More on the History of Tibet

I had noted on this thread (whose topic I'd more directly addressed here) that Tibet's history was not generally well known in the US, especially amongst American Buddhists of Western ancestry who tend to idealize the Dalia Lama.

Well, the aim of this post is to help the rest of the Buddhist community in America come to grips with the complexity of the issue. I'd previously covered much of these issues here, but I think it's useful to revisit this topic.

It is my hope that this will help American Buddhists view the situation more realistically, like the way Brian Victoria work on Zen in Japan in WWII helped American Zen students be more attuned to ethics and teachers' responsibilities. Americans, knowing this situation, might be a further force for peace in this area, which, let's face it, is going to happen. How can I say that when the Dalai Lama doesn't get a chance to lead a "free" Tibet? Read on...

First of all,

[C]ontrary to the pop history version, the Tibetans did not simply let the Chinese roll over their country in 1951. For almost 20 years afterward they fought a long, bloody war of resistance that struck serious blows to Chairman Mao Tse-tung’s expansionist plans. Invisible to outsiders as it raged, this largely unknown struggle that no novelist could have dreamed up got support from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, which sponsored secret training camps and made arms and equipment drops to aid horse-mounted herdsmen against the bombers and artillery of the largest standing army on the planet.

By way of background, the story begins in the fall of 1951, when the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) marched into the ancient Tibetan capital at Lhasa, after forcing the Dalai Lama’s religious government to sign a ‘Plan for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet.’ This thin fiction of an agreement was somewhat maintained in Lhasa, but in the outlying regions the Chinese occupation involved forced collectivization and the killing of tribal chiefs and lamas.

Read the rest of the article. It's from a Western source. But as you read the article I think it's useful to keep a few things in mind. Try, for a moment, even though it's hard in the West, to see things through Chinese eyes:

• The Chinese were attacking the Tibetans, true. But given the fact that historically, Tibet was seen by the Chinese (and acknowledged at times by Tibetans) as part of China
  , and given the fact that it was the religious head of Tibet that led a separatist movement from China, it was not unreasonable for the Chinese to deal with the Tibetan theocracy as inimical to its state interests. That's just another corollary of "religion and state should not mix."
• The Dalai Lama's brother, as you read from that article, turned to help from the sworn enemies of the Chinese government, which was as much about throwing off imperialism as anything else. This was bound to permanently affect the way the Dalai Lama was viewed by China.
• The state of Tibet before the Chinese was hardly a Shangri-La, and the subsequent nepotism on the part of the Dalai Lama, you can be sure, has done nothing to assure the Chinese that there's been a real change.

The history of Tibet is quite complex, and includes acts of brutality by Dalai Lamas, (including, as Wikipedia notes, "ethnic cleansing" by the Dalai Lama's immediate predecessor). It is also evident that the very existence of the Tibetan Buddhist state itself as headed by the Dalai Lama (see here and here) is itself historically a creation of the Chinese government (as headed by the Mongols)!

That's why it's quite easy to predict that eventually, hundreds of years down the line, this Tibetan Buddhist issue will have been resolved. True, there won't be any "pure" Tibetan "Shangri-La" in Tibet, but there never was. There will be a Tibetan Buddhism, because it survives not just in Tibet but in Dharmasala and Beijing, and elsewhere. Like all Buddhism, it does not and should not depend on the existence of a "guru." The biggest "guru" in Buddhism said, "Be a lamp unto yourselves."

But let's take a step back, and do this especially as Americans. Why, oh why should there be ethnic based nationalism that we, as Americans would support today?

At least nominally, both the US and China in their own official mythologies reject such a racist ideology, though of course in practice both countries have fallen short in great degree.

And yes, today the Dalai Lama doesn't talk about "independence," but "autonomy," but when you read the fine print there's still racist implications all around. There is no reason to believe or expect that a "culture" should prevail or be given special status merely because it relates to one group of people whose group is defined ethnically.

Moreover, it's unrealistic politically and historically. Tibet's rich in natural resources, but to assume that the Tibetans (or the Chinese) have sole right to determine who will become ridiculously wealthy from Tibet's resources is an odd position, given the history.

But make no mistake about it: the Dalai Lama is to the Chinese government as FALN is to most of the US government. The Dalai Lama countenanced, or at least did not conemn a violent rebellion against what the Chinese saw as their legitimate state authority, and have historical claims to assert in this regard. The Dalai Lama's brother was a key player in this.

Would anyone in the US seriously entertain the notion of having FALN, or the Weather Underground, run parts of the US?

Lankavatara Sutra Chapter 2, Section XXXIV and XXXV

Disclaimer: I didn't get any authority to teach anything.

As usual, I'm using the translation at this link.

Section XXXIV summarizes itself, since it is a summary of what went before.

In all things there is no self-nature, words too are devoid of reality; as the ignorant understand not what is meant by emptiness, yes, by emptiness, they wander about.

In all things there is no self-nature, they are mere words of people; that which is discriminated has no reality; [even] Nirvana is like a dream; nothing is seen to be in transmigration, nor does anything ever enter into Nirvana.

As a king or a wealthy householder, giving his children various clay-made animals, pleases them and makes them play [with the toys], but later gives them real ones; . So, I, making use of various forms and images of things, instruct my sons; but the limit of reality (bhūtakoṭi) can [only] be realised within oneself.

And the king who later gives the real ones is you who realize yourself, after fumbling with these word-toys.

And I'll quote a key passage from XXXV:

The Blessed One said this to him: Mahāmati, since the ignorant and the simple-minded, not knowing that the world is what is seen of Mind itself, cling to the multitudinousness of external objects, cling to the notions of being and non-being, oneness and otherness, bothness and not-bothness, existence and non-existence, eternity and non-eternity, as being characterised by self-nature which rises from discrimination based on habit-energy, they are addicted to false imaginings. Mahāmati, it is like a mirage in which the springs are seen as if they were real. They are imagined so by the animals who, thirsty from the heat of the season, would run after them. Not knowing that the springs are their own mental hallucinations, the animals do not realise that there are no such springs. In the same way, Mahāmati, the ignorant and simple-minded with their minds impressed by various erroneous speculations and discriminations since beginningless time; with their minds burning with the fire of greed, anger, and folly; delighted in a world of multitudinous forms; with their thoughts saturated with the ideas of birth, destruction, and subsistence; not understanding well what is meant by existent and non-existent, by inner and outer; the ignorant and simple-minded fall into the way of grasping at oneness and otherness, being and non-being.

