a wise place to approach all of this from? 

And that's a good point: if the goal of all of this is to keep something, to gain something, or the like, then this motive should be examined: if the keeping or gaining is not in the service of all beings, what's the point? Or to quote Martin Buber (maybe it's only a paraphrase): If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am for myself only, then what am I?

That ought to enter into the conversation as well.

So maybe the "solution" is an "organization" that promises exactly none of the "benefits" of professionalism, doesn't certify anyone for anything, but still propagates information related to "Zen teachers" for good or for ill.  Maybe to a certain extent that "organization" already exists: it's part of humanity.  Or maybe it doesn't.

Career advice, right livelihood, Zen economics, or, dude, you're not a kid anymore.

Ven. Warner is concerned about his economic situation, as are we all.   Meanwhile, because of some warp in the space-time continuum, for some odd reason, I'm doing so well in life I get to spend an evening with Leonard Cohen,  and purchase a stainless steel double edge razor.   It might be interesting to juxtapose things here.

First, thinking of Cohen, here's a guy who at the age of 73 wound up with most of his money gone, because of a wrongful action, evidently, on the part of someone with a fiduciary responsibility to him.   He went on tour, and has been doing that for 3 years now.  I'm sure he clears more in an evening than probably Warner makes all year.

What does Cohen have that Warner doesn't have?

Next, consider the Feather All Stainless razor.  It comes from a company that makes real stuff, no gimmicks except quality.  Despite the ridiculous price (which it's not, if you compare it to the price of the original Gillette double edge razor in today's dollars) , it should be paid for in about a year or so, based on current blade consumption.

Yeah, there's a quid pro quo here.   But both "sources" of stuff from which I give my money, to my way of thinking, are themselves engaging in "right livelihood." Both have carefully honed and managed their crafts, and managed to both make it in the marketplace and develop a product that's basically better than alternatives from a moral/ethical standpoint.

And how is my work fitting in here?

I work in a field that changes rapidly, and I work hard to be on top of it,  and to do so in a way in which my practice is expressed in the workplace - I simply do not have the time nor lack of responsibilities to do otherwise.  I can't spend ump-dee-ump weeks a year sitting in retreats - my retreat is helping my son with his homework, and making sure he gets to where he needs to be on time.

And believe me, workplace practice is serious business.  It is possible - hell, likely - that in a few years I'll be doing something in a different field in terms of product categories that are of interest to my employer.  It is also possible, as with all employment these days, that I might need to look for a job at some point.  Luckily, or thanks to the efforts of all I know including myself, or both or neither, I have a sufficient set of skills that would be of interest in a variety of areas.   But believe me, it was something I thought about years ago.

So my advice to  Warner is simply practice where you can find it.  If the marketplace is not buying your crafts and teaching,  get a job.  Warner's in his mid-forties, if memory serves me right, and though he's single,  the inexorable laws of biology, economics, and actuarial science will mean that unless the guy has any kind of a nest egg or unless he dies early, he will, at present rates, be in poverty in his old age.  And trust me, if you're not doing this in any real way you're in trouble if you life in the US, and least until the revolution comes.

  Maybe Bernie Glassman can get him a gig in Hollywood.  I probably won't be going to see "Tron: Legacy,"  though.  Sorry Jeff & Bernie.

More on Ditching the Gillette Razors & Mindful Shaving...

I have blogged about the above topic here and here.  I am continually re-amazed at how, at the age of 53, only now, am I truly shaving and appreciating it - it is a mindful forming of how you appear to other people.   The only "problem" still is that it takes a bit more time - still about 15 minutes for me.   But I feel as though I have decoded the Rosetta stone or something.

I am also a bit peeved, though, that double edge razors are not commonly available in stores - only via the internet.  It's simply amazing - basically 3 companies control all the shelf space for shaving in my locale, and they have evidently decreed that no double edge razors - which can provide the best, most comfortable shave - are not to be sold. 

