Vacation Reading

Mark Chu-Carroll reminds me to read a paper recently co-authored by intelligent design creationist William Dembski, "The Search for a Search - Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search," which while not published in the IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, was published in IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics in September.

This is of import because intelligent design creationists generally haven't produced anything worth printing in a respectable journal, and this paper makes appeals to intelligent design creationism within it (but evidently its appeals are essentially "on a set of measure zero" as folks like me are wont to say).

More recent stuff on this by Dr. Chu-Carroll here.

I'd like to understand the issues behind it, to know bad science better.

Coming soon: Back to the Lankavatara Sutra

This has been a bit more difficult to get back to doing than the Lotus Sutra, but given its finitude, it should only take a finite time to get it done...

Early Buddhist Art and American Beer

Barbara O'Brien at the About.com Buddhist blog brings us the story of an apparent link between 2nd century Buddhist art from Gandhara and a quantum physics theory based on Borromean rings. Borromean rings are an arrangement of three interlaced rings, no one of which can be taken away without breaking the other two.

The jist of the story is proof of something conjectured decades ago: "[Russian physics researcher Vitaly] Efimov theorized an analog to the rings using particles: Three particles (such as atoms or protons or even quarks) could be bound together in a stable state, even though any two of them could not bind without the third."

Of course that means there's a link between early Buddhist art and American beer...

Not spiritual the way they mean it...

I think the word "spiritual" is a great word, provided that it's use be confined to what the word originally came from: having to do with the spirit, i.e., the "life principle" of human beings, and yes, to the religious aspects of furtherance and cultivation of this life principle. Taking religion as the cultivation of a discipline in support of this life principle, one can indeed be spiritual without all the nonsense (note to self: write a post on bowing and how that's not nonsense.)

But too often people want to make the spiritual into something else, usually with much darker aspects. Among them an appeal to "the spiritual" might be an appeal to empower narcissism or another means to control people. I don't want to say too much more but similar ideas go through my head when I read this and this blog, and I can cite literally hundreds of other examples throughout the net. I don't know the subject of the blog personally, but I suspect from what's written there that there's a great deal of stuff that needs to be dissolved away, in much the same way as lye can be used as a means for dealing with the dead.

I practice in the Zen Buddhist tradition because I have personally found that taking refuge in this manner provides refuge, and allows me to provide an iota of comfort to those I am sharing my life with instead of no comfort at all, when I make the effort to be mindful enough to do that. I don't have time for grand schemes (beyond what I'm paid to create). An older guy at work said, "At this age, all the news is bad..." That's not quite true of course; at his age grand kids' growth events, and kids career events pop-up. But all the medical news about one's self isn't particularly good after a certain age (I'm not there yet), and as a practical matter it's good to have a game plan so that not only is material comfort preserved, but so is one's sanity.

Having said all that, I do have to agree with Shinzen Young that the practice of mindfulness and related activities does give one an awareness of being in the midst of the sacred. But it truly doesn't do a damned thing to change your status or you in life one smidgen. We have to work at not being a jerks regardless of whether you have or have not experienced enlightenment.

So please don't try to peddle any ol' Kosmic Debris as "spirituality." There's too many hurting people out there, and you could be hurting yourself with your own cure.

And besides, you're not going to capture the sacred for anyone else, so try not to pretend you "have" something they don't.

"Dark Matter" discovered?

Well...who knows...at some point Buddhist monasteries may teach this. But right now, the US still has something to contribute in physics...

For 80 years, it has eluded the finest minds in science. But tonight it appeared that the hunt may be over for dark matter, the mysterious and invisible substance that accounts for three-quarters of the matter in the universe.

In a series of coordinated announcements at several US laboratories, researchers said they believed they had captured dark matter in a defunct iron ore mine half a mile underground. The claim, if confirmed next year, will rank as one the most spectacular discoveries in physics in the past century.

Tantalising glimpses of dark matter particles were picked up by highly sensitive detectors at the bottom of the Soudan mine in Minnesota, the scientists said.

Dan Bauer, head of the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS), said the group had spotted two particles with all the expected characteristics of dark matter. There is a one in four chance that the result is due to some other effect in the underground detectors, Bauer told a seminar at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, near Chicago.