From the standpoint of the observation of phenomena, of course phenomena appear real, and they are and as far as we've been able to observe and predict, will be consistently real. The sun will vaporize what's left of the earth's inhabitants in a billion years, if we don't go Venus first.

That said, you're going to be dead, so how "real" is that? Moreover, all the categories and opinions and perceptions we have of things are indeed distorted, unreal, reproductions of what we take to be reality for the sake of convention, because that's how we've configured ourselves.

And yes, this text even is referring to itself, as well as my own comments here:

[T]he ignorant and simple-minded with their minds impressed by various erroneous speculations and discriminations since beginningless time; with their minds burning with the fire of greed, anger, and folly; delighted in a world of multitudinous forms; with their thoughts saturated with the ideas of birth, destruction, and subsistence; not understanding well what is meant by existent and non-existent, by inner and outer; the ignorant and simple-minded fall into the way of grasping at oneness and otherness, being and non-being.

"What is meant" by these theings and categories is Mind.

In the same way the ignorant and simple-minded who are bitten by erroneous views and are inclined toward the philosophers, do not recognise that things seen of the Mind itself are like a dream, and are held fast by the notions of oneness and otherness, of being and non-being. Mahāmati, it is like the painter's canvas on which there is no depression nor elevation as imagined by the ignorant. In the same way, Mahāmati, there may be in the future some people brought up in the habit-energy, mentality, and imagination based on the philosophers' erroneous views; clinging to the ideas of oneness and otherness, of bothness and not-bothness, they may bring themselves and others to ruin; they may declare those people nihilists who hold the doctrine of no-birth apart from the alternatives of being and non-being. They [argue against] cause and effect, they are followers of the wicked views whereby they uproot meritorious causes of unstained purity.

Finally, there's a note in the text that says the following paragraph should be "separately treated," most likely because it breaks with the metaphorical style of the rest of this section.

Further, Mahāmati, by setting up the three forms of measure and the [five] members of a syllogism, [the philosophers] make the discrimination that there is a reality existing by itself, which is attained by the realisation of noble wisdom, and devoid of the two Svabhāvas. [This discrimination however is] not right. [The Buddhist doctrine is this:] Mahāmati, when a [psychological] revulsion takes place in the Yogins [by the transcendence of] the Citta, Manas, and Vijñāna [Mumon's note:i.e., all mental processes], they cast off the [dualistic] discrimination of grasped and grasping in what is seen of Mind itself, and entering the Tathagata-stage attain the realisation of noble wisdom; and in this there is no thought of existence and non-existence. Again, Mahāmati, if there is the grasping of existence and non-existence in the realm attained by the Yogins, there will be in them the grasping of an ego, a nourisher, a supreme soul, or a person. Again, Mahāmati, the teaching pointing to self-nature, individuality and generality of things, is that of the Transformation Buddha and not that of the Dharmatā Buddha. Again, Mahāmati, such teaching is meant for the ignorant, being in conformity with their mentality, their way of thinking and viewing things; any establishment that favours the way of self-nature, fails to reveal the truth of self-realisation to be attained by noble wisdom and the blissful abode of the Samādhi.

Revulsion, as a result of transcendance, at all mental processes is quite a statement. Dharmatā Buddha is the one we are talking about, "Transformation Buddha" is "meant for the ignorant," in conformity with their way of thinking.

Now this can be read 2 ways, consistently:

1. It was a marginalized view when this was written, or, if you like, a new teaching. I'd said similar things about how the Lotus Sutra has statements about this, and this can't be ruled out at all from a purely skeptical standpoint, or, if you like, from the standpoint of the practicality of folks trying to sell a new religious teaching. Maybe those Big Mind folks in Utah need to write a few new sutras...but I digress.

2. Let's face it, this is not "Coke is it!" These are subtle concepts which have resisted pity interpretation, no matter which culture has examined them.

It does however explain the prevalence of Asian popular Buddhism differing in ways from what Westerners have learned based on exposure to elegant concepts such as these.

Ah, forget that; stick to "revulsion, as a result of transcendance, at all mental processes."

Not unBuddhist: Not being a doormat

Nathan at Dangerous Harvests asks a good question about the Brit Hume/Tiger Woods affair (thanks again Kyle), and it's basically whether or not this whole thing is being blown out of proportion.

Think of any domestic dispute, fight between friends or strangers, or even some international conflicts. When you look at that which sparked the eruption, it's often pretty trivial...

We fail to write a lot about on going issues like those Marcus rightly pointed to [re: crises, though I disagree with a few things], and yet we can fill volumes and volumes about Brit Hume, our "asshole" neighbor, Bill Harris, and other such story lines. It's not that the latter shouldn't be commented on, but the level of intensity around them tends to be inflated, whereas we struggle to maintain an appropriate level of intensity around issues that should have such attention, like the continued oppression of millions of people in Burma.

It is true indeed that there are indeed crises far bigger than the ones we often encounter on a daily basis. It is also true that the things we encounter on a daily basis, if not addressed, can have a corrosive effect on us and those around us, and do need to be addressed mindfully and compassionately.

Vowing to overcome the 3 Poisons is not a vow to be a doormat, but rather an outlook, sometimes difficult to execute, that involves not poisoning others as well as not being Poisoned yourself, and sometimes that involves taking a stand. It involves risk, but unless you, yourself, are in a situation that is not fraught with abuse and neglect and other by-products of the Poisons, you will continue in dukkha. The aid workers must be fed before the starving masses or else no one will be fed. One cannot be a starving aid worker. You cannot help the Poisoned if you, yourself are hopelessly intoxicated, and if you do try to help the Poisoned in such circumstances the effects of the Poison can be pretty strong on all Poisoned!

Even if you are not Poisoned, you cannot help the Poisoned and not expect from time to time that there will be a reaction observed due to the Poison. They've been Poisoned, what do you expect?

And still you have to help, compassionately, with loving kindness. And with that in mind, let's go to the Metta Sutta from Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

This is to be done by one skilled in aims who wants to break through to the state of peace: Be capable, upright, & straightforward, easy to instruct, gentle, & not conceited, content & easy to support, with few duties, living lightly, with peaceful faculties, masterful, modest, & no greed for supporters. Do not do the slightest thing that the wise would later censure. Think: Happy, at rest, may all beings be happy at heart. Whatever beings there may be, weak or strong, without exception, long, large, middling, short, subtle, blatant, seen & unseen, near & far, born & seeking birth: May all beings be happy at heart. Let no one deceive another or despise anyone anywhere, or through anger or irritation wish for another to suffer. As a mother would risk her life to protect her child, her only child, even so should one cultivate a limitless heart with regard to all beings. With good will for the entire cosmos, cultivate a limitless heart: Above, below, & all around, unobstructed, without enmity or hate. Whether standing, walking, sitting, or lying down, as long as one is alert, one should be resolved on this mindfulness. This is called a sublime abiding here & now. Not taken with views, but virtuous & consummate in vision, having subdued desire for sensual pleasures, one never again will lie in the womb.