Still,  there's something about this business I never appreciated - the raw power of a tiny piece of metal being so sharp.  It might be something in my genes (the above character is for "blacksmith," which is kind of my heritage).  But whatever, this stainless steel stuff is an amazing material.  So much so that I decided to spend way too much money for my Christmas gift from my wife to myself  on what is in essence an heirloom, the Feather All Stainless Razor.  (Oddly enough, though it's about 1/2 the price of what you can pick one up for in Japan.  It is a celebration of stainless steel.  And it will, with minimal care, last for, uh, centuries.  You can sterilize the damn thing in an autoclave - try doing that with any non-stainless steel razor.

Sitting the full lotus

I have kind of a confession to make: 99.99% of my sitting over the years, I have been doing it in either 1/2 lotus, 1/4 lotus (the best I could manage to do kekkafuza  (結跏趺坐)or seiza (正座).  Recently, though, because of my swimming exercise and somewhat more healthy diet, I have been able to do 結跏趺坐 as full lotus.  For the longest time I could not do it, and then one day I tried it, and I could do it.  Amazing are the side effects of losing weight and being in shape.

And let me tell you: it makes a difference.

In addition, it seems to be remedying somewhat a bit of lower pain I'd had in my back.

Somebody on this Brad Warner post suggested this Tai Chi exercise might help.  Maybe it will; it is quite a bit like swimming.

If you do 座禅 you should try to get your body slowly over time to be able to sit in this position, if at all possible.

Yoga poses such as Warner recommends here might help, too.

I think that an important aspect of Right Livelihood, whether you call it a "Gate of Zen" or not, is being in shape.  You can sit full lotus.  You can move furniture and over-packed luggage that previously required assistance.  You can sleep at night. It seems to help with anger management.

Prejudices, Stereotypes and Preconceptions

Nathan says:

[M]y own experimenting, and the sometimes interesting reactions I get to it, show that it's kind of easy to get hung up on forms, forgetting that forms are skillful means that may or may not fit the situation at hand.

 Nathan's right. People function with a HUGE number of stereotypes and preconceptions.  And the problem is, it's ridiculously easy to see how they are operative in other people.  On the other hand, we, (in the sense of "We are not amused," a.k.a., the Royal We) do not have any.  None at all.  

Right?




In fact, we believe we can even see through our prejudices, stereotypes, and preconceptions, even if  we did have them.  Which of course, we don't.

Hell,  we practice Buddhism, right?

Even if we notice ourselves conforming, operating, or reacting to some  prejudices, stereotypes, and/or preconceptions ("PSP") we can alleviate the effects of the training and conditioning that give rise to PSP with our zazen and mindfulness, right?


Can not you see where I'm going here?

My Review of the Feather Razor and Razor Blades

I don't think it's too far fetched to review razors on a blog medium in which others review books and movies, do you?

Anyway, the razor and blades I ordered arrived.  And the phrase "Holy crap!" is resounding in my head.


If you have never shaved with something like this (or, I guess, a straight razor) you haven't ever shaved. In your life.   Of course I'm sure aficionados of straight razors same the same about me.  But still...

These blades from Feather really do come from a company that makes surgical knives.   Apparently the area's famous for samurai swords too, I've read. 

The experience of shaving with a device like this is simply amazing. You have to apply about 10X more pressure with the standard American multi-blade razors to get anywhere near the shave you get from one of these double edge razor blades from Feather.   It takes a bit more technique than the current crop of Gillettes and Schicks, but the results  are as good or better.  Better: I'm easily able to shave places that I could not before.  As good: Full disclosure: I nicked myself once.  I usually score about that much with conventional  multi-blade razor blades.

It does take a bit longer (right now) than I'm used to,  but I can't believe I gave myself such a close shave, feeling almost nothing. 

Right Livelihood: Ditch the Gillette Razors

One of the benefits of the practice I've had was, regarding my buying habits,  the beginnings of a formation of a "middle way" that avoids neither profligacy nor niggardliness.