This is indeed a pretty big deal. I remember from my college Advanced Physics course that one alternative to "Dark Matter" involved the universe being itself a giant black hole (which perhaps it is).

We are indeed privileged to live in this time as Sagan "sang" elsewhere; it is likely within our lifetimes that we will discover in habitable planets, and other aspects of science that are key to our existence.

Welcome to the New Look of the Blog

Not as bad as before, is it?

This ain't my door either...

Via The Worst Horse, "Zen Conservatism" ain't exactly my cup of Dharma either.

Maybe there are 84,000 doors to the Dharma, but this ain't mine

I'd never heard of the "Dharmapalooza" stuff, (see blog posts here too).

I guess that's what the kids do these days. :-)

Seriously, though, Buddhism as I've encountered it is thoroughly permeated by the kind of existential bleakness found throughout Sartre: we take refuge because it's a storm out there, and a storm that might seem to be the Wehrmacht coming through your neighborhood sometimes¹. And we're largely stuck. There's no exit.

That is essentially my appropriation of the First Noble Truth of Buddhism. In my appropriation of this, the First Noble Truth is noble only 'cause it's followed by three others...which thankfully help bring back life, color, flowers, warmth, cuddling, puppies, smiling children, and a host really Nice Things that would melt even Martha Stewart's heart...which would leave an awful mess and then we'd only have to clean it up.

But I digress...

I can understand that adults younger than me, who are (thankfully for them!) living different lives than I do, are at a certain stage in their lives where they are drawn in passionate ways differently than my passions do (or one might say our karmas are different).

But I have to ask: have they never felt like life was all gray and bleak and it's always going to be this way, and the difficulty in bearing it requires (nearly) superhuman strength? Of course my war metaphor is just that - I have never actually known war, but I have known unyielding ignorance, unwarranted abuse, and a host of other things that are suffering first hand. Negligibly small compared to what others have experienced to be sure, but not exactly a bed of thorn-free roses.

I know there are Boomer ex-hippies who did the Eastern Religion Thing as dilettantes, as tourists, and bridge and tunnel seekers on their way to the megachurch or congealed cynicism. And some did get serious. Thankfully I was a bit too young for the more nonsensical aspects of the generation, but the being a bit too-young, being way too young for the muddy kumbaya of Woodstock had its effect. In addition, I was clearly influenced by the fact that New York culture in the 60s and 70s couldn't but remind you of the Holocaust (and I later found out that despite my not-being Jewish, at least some of my relatives in Europe didn't fare so well with the Nazis either).

Likewise, I guess I'm too old for the Burning Man ecstasy fueled rave nonsense, and ways in which it translates back into the younger Buddhist culture. And of course it's likely a dance to avoid the fact that it's hell outside.

With the deaths that happened this year (not just my mother, but also some in the Zen community) it has become woefully clear to me that my generation (or subset between Boomers & Ravers, I guess?) is now the one that depends on propagating a Dharma that actually helps people.

It can be a Wehrmacht out there, and I'm sorry but guided meditations that gets you to imagine NonDual Big Big Mind...can only help so much.

There's a good chance you're going to have to help your kid at crunch time, when the artillery's metaphorically pounding out there.

The kind of mind that can help then is far more important than song and dance.


____________________________________________

¹ For a good idea of what I'm talking about, read Russia at War, by Alexander Werth. For some people this wasn't just a metaphor, but the awful reality, and for some people this reality was created by unconscious collusion with others, both as a historical outcome of WWII, and as echoes created later in their lives or foreshocks created earlier in their lives and passed down to children.

A good find on Zen and WWII

This link on Warner's blog on various topics has a comment by Harry which links to a bit that really should be kept. It has to do with a Zen teacher, Kodo Sawaki, and his role in World War II. Evidently Brian Victoria has a mistake in some of his scholarship, and ...well...read the whole link for yourself. These quotes do not - do not in any way exonerate anyone of the horrible things that happened as a result of Japanese imperialism in the war. But I do post them here to illustrate that we should have caution that we might be overly receptive to any and all criticism that might be supported by prejudices. It's easy to say, absent of what's written below, that of course Brian Victoria must be right; the Japanese did horrible things in WWII, Victoria had access to the Japanese historical materials, etc. Victoria's response printed there, instead of admitting a mistake, seems to be moving the goalposts a bit. Of course folks like Sawaki were fervent supporters of the war. But that does not mean that all supporters of the war were bloodthirsty ghouls who supported vivisection and the worst excesses of the Japanese military. So perspective is necessary. Even for Victoria, we should have compassion. It's damned difficult to walk-back from one's labors sometimes.