And if Poisons come to mind, note the thought, resume the practice...

The Final Point on the Brit Hume/Tiger Woods/Buddhism affair

Besides "Brit Hume" is an anagram for "U Birth Me."

Uh, just read what Kyle wrote.

At this moment...

All I can say is that Thich Nhat Hanh captures what I want to say...or at least generally how I feel...thanks to Lin Chi/Linji...

... Someone may be able to speak beautifully about compassion, wisdom, or non-self, but this doesn’t necessarily help others. And the speaker may still have a big self or treat others badly; his eloquent speech may be only empty words. We can get tired of all these words, even the word “Buddha.” So to wake people up, Master Linji [Japanese, Rinzai] invented new terms and new ways of saying things that would respond to the needs of his time. For example, Master Linji invented the term “businessless person,” the person who has nowhere to go and nothing to do. This was his ideal example of what a person could be. In Theravada Buddhism, the ideal person was the arhat, someone who practiced to attain his own enlightenment. In Mahayana Buddhism, the ideal person was the bodhisattva, a compassionate being who, on the path of enlightenment, helped others.

According to Master Linji, the businessless person is someone who doesn’t run after enlightenment or grasp at anything, even if that thing is the Buddha. This person has simply stopped. She is no longer caught by anything, even theories or teachings. The businessless person is the true person inside each one of us. This is the essential teaching of Master Linji.

When we learn to stop and be truly alive in the present moment, we are in touch with what’s going on within and around us. We aren’t carried away by the past, the future, our thinking, ideas, emotions, and projects. Often we think that our ideas about things are the reality of that thing. Our notion of the Buddha may just be an idea and may be far from reality. Buddha is not a reality that exists outside of us, but is our own true nature...

Actively not chasing after thoughts, regardless of their appearance leaves nothing much to chase after today. Except Work and Family. Businessless business!

The Guardian's comment section goes where I was going

Buddhism beats depression...

A report I wrote for the Mental Health Foundation highlights the impressive clinical evidence for an approach called mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) – the eight-week courses have been shown to reduce relapse rates by half among people who have suffered several episodes of depression. The report also finds that very few patients who could benefit from mindfulness training are currently being referred for the treatment – just one in 20 GPs prescribes MBCT regularly, despite the fact that nearly three-quarters of doctors think it would be helpful for their patients with mental health problems. Changing that could make a massive difference not only to them, but to the economy – the cost of depression to the UK has been estimated at £7.5 billion every year.
Despite its convoluted name, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy is pretty straightforward – a set of classes that teach meditation practices which help people pay attention to their breathing, body sensations, thoughts and feelings in a kind, accepting, non-judgemental way. Mindfulness training shows us how to notice and work with our experience rather than engaging in a futile struggle to fight or run away from it. That may sound simple – perhaps because it is – but developing this mindful way of relating seems to alleviate some of the suffering that struggling with life's pain creates.
Mindfulness is especially relevant to depression, in which sufferers tend to get caught up with cycles of 'rumination' - when people get depressed they churn negative thoughts over and over in their minds, a pattern which actually perpetuates their low mood. Mindfulness short-circuits rumination – by learning how to pay attention to our present moment experience, rather than getting tied up in negative thinking about the past or future, we create more space in our minds from which new, more effective decision-making can emerge. It isn't a miracle cure – while simple, the techniques take time and effort to master, but mindfulness-based therapies are now supported by a substantial and rapidly-growing evidence base that suggest they can help people cope better not just with depression, but also with the stress of conditions ranging from chronic pain and anxiety to cancer and HIV.
Mindfulness-based therapies are fundamentally and unapologetically inspired by Buddhist principles and tools – the Buddha both noted that suffering (as opposed to pain) is created by struggling with experience and prescribed mindfulness meditation as a way of working with it skilfully. However, the B-word rarely, if ever, gets a mention on MBCT courses – their reputation in health services has been built on scientific evidence rather than spiritual conviction. This is the only way it could be – while some of us Buddhists might argue that practising mindfulness can open up insights about the nature of mind that go way beyond what can be measured in a randomised-controlled trial, the most important thing here is that techniques which reduce suffering are presented in whatever way will make them most accessible to the largest number of people.

So, while I may have oversold CBT in the post below, my point stands. Today it turns out that Barbara O'Brien's been smeared by the Family Research Council. Her repsonse on the Tiger Woods/Brit Hume/Buddhsim affiar was distorted by one Peter Sprigg.

Apparently, Hume’s apologetics require an apology not just because he violated the well-known constitutional principle of the separation of church and television (?), but because he expressed his heretical disbelief in the scientific theory that all religions are equally valuable and effective.

Odd, Buddhists have had effective techniques for combatting things like depression and phobias for millenia, and Christianity...or should I say Western culture, had to invent the field before they could reach out to Buddhism for methods relating to the cure!

Now I don't like playing my religion's better than yours, especially since Christianity is a relatively easy target, what with the sort-of filicide as a quid pro quo for wrongs presumably made against a Semitic tribal god and what-not. But let's face it, when it comes to efficacy, ...

Anyhow, here's a comment I left on the FRC post (and Barbara O'Brien's blog). Let's see if the FRC has the courage to post it on their blog:

The title of that article was “Persecution for the Brit Hume Witness.” yet I read of no lion ripping anyone to shreds, nor did I read of any beheadings, flayings, amputations, vandalism or buildings being burnt.

As far as the “effectiveness” of religions, I’ve alluded to that on my blog in the past couple of days: would Hume accept a “mindfulness” based therapy to help him deal with the grief over his son’s suicide, if it were known to him to be “Buddhist” – like?

P.S., Read and understand what Barbara says about reincarnation and Buddhism, dear Christians, before you write something that makes you look worse than foolish.

Watch PBS's "This Emotional LIfe" on "Facing Our Fears"

You can watch it here.

Note the similarity between Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and mindfulness, Vipassana, and Zen meditation practices. CBT has clinical evidence showing it works that appears believable; if asked I'll try to get links.

One wonders if Brit Hume had ever heard of CBT, and if so, whether he'd agree to it if needed or recommend it, given that it's Buddhist.