A while back I was at a conference, and discussions with people seemed to support my suspicion about Gillette razor blades, namely: every time they introduce a new, non-backwards compatible "shaving system" it seems the quality of their existing "shaving systems" declines.  This I also suspected because of my knowledge of how certain integrated circuit companies function: they regard their factory as a product as much as the stuff they peddle in their commercials.   When they have a "new" class of products they get substantially re-tooled factories, which, because it's money allocated, means that at least in the short term  factories for existing older products might get less attention. In fact, once the costs of the re-tooling of the factory have been amortized, there only needs to be on-going funding of the factory such that it can be related to cash-flow. So I suspected that this might be the case with "shaving systems" as well.  I mean, other than the website Gillette has, do you see much advertising for the Mach-3 system these days? I had been buying the junk for years, "upgrading" to "systems" that were more and more difficult for me to use, as I seem to start to notice facial hair in places where previously I either took no notice or, I guess, grew there.

But with the recent entries from the division of Proctor and Gamble, I decided enough was enough.  Why am I paying so much for plastic with tiny bits of metal, that is so bulky it now has to include  an "edging" blade?  Have you any idea what the markup on that crap is?  How the hell is that crap recyclable?  P&G it seems haven't traditionally put much thought into the entire life-cycle of the materials they use, and those multi-edge blades are a case in point.  Most telling, though, go to any local Walgreens, Kroger, or what-not, and see if you can find a classic double edge razor.  I've not had any success in my neck of the woods, though the stores do sell some blades. Gillette of course got into this proprietary "shaving system" model precisely because double edge disposable blades could be made well, cheaply,  performed well, but didn't make a huge profit for them.   These "shaving systems" major purpose is to make money for Gillette, without any great benefit.

So I've ordered the stuff above.  Reviews of the product seem to indicate that I might be able to get 4 shaves per blade, which could cost me around $1.30 per week, which is substantially cheaper than even the competing Schick products.  The reviews also state that the blades are as sharp as you can get; they're made from a Japanese manufacturer of surgical knives. Plus, it has a smaller environmental footprint as it uses less plastic, as the plastic that might be used in the case (not sure if it even is plastic, but supposing it is) is separable from the blades themselves.  The only "downside" seems to be that I might have to be more mindful shaving, but then that's actually an upside, isn't it?

It is wonderful to see possibilities for living more simply and frugally, but living better.  So I may not be able to live like a samurai, but I can at least shave like one.

Gold: Economic Samsara

Whether it's wampum, dollars backed by debt or gold, it's all a product of the little-m mind.

The price of gold has been rising as anxious investors cast what amounts to a throw-the-bums-out vote against, well, just about everything.

The weak dollar, the volatile stock market, the lackluster economy, the yawning budget deficit, the accommodative Federal Reserve — all this and more have people rushing for gold...

And while gold is the most obvious example of this trend, other commodities are rising, too. Wheat, copper and cotton all soared on Tuesday.

Nor is gold fever restricted to hedge fund managers wielding billions of dollars. Individual investors have also been clamoring to get in on the trade, scooping up gold coins like one-ounce American Eagles and South African Krugerrands.

“People are coming in to buy 50 or 100 coins at a time, which is pretty hefty for individuals,” said Mark Oliari, chief executive of CNT Inc., a Massachusetts coin broker. “It’s not just rich people, either. A lot of people are putting 30 to 35 percent of their net worth in gold; they are scared to put money in paper assets.”

Signs of gold’s renewed appeal have been building for months, as well-known Wall Street figures like George Soros and John Paulson piled into the metal. JPMorgan Chase even reopened a long-closed vault below the streets of downtown Manhattan to meet investor demand to store the stuff...

Since the depths of the financial crisis two years ago, gold has risen 91 percent, and it is nearly a third higher than just one year ago, according to Janney Montgomery Scott [which is an investment firm].