Lankavatara Sutra Chapter 2, Section XXXIII

Disclaimer: I didn't get any authority to teach anything.

As usual, I'm using the translation at this link.

Mahāmati asks the Buddha: Where, whence, how, and by whom do words indicating discrimination take place among the people?

The Buddha replies, in effect:Word-discrimination goes on taking place by the coordination of the head, chest, nose, throat, palate, lips, tongue, and teeth, and words themselves are neither different nor non-different from discrimination.

Because words rise, Mahāmati, with discrimination as their cause. If, Mahāmati, words are different from discrimination, they cannot have it for cause. Then if they are not different, words cannot express the sense, which they do. Therefore, words and discrimination are neither different nor not-different.

The Buddha continues, in response to the "reality" of words: "[W]ords are not the highest reality, nor is what is expressed in words the highest reality. Why? Because the highest reality is an exalted state of bliss, and as it cannot be entered into by mere statements regarding it, words are not the highest reality. Mahāmati, the highest reality is to be attained by the inner realization of noble wisdom; it is not a state of word-discrimination; therefore, discrimination does not express the highest reality."

This "inner realization of the noble wisdom" is the realization of emptiness, sunyata. (The root word of "noble," is the Pali ariya, also meaning "ideal" or "universal," and that meaning should be apparent from the Buddhist context. )

Finally, the Buddha notes that words, like all other phenomena, "only appear before us as something revealed out of Mind itself"

Brit Hume, Gateway Pundit, and Others Should Try Buddhism

I had only noted in passing the other day about the Brit Hume bit. Given the extent that it made a splash in my corner of the blogosphere, and given the vitriolic reactions from some righties in response to the insouciance received from Hume's advice to Tiger Woods is to abandon Buddhism I thought a bit more discussion was in order.

Barbara O'Brien wrote a touching bit on explaining Buddhism to those who ought to know better.

Several conservatives however, have actually defended Hume's remark. The Gateway Pundit's site over at "First Things," seems to have cornered the market on vitriol and bigotry. This is the link to the first post the blogger wrote on that, and this is good enough to get the feel for the, uh, Christian love. Now to the Gateway Pundit's credit he links to a piece by David Gibson at Politics Daily (though implying that it's unfairly criticizing Mr. Hume). From Gibson's piece it is brought out that Hume became more religious after his son's suicide in 1998.

I can not conceive of the personal deformation that one must endure in the death of one's child. Such a thing is horrendous to contemplate. But of course, for such suffering Buddhism does offer a path out of that hell. To one's own suffering, perhaps, one's own path. Or not. Does Brit Hume appear as though he is not resentful? Do I in this blog? In "worse times" there was quite a bit of vitriol on this blog about the horrible directions the former regime led the country. Even now, I am extremely dissatisfied with the current administration, although it is orders of magnitude better than their predecessors. But I digress, perhaps.

Buddhists have techniques for overcoming greed, hatred, and ignorance and their derivatives, even if we aren't always skillful at using them. (The Japanese have a saying, "Even monkeys fall from trees." Perhaps monkeys have sayings too.) If you look at the comments in the post I referenced from the Gateway Pundit, you'll find many commenters seething with resentment, with very few self-avowed Christians willing to actually go near the fact that Hume's remark was profoundly ignorant of Buddhism.

That brings me to my last point. It would be very good, I think, for these commenters and pundits to actually investigate Buddhism, so that they would not make such ill-informed statements at the very least. In the 1893 Parliament of World Religions in Chicago, Buddhists from Japan attended, even though the prevailing attitude there was Christian triumphalism. Teachers such as Soen Shaku and D. T. Suzuki ably presented the Buddhist case and more. And yet, the anti-Buddhist bigotry on the part of Christians persisted, and in 1896 Soen Shaku responded to a particular bit of bigotry reminiscent of Hume's uninformed remarks. Soen Shaku's remarks are telling, in that he makes a cogent case that Jesus Christ wasn't exactly a moral paragon for Buddhists:

We may grant that Jesus Christ is the greatest master and teacher that appeared in the West after Buddha, but the picture of Jesus Christ as we find it in the Gospel is marred by the accounts of such miracles as the great draft of fishes, which involves a great and useless destruction of life (for we read that the fishermen followed Jesus, leaving the fish behind), and by the transformation of water into wine at the marriage-feast at Cana. Nor has Jesus Christ attained to the calmness and dignity of Buddha, for the passion of anger.

Now truth be told, I haven't attained the calmness and dignity of the Buddha, but that's my goal at least. It does seem to me that too many of the self-avowed followers of Christ tend to emulate his lack of anger management. So in the spirit of Mr. Hume recommending what he claimed helped him, I would humbly suggest to these gentlemen and others what worked for me is the practice of Buddhism, the recognition that life is suffering, that there is a cause and a way out of suffering, and that by following the Eightfold Path one can transcend suffering.

True, I don't have Hume's megaphone, and ultimately I'm just a guy still trying to transcend much suffering and ignorance myself, but at least I recognize the need to quench resentments, and sometimes have some success.

Heard in Passing

While visiting Miao Fa Chan temple in Portland yesterday, I heard a rather intense American young man of European descent go on in a monologue, speaking to a middle-aged Chinese woman about "evolution of spirituality," how "traditions are dead," and other assorted things that lead me to believe the man had had excessive contact with associates of either Andrew Cohen, Dennis Genpo Merzel, or folks like them.

The woman said nothing, and was apparently polite, understanding that her role was straight man here, a kind of American-Chinese Buddhist Ed McMahon without the guffaws.

It was strikingly odd to me how this man went on and on and on, and just didn't seem to get it. He was seated in the lobby of a temple of a tradition, and while it is true that his species is evolving, he did not seem to be aware that the selection mechanisms of either his genetic material or religious memes were generally indifferent to his philosophy.

Human consciousness comes with built-in flaws about which even the writers of Buddhist scriptures were unaware, and it's hubris to think you've got it all figured out beyond a shadow of any metaphysical doubt. The best I think you can say is you have it all figured out as far as you can observe from phenomena.

There will have to be much unlearning in many places I think.

Lankavatara Sutra Chapter 2, Section XXXI

Disclaimer: Please understand I never had a secret chart to get me to the heart of this or any other matter. Nobody gave me any secret decoder ring, and if they did, what of it? But no, they did not.


As usual, I'm working with this translation.

This bit deals more with causality, and dependent origination, and the denseness and seemingly contradictory nature of our existence...

Nothing whatever is born or ceases to exist by reason of causation; when causation is discriminated there is birth and cessation.

(85) 141. It is not to keep off the idea of birth and disappearance which takes place in causation; it is to keep off the wrong imagination as to causation, which is cherished by the ignorant.

142. The being and non-being of things subject to causation has no reality; the triple world owes its existence to the Mind put into confusion by reason of habit-energy.

143. Not ever being in existence, what things are there that are born? [but] in causation nothing is lost; when effect-producing objects (saṁskrita) are regarded as like unto a barren woman's child or a flower in the sky, one perceives that grasping (subject) and grasped (object) are an error and desists [from committing the same error].

144. There is nothing that is to be born, nor is there anything that has been born; even causation is not; it is because of wordly usage that things are talked of as existing.

"Reality" here I would take to mean "intrinsic essence," and the "nothing that is to be born" talked about in the last verse here means independent origination. Subject and object are conventions we talk about.

Assorted Religious Things in the News

• No, Mr. Hume, Tiger Woods' religion will probably help him.
• Who is Björk anyway? Some singer, I'd guess. That said, I'm against blasphemy laws in general, for any and all religions or lack thereof.
• Nara turns 1300 years old this year. I've been there maybe a dozen times, but outside of the temples and the palace mounds, and around Naramachi, I've not been to these other areas.
• Deepak Chopra is still an embarrassment.

Do we really need a "Great Integral Awakening?"

One or the ad links on this blog brings the usual suspects together to ask, "How does the spiritual path need to evolve to serve the evolutionary needs of humanity in the 21st century?" with accompanying text:

The great wisdom traditions emerged at a time when life was radically different than it is today. The world has changed immeasurably in the past two thousand years. And human beings have changed along with it.

We are a new humanity facing a new set of challenges—and a new set of opportunities.

How can we liberate the spiritual impulse from the outmoded structures of the past, so it can guide us in creating the future?

We’d like to invite you to join us in our quest for answers.

Are we really that "new?" By "wisdom traditions" don't they mean "religions?" Just what are specific "outmoded structures of the past" from which "the spiritual impulse" must be "liberated?"

I could go into details, but suffice to say, none of the principals for whom this webinar is a pulpit actually gives an example.

I could give a few "outmoded structures of the past" from which we need to be liberated from, and I guess by extension our religious and spiritual impulses.

They would include my own structures of ignorance, selfishness, and hatred. They would include those that do not help people. They would also include structures of aggrandizing one's religion/spiritual path at the expense of others. Even if others' paths are permeated by hatred and ignorance, you cannot get them to leave that burning house except possibly with some skill.

That said, there's no reason to deny the house is burning in the first place to others, even if the children playing inside the house cannot see the flames or smell the smoke.

But if the topic is "outmoded structures of the past" from which a spiritual impulse must be liberated, perhaps examination of one's own life and behavior is a good place to start. And you'll have no need to share your e-mail address with anyone else.

Speaking of Religion, "Spirituality" and Legal Tactics...

P.Z. Myers, in his trademark blasphemous way, brings to my attention the oddest patent infringement suit I've seen in weeks. What Myers fails to seek, the really really cool part, the part that would make Bill Harris sit up, is that it's probably about stuff that's mil spec...

A Minnesota marketer of communion-wafer dispensers is accusing its former president of patent infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets. (.pdf)

The allegations in a Dec. 30 federal lawsuit come amid a fledgling market for such dispensing devices, as those receiving communion seek a germ-free environment. The handheld devices allow the dispensing of wafers without being touched by anybody but those receiving them.

What’s more, the portable devices, according to the lawsuit, “easily deliver communion to military personnel in combat situations and to people who are hospitalized, infirm or otherwise immobile.”

Among other things, Nu-Life Products of Minnesota claims it owns technology known as the “rapid reload system” for fast wafer loading and the “quad-rotator technology” allowing up to 400 wafers to be dispensed without having to be refilled.

The defendant in the case, former company president Douglas Henricksen of Wisconsin, says he never sold a single unit of the competing “Communalabra germ-free communion-host–delivery system” and that he didn’t misappropriate any of his former employer’s properties while operating a similarly named company called Nu-Life Church Supplies.

“This is blown way out of proportion,” Henricksen said in a telephone interview. “I was the person who actually designed the communion-host dispenser. I actually built the entire company myself.”

Now if they only knew about the pricing structure of Mil Spec items...

My Last Words on Bill Harris and Holosync™

NellaLou's post on the Holosync™ guy's coercive legal tactics has resulted in my thinking about my issues with whole issue of putting headphones on to meditate to something.


And those issues start with a bit that Hakuin wrote...

What is the Sound of the Single Hand? When you clap together both hands a sharp sound is heard; when you raise the one hand there is neither sound nor smell. Is this the High Heaven of which Confucius speaks? Or is it the essentials of what Yamamba describes in these words: "The echo of the completely empty valley bears tidings heard from the soundless sound?" This is something that can by no means be heard with the ear. If conceptions and discriminations are not mixed within it and it is quite apart from seeing, hearing, perceiving, and knowing, and if, while walking, standing, sitting, and reclining, you proceed straightforwardly without interruption in the study of this koan, you will suddenly pluck out the karmic root of birth and death and break down the cave of ignorance. Thus you will attain to a peace in which the phoenix has left the golden net and the crane has been set free of the basket. At this time the basis of mind, consciousness, and emotion is suddenly shattered; the realm of illusion with its endless sinking in the cycle of birth and death is overturned. The treasure accumulation of the Three Bodies and the Four Wisdoms is taken away, and the miraculous realms of the Six Supernatural Powers and Three Insights is transcended.

From p. 164, Yabukoji, in The Zen Master Hakuin: Selected Writings, Translated by Philip B. Yampolsky, Columbia University Press, New York and London, 1971.

Is Holosync™ the High Heaven of which Confucius speaks? Well... Bill Harris claims that his product allows you to "meditate as deeply as a Zen monk, literally at the touch of a button."

As I said elsewhere, buried in a comment somewhere, my response to this claim was, "which one?" Just which "Zen monk" would his product allow me to meditate in as "deep" a state?

Well, that's a ridiculous question because it's a patently ridiculous claim. It is ridiculous because, despite all the sensors you could hook up to anyone's brain to detect brainwave patterns, when it comes to Zen monks, their meditation is whatever it is!

IOW, you, dear reader, whether you've been meditating for 5 seconds or 50 years, already meditate as deeply as a Zen monk!

You don't feel it's "deep?" Well, according to the Lankavatara sutra, that is a phenomenal aspect of Mind...or should I say "Big Mind?" Just note the shallowness, and resume your practice.