While gold has touched new records in nominal terms, when adjusted for inflation the price remains 40 percent below its real record high, which was reached in 1980. What is surprising economists is not the rise of gold prices, but the speed of its ascent.

As a result, even longtime gold investors, like [Abhay Deshpande, a portfolio manager with First Eagle Funds], worry that the current rally might be overdone. “It’s beginning to smell a little like the beginning stages of a bubble,” he said. “Either inflation has to pick up or currencies have to plunge to justify a continuing rise.”

Armageddon is very fashionable in the United States these days.  A great deal of faith-based folks are going to get burned by this.  Full disclosure: I own some of the ETFs related to this mania, but they are by no means the entirety of my nest egg.  But I've seen these ridiculous price-rises myself, and it is yet another bubble.  Like anything else, too much of their being burned will have been the result of actually believing the stuff that appears in their minds as a result of other stuff appearing in other people's minds, and those other people telling the first group of people what to do.

If a moral code is not "utilitarian" according to some performance measure, what the hell good is it????

As a systems engineer (communication systems, that is), I likely have a few things that I do not agree with in Sam Harris's new book,  “The Moral Landscape,”  if the critical review in the NY Times Book Review is to be believed.

In particular, I'm not quite sure a  "purely" scientific explanation can be found for "the moral code."  As I think I've written on this blog before, in systems engineering, particularly in the areas of control systems engineering, there are critical concepts of observability and controllability.  A system is observable if all its states can be observed; that is, if the states can be determined from measurements.   States are those values or conditions of a system that given its history (perhaps only a very limited history) and given an input, the state of the system in the future can be predicted.  Likewise a system is controllable if for any desired state condition there exists an input to bring the state to that point.  In short, it is not clear to me, even if human beings can be reduced precisely to meat machines, that humanity and moral choices are completely observable or controllable, in which case the moral landscape or code will not only always be complete, but complete in a defective, non-trivial way as opposed to those aspects of natural numbers of which Gödel wrote.  In short, there will be unanswerable and debatable questions.

Having said that however,  (and having seen Harris on The Daily Show last night)  I would take issue with the position of the NY Times reviewer, Kwame Anthony Appiah.  Appiah writes:

Harris means to deny a thought often ascribed to David Hume, according to which there is a clear conceptual distinction between facts and values. Facts are susceptible of rational investigation; values, supposedly, not. But according to Harris, values, too, can be uncovered by science — the right values being ones that promote well-being. “Just as it is possible for individuals and groups to be wrong about how best to maintain their physical health,” he writes, “it is possible for them to be wrong about how to maximize their personal and social well-being.”

But wait: how do we know that the morally right act is, as Harris posits, the one that does the most to increase well-being, defined in terms of our conscious states of mind? Has science really revealed that? If it hasn’t, then the premise of Harris’s all-we-need-is-science argument must have nonscientific origins.

In fact, what he ends up endorsing is something very like utilitarianism, a philosophical position that is now more than two centuries old, and that faces a battery of familiar problems. Even if you accept the basic premise, how do you compare the well-being of different people? Should we aim to increase average well-being (which would mean that a world consisting of one bliss case is better than one with a billion just slightly less blissful people)? Or should we go for a cumulative total of well-being (which might favor a world with zillions of people whose lives are just barely worth living)? If the mental states of conscious beings are what matter, what’s wrong with killing someone in his sleep? How should we weigh present well-being against future well-being?

It’s not that Harris is unaware of these questions, exactly. He refers to the work of Derek Parfit, who has done more than any philosopher alive to explore such difficulties. But having acknowledged some of these complications, he is inclined to push them aside and continue down his path.

Now at first glance it appears Appiah is making an objection similar to mine, but I don't think so.  "Science" hasn't "revealed" a moral code (I cringe when someone like,  say, Deepak Chopra uses phrases like "science reveals." It smacks of those miracle organ enlargement/reduction pill ads). True, but can we know another's well being?