You need to train your mind to do that to be skilled, and to be able to carry that over into all the crap that fills the rest of our lives when not on a zafu.

True enough, maybe Bill Harris's device might put the mind into states that Pink Floyd could only induce accompanied by chemical ingestion. I don't know. I've never tried it. But the experience of sammadhi (ざっまい), or kensho (見性) and the like are not a goal. It's not ultimately about some tripped-out state for its own sake, but rather because training your body and mind to act moment to moment in this state allows you to be in the right place at the right time with the right frame of mind to actually friggin' help people who need help. This is not to say that one does not, in Rinzai Zen, pursue meditation practice (specifically koan practice) without any hope that there will be an enlightenment experience. It is to say that it is ridiculous to think that this experience is valid unless it becomes operative in one's day to day boring old existence.

To make it operative you've got to practice while "walking, standing, sitting, and reclining," while doing so "making your whole body one great inquiry, working at it night and day", and at least in the koan practices, you've generally got to focus on the hua-t'ou, which isn't simply a verbally repeated mantra, but is the ante-word - "word before the word" or the meaning of this hua-t'ou traced back to its source.

Similarly, (and I'm not a Dogen guy as much as I once was, so Soto folks please elaborate/correct) the "just sitting" done on the cushion should be carried over into the "one act sammadhi" of engaging everything in life with the single purpose as done on the cushion.

The object of this is not at all about the cultivation of a state. None of this is about "profoundly deep (and extremely pleasurable) meditation." No quanta are leaped.

In fact it's not about getting anything, but about being to the best of your ability while you've got metabolic processes encased in that bag of skin.

Now why then does Hakuin (and the original Mumon, and others) say all this great stuff will happen if you pursue this stuff? Well, read the damn thing closely! Hakuin says that if pursued dilligently you'll be able to "pluck out the karmic root of birth and death and break down the cave of ignorance." The only place that can possibly happen is in the interstices of your everyday existence! D'uh, as they say! You see - and are empowered to act - in a way that's not the same old crap! And you're able to appreciate it! And isn't that better than some tripped out experience? Yeah, it should be 'cause that's where you live your life most of the time!

The folks who created and refined this stuff over millenia needed no voice dialogs, they needed no technology to live their lives, and the very moment they started walking on the path...bam! they were "meditating like Zen monks."

Even the lay folk were.

And that's why I think Bill Harris makes claims that are not true, and I say this as a practitioner of Zen for close to 2 decades.

New Year's Eve 2009

This has really been quite a difficult year for me personally; financially things were tight (and will probably continue to be tighter than looser for the time being), there was the lingering death of my mother, and difficulties elsewhere, but still there were great things about it.

I'll never forget my now-23 year old favorite niece talking to me as were were being driven along near Dandong, when she noted a guy skinny-dipping in the Yalu river, and noted that she was seeing the largest genitalia she had ever seen "so close to North Korea." We had the best meals we ever had so close to North Korea.

I have a wonderful family, both immediate and extended, and it is gratifying to see them come together like that.

There's special sitting I'd like to do on New Year's Eve, but it won't be around midnight, because we will have friends over.

So it will be on New Year's day.

Hollow Sync

Via a comment from the inimitable Nella Lou at the inimitable gniz place I learned that not only does "Bill" Harris not like people saying he's a liar and a scammer, but he evidently doesn't want "disparaging" things said about him, his products or the Centerpointe Research Institute [sic].

Either that or his attorney went rogue on him; but in any case, it's clearly over the top - I'd call it "vicious" behavior. Maybe somebody's brain was malfunctioning? I dunno but it sure seems like someone was being really coercive here.

I will say this: from the post in question, I would have to conclude that Mr. Harris is not practicing what I would consider right action or right livelihood. And by trying to glom onto that awful "The Secret/'Law' of Attraction" trend (as his blog notes as of today), he's not propagating anything that I know of as Dharma. That's his right, of course, but the idea that somehow his schtick is in any way related to anything "Zen monks" do is simply absurd.

My Reply to Dennis Genpo Merzel

Thanks to gniz, I was motivated to read the transcript of the podcast where Merzel discusses "Big Mind" and it seems, Big Money, to Vincent Horn.

Genpo Merzel, as per the transcript:

I’ve been using both the Big Mind process to shed light on that, but also what I call the triangle of looking at the extremes, the opposites like spirituality and the capitalistic world.

"Spirituality" - as defined by cultivation of the life force, the breath, for one's self and all other sentient beings - and capitalism aren't necessarily "opposites."

I for one labor in such a world and I have for 30 years, with a Buddhist practice for well onto 17 years.

So what does Merzel mean?

In other words if we look at a triangle and we see on one side of the triangle, we’ve got what is necessary to be in the marketplace, the marketplace mind I call it. And the kinds of things that you have to do when you are in that marketplace. And the other side of the triangle, let’s call it the spiritual mind or the awakened conscious mind,...

Merzel isn't expressing non-duality in any way I can recognize.

I’ve done a lot of work in this area around returning to the marketplace, and as you know Vince, in the ten ox-herding pictures of Buddhism, the 10th and final stage of practice is called returning to the marketplace. I think they often, what happens is that when we become spiritual, there’s a very long series of stages that we have to go through, in other words from one to ten, and it takes us a lifetime and we think very often just because we’re back in the world, we’re working, we’ve got a job, we’ve got a home and we’ve got expenses that we’re really in the marketplace world. But if we don’t take care of the shadow around the marketplace, even though we may be in the marketplace world, we’re not really in the marketplace world because we’ve got all these shadows around it. And if we really want to make a difference in the world and we really want to bring true spirituality into the marketplace world, we have to take care of our own shadows.

Because of course, the idea of right livelihood, never occurred to any other Buddhist...or rather, I should say, just where is the concept of right livelihood here???? As gniz notes, I see jargon, but I don't read "right livelihood" - avoiding harm to others, either by violence, by stealing, lying, or misuse of sex and drugs. Forget shadows, how can we avoid harm? For one thing, that's why folks created ethical constraints and practice them.

Now on that $50,000 for 5 days thing...

All centers that I know rely a lot and depend a lot on fundraising or begging. And that of course goes all the way back to Shakyamuni Buddha and the whole thing around begging. However, I think that in Buddhist practice for a very long time, there are certain issues that we’re just better to avoid.

By avoiding I mean, because they can get really messy and really sticky. Money is one of them. Earning money is another. Sexuality is another. Greed and so forth. So in the Buddhist world basically we haven’t really faced these issues and by staying in the monasteries or in the forest or in the desert or whoever we stayed apart from the world, we really could avoid these issues and not deal with them.