Uh, that's what we Buddhists call compassion.  We can't knowthe "well" being of another in its entirety, but we can get that the beings we see and of which we have experience, either directly or indirectly, had existences and senses and experiences as total to them as ours are to us.

In the sense of the transcendence of the suffering of all beings, the moral code of the Buddhist religion is indeed a utilitarian outlook.  And regardless of the toy problems raised by philosophers, the existence of the Buddhist moral code,  by its mere existence, without bombast, shouts an indictment of all alternative moral philosophies, as I see it:  If a moral code is not "utilitarian" according to some measure of "goodness" what the hell good is it????  If it is not utilitarian according to some measure of goodness, then it must follow as night follows day that such non-utilitarian moral codes are themselves morally inferior in a utilitarian sense to any such code that does have a performance measure. 

And on that point, I can agree with Harris, even if I think Harris is overly optimistic about the prospects of science. 

No matter, we humans have evolved a certain degree of compassion and empathy.

Update on Lynne Twist

Regarding Lynne Twist of "Soul of Money," as Duff pointed out in the comments on the post below, she has apparently been involved in the questionable "Hunger Project."  Rick Ross reproduced the original Mother Jones article on the Hunger Project. (Mother Jones has part of the article here.)

The Hunger Project is technically a separate legal entity, but in fact it functions as a recruitment arm for est. The experience of Hunger Project volunteers confirms this. From the moment she first went to the Project's offices in San Francisco as a volunteer, reported Lori Lieberman of the Center for Investigative Reporting, members of the Project staff concentrated on recruiting her to est. "I was greeted by Tracy Apple [a local Hunger Project staff and est graduate]," she recounts, "who immediately asked me whether or not I had undergone the est training. When I said I had not, she reassured me that that was okay, but that it 'would be easier for you to work around the office if you do take the training because we use a different language and different ways of communicating around esties.' Pressure to take the est training continued throughout my five-hour stay. I discovered only one other person among the 20 or 30 people that I encountered to be a non-est graduate. She was an office worker. And as I was sitting in the bathroom, I heard two other women office workers harassing her because she had worked at the Hunger Project for a month and still refused to take the training. They said she was 'uncooperative, closed-minded and had a narrow perspective.' I was later asked to provide my car to chauffeur some out-of-town est officials around the city several days later.

"I was also struck," Lieberman adds, "by the emphasis on Werner Erhard. Everything was 'Werner says.' When I expressed confusion to someone about the way the Xerox machine worked, she explained that I 'really ought to study this machine because Werner says we all ought to get clear about how machinery works so that it doesn't control us.' "

Another Center for Investigative Reporting staffer volunteering at the Hunger Project described a similar experience. The effort to pressure him into taking the est training, says Dan Noyes, was as important as Hunger Project business: "When asked Tracy Apple if est was important, she said 'I personally recommend it, but it's not essential. It will help you understand the Hunger Project and the man who created it. T's the greatest thing that ever happened to me.' Although she was careful to say that est was not essential to the Hunger Project, she then proceeded to pressure me to sign up for the two-weekend seminar, saying it cost $300. She asked me when I had a free weekend and sat down to call and find out when the dates of the next Bay Area sessions were. I said I would think about it.

"The next time I came in, I saw Tracy Apple. After saying hello, the first thing she asked was 'Have you decided about your training yet?' She told me that I had to have the $300 enrollment fee by the next day. She called to arrange for me to go down and enroll. When I went to a special est guest seminar the next week, I was surprised to see that it began jointly with a Hunger Project seminar. My general impression was that there was no difference between the two." Hunger Project staffers expended so much energy trying to get Noyes to join est that they neglected to collect his Hunger Project enrollment card or to convince him to contribute time or money to the Project.

Such pressure in recruiting new est members comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with the organization. Est has monthly enrollment quotas and staffers are put under enormous pressure to fill them. "Werner once put out a list of ways to recruit people to est," explains one disillusioned former est staffer. "You would not believe the lengths staffers were asked to go to get people in the training. F someone called est by mistake, you know, a wrong number, you were supposed to not hang up but to try to recruit him. You were supposed to recruit your lover, your mate, your friends, your family, the milkman or paper boy. It was incredible." According to another former staff member, Werner explained the purpose of the Hunger Project as that of increasing enrollments in the est training. 

It takes quite an penchant for indifferent to one's fellow human beings to exploit hunger for one's own ends. Speaking of that, go now and read the NY Times magazine article on Plumpy'nut.

見性: It's not about experience tourism at all

Brad Warner writes:

Kensho (見性）means "seeing into one's true nature." In some circles a kensho or satori experience is held out to be the greatest thing a Zen practitioner can hope for. Lots of Zen folks drive themselves to have one of these great breakthrough moments. The literature is full of different words for these; "opening experiences," "enlightenment," "awakening," the list goes on.

This is, of course, the premise behind the whole Big Mind® scam and other similar abuses of Zen practice. I can't remember what the other teachers and participants said about these experiences, but I can give you my opinions, informed by what I heard last week.

It's not that there can never be any value to such experiences. You can find value in any experience. It's just that afterward it's just like any other cool thing that happened to you. "Dude! You shoulda seen the sunset I saw in Maui when I was totally high!" or "I banged the captain of the cheer leading squad/football team/both at once when I was in tenth grade!" or "I had the biggest Enlightenment experience ever in the world!" are all pretty much the same thing. They're just events from our past that we latch onto in order to define ourselves.

Enlightenment experiences are particularly good for this. In fact, they may represent the ultimate among all ego trips. What could be bigger than being one with the entire universe? What could make you more massive and heavy and ultra super duper rad and cool? Nothing I can think of, that's for sure.

It's not hard to induce some big ass experience. Tonen O'Connor, one of the Great Sky teachers worked in the theater for many years before she became a Zen teacher. She said that this was their stock in trade when they put on shows -- exciting people's emotions and giving them an experience they'd remember...

While Mr. Warner's spot on with the issue of Big Mind, I'd like to respond to this from my own tradition and point of view and experience.

And in my point of view, experience, and tradition, I'd say that Mr. Warner's completely lost the point of 見性, and it follows from there that he doesn't find it all that useful.

OK, the point of 見性 is not simply to collect an experience, and it is, I'd submit, not possible to get by suggesting someone into it. (That  is yet another another problem "Big" "Mind." But you should know that from what's been scrawled all over the blogosphere - all you get is thundering silence if you ever ask the question, "Is there anyone outside of Genpo's immediate lineage who would sanction a "Big Mind" "enlightenment?")  見性 is homework you have to do yourself; you can't cheat by looking into the nature of the boy sitting next to you , to steal yet another line from Woody Allen.

And what the heck is it good for? You can flash on it whenever you want.  No, seriously, it has been emphasized, at least in the Rinzai school, that real practice isn't about simply sitting on a cushion, but it is about carrying, realizing, and "being" (in a sense that "to be" is done with active voice) the practice  wherever you are, wherever you go, wherever you find yourself.  The whole damn point of the culmination of zazen is that the practice enables to be genuine, and genuinely compassionate, kind, caring, and, uh wise,  when the situation not only demands it (i.e., all the time), but also when the consequences of screwing up are especially severe.  Now this is in no way to say that this can be done, after decades in the cushion all the time, but then again, how often does even the best pitchers pitch a no-hitter? 'Cause that would be the apt comparison to those who think that because one understands their innate Buddha nature that one should be perfect.

But it seems to me that Warner, no doubt because of his Soto background, goes a bit too far in being dismissive of 見性 experiences.   That experience is not simply an experience "from our past that we latch onto in order to define ourselves."   It is (a little) more like the experience of going from training wheels to realizing that you don't need training wheels, except in this case you realize you never actually needed training wheels. (And indeed, there are people who have learned how to ride bicycles without ever having used training wheels.)