That simply is not hisorically the case in any of the famous monasteries, such as Shaolin-si, Tiantong-si, and any number of Japanese temples I could name. It is not likely the case in some places today in Japan, and in China it is definitely not the case, although there is official state support for some temples. True, in Japan even Zen temples charge for funerals and assorted services, and some of them have been somewhat over the top with such things.

My teacher, a descendant of Shaku Soen, supports himself and his family by selling artwork. His late brother, a real roshi, also was an artist.

So, let's say it straight out: there is no need for Dennis Genpo Merzel to be charging this money.

So, what the 5 / 5 / 50 is we’ve always had to fundraise, and we’ve ask for money but we’ve never given anything back for that money except for our practice: prayers and meditation for the sake of all beings and relieving the suffering of all beings. But, what I heard from a lot of very wealthy people was they’ve always felt that the shadow around money in Zen and Buddhist communities meant they would give a lot of money, if they had a lot of money, and I’ve known people with that, and never be properly thanked or, more importantly, anything given to them that was meaningful.

Because heaven knows that you can't thank someone who gave $50K the same way you'd thank someone who gave $5.

Although Seung Sahn was not perfect as a Zen Teacher, this story comes to mind:

One Sunday, while Seung Sahn Soen-Sa was staying at the International Zen Center
of New York, there was a big ceremony. Many Korean women came, with shopping bags
full of food and presents. One woman brought a large bouquet of plastic flowers, which
she smilingly presented to an American student of Soen-sa's. As quickly as he could,
the student hid the flowers under a pile of coats. But soon another woman found them and,
with the greatest delight, walked into the Dharma Room and put them in a vase on the altar.

The student was very upset. He went to Soen-sa and said, "Those plastic flowers
are awful. Can't I take them off the altar and dump them somewhere?"

Soen-sa said, "It is your mind that is plastic. The whole universe is plastic."
The student said, "What do you mean?"

Soen-sa said, "Buddha said, 'When one's mind is pure, the whole universe is pure;
When one's mind is tainted, the whole universe is tainted.' Every day we meet people
who are unhappy. When their minds are sad, everything they see, hear, smell, taste,
and touch is sad, the whole universe is sad. When the mind is happy, the whole universe
is happy. If you desire something, then you are attached to it. If you reject it, you are
just as attached to it. Being attached to a thing means that it becomes a hindrance in
your mind. So 'I don't like plastic' is the same as 'I like plastic'— both are attachments.
You don't like plastic flowers, so your mind has become plastic, and the whole universe
is plastic. Put it all down. Then you won't be hindered by anything. You won't care
whether the flowers are plastic or real, whether they are on the altar or in the
garbage pail. This is true freedom. A plastic flower is just a a plastic flower.
A real flower is just a real flower. You mustn't be attached to name and form.

The student said, "But we are trying to make a beautiful Zen Center here,
for all people. How can I not care? Those flowers spoil the whole room."

Soen-sa said, "If somebody gives real flowers to Buddha, Buddha is happy.
If somebody else like plastic flowers and gives them to Buddha, Buddha is also happy.
Budhha is not attached to name and form, he doesn't care whether the flowers are real
or plastic, he only cares about the person's mind. These women who are offering
plastic flowers have very pure minds, and their action is Bodhisattva action. Your mind
rejects plastic flowers, so you have separated the universe into good and bad, beautiful
and ugly. So your action is not Bodhisattva action. Only keep Buddha's mind. Then you
will have no hindrance. Real flowers are good; plastic flowers are good.

So, in that spirit, I'd say, $50,000 is good, $5 is good, whatever Chester F. Carlson gave to Philip Kapleau was good.

Soen-sa was correct here, Dennis Genpo Merzel crossed a line as I see it.

Now, truth be known, historically Zen Buddhism has not been free of issues like this either; for many times Zen Buddhist temples depended on the patronage of the rich and powerful. But many of the great masters, including Hakuin, were known more for their ability to bring the Dharma to the masses. Dennis Genpo Merzel says he can propagate the Dharma to the rest of us (me?) by giving special attention to the wealthy.

So, whatever anybody else thinks about it, this has now become our major fundraiser. In fact, we don’t do any other fundraising. This is it. This supports all the work that we do as Big Mind Zen Center. It supports all the work we’re doing with Big Mind, getting all of my talks out there and other teachers’ talks out there and DVD’s, free on TV, online, also on our Zen-eye, all under Big Mind. We go out to hospitals and programs for people with addictions and we do all this for free. We do university work, prison work. We’ve given a hundred thousand dollars this last year just to prisoners and books and forms like that. I mean, tremendous amount of support we’re able to give because of the generosity of these people. Now, there have been over 30 people to have done the 5 / 5 / 50’s.

The problem is, even if what you eventually do with the money is good (and there are issues with Merzel's teaching itself, so that is questionable) if you have in some way slandered the Dharma then it in effect doesn't matter what good you do after it; you've got 500 lifetimes as a fox. And it's kind of hard to call this necessarily the Dharma from what I've seen and read:

It think it’s placing a value on time with the teacher which is what people want that are interested in spirituality and they have this money, they need to donate it to some kind of charitable organization for their own tax sakes. And they’re getting something back in it. So, I don’t have a problem with it. Some people do because that’s their problem.

My problem is to practice the precepts, to practice mindfulness, and to help all sentient beings cultivate wisdom, generosity and compassion. While I would accept Ven. Merzel as I would anyone else, I would also insist that this scheme is unethical from the standpoint of propagation of the Dharma. Speaking of which...

Actually just let me say I take none of this money. Absolutely zero pennies of this money, do I make. All my money comes from the workshops that I have been doing with Bill Harris and other workshops that I do on my own....

Res ipso loquitur...

And finally:

We also offer so much for nothing that they really don’t have to participate. So it’s just jealously on some level that some people can afford to. But some people can afford to actually give up their home and become a full-time Zen student and the rich people and the people with children and occupations and vocations who can’t do that, don't get jealous because somebody else like myself back in 1971 gave it all up and became a full time Zen student. We’re really narrowed-minded and frankly this is the area that I’m trying to help work on, with how narrow we can be.

And you see this is the basic problem. Right here is the whole ethical issue of Dennis Genpo Merzel in a nut.

Now full disclosure: I probably could scrape up the money to go to one of Merzel's Rich People Retreats, but I never, ever will. I'm also one of those guys with a child and a wife and an occupation. And I'm quite well set thank you very much. Not only that, I'm appalled that Merzel is still thinking in terms of people like me, and people like him that "gave it all up and became a full time Zen student." Merzel's never lived my life, he has no idea what he's talking about, and I have never lived the life of any of Merzel's other critics either. But I'll say this: he has absolutely no right to criticize anyone that attempted to incorporate their practice into the mundane quotidian doings of everyday life as a lay person, and to think someone like me (or Warner? Warner? or gniz?)would actually be jealous of him. I have found challenges and rewards of practicing the Dharma far beyond whatever I could learn from Merzel in just how I speak to my son and wife, and how I can truly laugh and cry and enjoy the life I have. I have made really, really colossal mistakes, too! Complete and utterly humiliating screw-ups!
I also have a respectable 401(k) as well (though we'd like it to be quite a bit greater so we can retire with money to go cross-country & internationally). So when Merzel says things like that, I think back to what I said here.

A Real Business Guy...and Others...

Gniz also brings to my attention a couple of more Big Minders, one a skier, and one guy whose "main product is the InfoGuru Marketing Manual."


Let's talk about the latter guy, who also has coined the term "Big Mind Marketing," gushing over Dennis Merzel that he's "a real live American born Zen Master and had been for many years before he discovered this process. He says that it's the biggest breakthrough in Zen thinking in 2,500 years." Now, I shouldn't pick on this guy, because, well, he's a marketing guy who markets marketing, and any way in which he can get you to buy his product in the marketplace, well, he'll do that.

That said, I'm still reminded of a snippet I saw in "Thank You for Smoking" (the only bit of the film I'd seen) about why lobbyists do what they do. I'm also reminded of a phrase that goes something like "Right Livelihood."

Coincidentally I happened to also see at this time an article in The Economist on the influence of Peter Drucker.

...He was a genuine intellectual who, during his early years, rubbed shoulders with the likes of Ludwig Wittgenstein, John Maynard Keynes and Joseph Schumpeter. He illustrated his arguments with examples from medieval history or 18th-century English literature. He remained at the top of his game for more than 60 years, advising generations of bosses and avoiding being ensnared by fashion. He constantly tried to relate the day-to-day challenges of business to huge social and economic trends such as the rise of “knowledge workers” and the resurgence of Asia.

But Drucker was more than just an antidote to status anxiety. He was also an apostle for management. He argued that management is one of the most important engines of human progress: “the organ that converts a mob into an organisation and human effort into performance”. He even described scientific management as “the most powerful as well as the most lasting contribution America has made to Western thought since the ‘Federalist Papers’.” He relentlessly extended management’s empire. From the 1950s onwards he offered advice to Japanese companies as well as American ones. He insisted that good management was just as important for the social sector as the business sector. He acted as an informal adviser to the Girl Scouts. He helped inspire the mega-church movement. The management school that bears his name recruits about a third of its students from outside the business world.

The most important reason why people continue to revere Drucker, though, is that his writing remains startlingly relevant. Reading “Concept of the Corporation”, which was published in 1946, you are struck not just by how accurately he saw the future but also by how similar today’s management problems are to those of yesteryear. This is partly because, whatever the theorists like to think, management is not a progressive science: the same dilemmas and difficult trade-offs crop up time and again. And it is partly because Drucker discovered a creative middle ground between rival schools of management. He treated companies as human organisations rather than just as sources for economic data. But he also insisted that all human organisations, whether in business or the voluntary sector, need clear objectives and hard measurements to keep them efficient. Drucker liked to say that people used the word guru because the word charlatan was so hard to spell. A century after his birth Drucker remains one of the few management thinkers to whom the word “guru” can be applied without a hint of embarrassment.

If you have a job, especially one in today's office environment, you should read The Effective Executive, at least. Drucker's advice has many practical elements of the cultivation of mindfulness, and is one of the few business books I've found worthwhile.

Perhaps they'd like to talk to a real science/engeineering guy...

The Buddhist Geeks, did that nice interview with Genpo Dennis Merzel, which enabled Gniz to consider Merzel's responses here. It turns out the Geeks are also planning on having a "Dharma 2.0" conference in Boulder CO in 2010.

I tweeted them. I presume that means I tweeted Vince Horn, since the agenda seems to cover some of what I cover here:

* Buddhism & Technology – The information age has radically altered almost every dimension of our personal lives, our society, and economy. What impact will it have on the Buddhist tradition, and are there ways we can consciously adopt technologies to benefit Buddhist communities?

* Cutting-edge Buddhist Practices – Many Buddhist teachers are being informed directly by other pre-existing traditions of personal exploration and change. The result is that all sorts of innovate and interesting hybrid practices are emerging in the Buddhist world. Are these practices as radical as their creators claim? Or are there examples of teachers who are simply watering down the teachings of the Buddha, re-packaging them in fancy garb, and charging gobs of money for them? We’ll explore these questions, as well engage in some of the more promising of these hybrid practices.

* Buddhism & Science – Scientific explorations into the benefits of Buddhist-style meditation have exploded in the past several years. What is the implication for the Buddhist tradition, and for the wider populous?

* The Future of Buddhism in the West – Underlying all of the previous topics is a question about where we are now, and where we are heading tomorrow. With such an array of complex factors influencing the development of Buddhism today, how can we engage with the future in a way that honors the rapidly changing nature of things, and the need to act quickly at times, with the deep-rooted need to stay present with what is?

I figured, with all I have recently said about "Intelligent" "Design," (especially the Wilber kind), "Biocentrism," and other fads, it would be useful to have a real engineer (i.e., and applied scientist) with over 50 patents (or is it 60?) address some Buddhists to talk about What Science Really Is, and How Buddhism Relates to Science.

Or I could talk about Buddhism and Technology. As a guy whose work is actually in phones I use, I know something about the latter, and as a Buddhist, well, I know something about the former. But then if I went there I would go all Nagarjuna/nullity on the whole issue, because ultimately it's how you behave, it's how you practice with the other sentient beings, not things that increase our footprint and are hard to recycle.

Of course, I could also talk about "The Future of Buddhism in the West," especially given my position that whatever I've seen from the Big Names from Buddhism in the West, there simply has not been anyone like a Lin Chi, a Yun-Men, a Dogen or a Hakuin.

I could also talk about Buddhism and Western Ethics or What I Have to Do Ethically in My Job versus What Some Buddhists Do. With respect to some Buddhists, those that give away the Dharma, I come up short (well duh, I labor in a capitalist enterprise!) With others, though...

Anyway, if they reply maybe it would be useful to start a dialogue there. Worst comes to worst, Boulder's not such a bad place...