Once you realize you can ride a bicycle, you can go places you could not before.  

The Warnerites might say that there's fundamentally no need to ride a bicycle, and in a sense that's true, but from my standpoint it's irrelevant, because of all the stuff I've vowed to do, which includes but is not limited to saving all beings and restraining my natural impulse to exhibit naked rage towards them.

Now  the "Big" "Mind" folks would have you believe that this Mind Vehicle can be learned to be ridden in a morning, before lunch, but the reality is it takes unceasing practice actually get good at bringing the practice in to the tiniest interstices of your existence.

So that's my rejoinder to Warner.  He'll keep writing what he writes, and I'll probably keep writing something like this every now and again.

Possessions, accumulaton and capitalism: it's not just about not craving stuff

I saw the article on the Tricycle Blog, "Buddhism, Money, and the Recession:  Where to Invest?" and thought it was another column, perhaps, on moral investments that one can make.  I was incorrect...

Nevertheless, as I began working with the experience in my practice I realized that if I can’t let go of some pictures, music, and writings, then how can I possibly prepare for death?! Contemplating this I saw something much more important than anything I’d ever seen on my computer screen. (As for the computer itself, it only took about a month of hard work and thrifty living to replace it.)

When looking back at all this, I feel tremendously grateful to be a Buddhist, and to have been instructed on the dangers of attachment, material and otherwise. I have never invested in stock or property, but instead, in study and practice. For happiness, joy, comfort, and entertainment I look to loved ones and friends—or just the interesting and odd happenings of my neighborhood in Brooklyn, and not to ownership, consumption, or accumulation.

Now before I begin please don't think I'm criticizing the Tricycle blogger or the Tibetan Buddhist nun personally...but rather this is my response to the "stuff" post there, from a guy with my background.

Everyone in society has a form and function.  I make, statistically speaking, a pretty good salary; I'm in my peak earning years. My salary is not stratospheric, but it's not poverty level by any means.   I'm saving both for my "retirement" and my son's education.  There are algorithms for saving and investment; there are procedures, projections.  Given a certain amount of money at a certain amount of time, given spending rates, etc. there will be a result that gives how much will be available.   The algorithm is relatively fixed; at my age it's not something I think about all that much; the algorithm is in play.   I read the Big Picture blog and other economic news.

At work,   I have to act on behalf of all beings, and in the capacity of my particular job, that includes those on my project, my managers, my corporate patrons, my company's customers, and all people in the world. (Yes, we really do think that way.)   That cannot include abjuring all salary increases because it might involve...money!   That is because all the beings above have economic interests too, and if that doesn't look exactly like a zero sum game (i.e., let's put all the competitors out of business so  they starve!) it certainly does not mean that all the folks I work with should be poor either.  The famine relief workers need to be fed first. Of course, once fed, they better damn well relieve the famine!  But, unfortunately, a starving famine relief worker is as useless to relieving famine as one who is morbidly obese to the point of immobility.

I heard this Lama that is linked to in this blog post, and it's giving me the impression, of a person saying, "See how much I've got because I don't have anything compared to those other people?"

Understand what I'm saying?   If you've got responsibilities, it behooves you not to live as an ascetic. It would be irresponsible and egoistic to pretend to such things, and would be destructive to those around you.  The Buddhists, to their credit, leave this aspect of Siddhartha's life relatively intact.  Unless you have an existential trauma that compels you to leave family, friends and responsibilities, dammit, live up to  your family, friends, and responsibilities!

And if you are a monastic, don't think that in some way you've got something that other people don't.  

And if, by age, demographic, and economic circumstances, you make or don't make a certain amount of money,  it's not a virtue; its your age, demographic and economic circumstances!  If you are making what's appropriate to those circumstances, and they are effecting all beings well, very good.   But don't assume that a guy in a trailer or a mansion is fundamentally different.  Or even that he has more or less attachments.

Right livelihood is something else.