「私などは日露戦争に行って腹いっぱい人殺しをして来たが、これが平常だったら大変な話だ。此の頃新聞に、どこそこの敵を殲滅したとか、機銃の掃射をしたとかよく出ている。まるで掃除でもしているような気がする。残敵掃射などといって機関銃でシュウッとやるのである。これを銀座の真ん中で遊んでいる奴を、動物掃射などと云うようなことをやったら大変なことになる。昔の戦争は、今からかんがえるとよほど風流なもので、一発一発パンパンと弾を射ったものだ。如露で水を撒くように機関銃でバラバラやったり、大きいヤツをドカンドカンと落としたり、毒瓦斯で一ぺんにやったり、そんなに荒っぽくはなかった。私も得利寺で敵を落とし穴に追い込んで殺したことがあったが、それでも罰を食わなかった。その上に恩給を貰ってしまった。それだから人を殺したらいつでも罰になるとはきまっていない。罰にするとかしないとかは其の規定によるのだ。この規定は人間がこしらえるのである」
（オリジナル版『証道歌を語る』４１４頁、１９４０年）

I would translate that into broken English as something like:

"i went to the russo-japanese war and killed people until i had my fill/enough of it/my stomach was full [hara-ippai, "gorged" - in the German version of "Zen at war", they have an expression that means "we just couldn't get enough of", which is quite wrong, as "hara-ippai" means the point where one has enough], but if you think about it soberly/normally/in peace [heijo], this is a serious matter [taihen]. today the newspaper writes about the extermination of the enemy or how we clean [sosha] them away with machine gun fire. that almost sounds like everyday household cleaning [soji]. they fire their machine gun and call it "cleaning away the remains of the enemy". imagine that would happen in the midst of the ginza: people getting "cleaned" as if you were shooting animals! it would be a serious affair. compared with today the former war was old fashioned [furyu]. We shot only one bullet at a time. That was not so gross like shooting your machine gun as if you were spreading water with a watering can, or throwing big bombs, or poison gas. i also once killed enemies at the battlefield of Baolisi, chasing them into a hole, and i was never punished for it. i even received monthly payments as a veteran [onkyu] after i came back from the war. that means that you do not always get punished for killing a person. it depends on the regulations of the time if you get punished or not. but these regulations are made by men."
[from the 1st edition of sawakis comments on the shodoka, 1940] ...

「この不殺生ということは、どうしても仏教のいう無我というものが徹底しなければ、徹底するものではない。我というものを前提に置いたら、必ず、相手を嫌うことになり、これを殺さんならんことになる。それ故ここは、『法華経』の諸法実相ということが徹底すれば、前にあるものが仏さんであると思うて、これが殺せぬことになる。だからここに徹底するなら生死透脱ということもいわれる。・・・・・そういう人が戦さをすれば、敵を愛すること味方の如く、自利が利他にあっている。別にむやみに敵兵を殺すとか、そんなことはありゃせん。また掠奪するということなどもあるものじゃない。これが戦さをするとその土地の身になってやる。その土地の住民をできるだけ保護してやる。また戦術の方からいうても、その土地の人民を保護してやれば、その戦さは必ず勝つべきものである。また捕虜を大切にするということは、戦術の上からいうても、その方が得なのである。最後の勝利はそのものの上にある。己の命を捨てることは、鴻毛の如く、人の命を哀れむことは、己の如く。ここに人と己との境目の尽きたところが初めて不殺生戒なのである。だから法華経の『三界は皆これ我が有なり、その中の衆生は皆是れ吾が子なり』。ここから出発すれば一切のものは、敵も味方も吾が子、上官も我が有、部下も我が有、日本も我が有、世界も我が有の中で秩序を乱すものを征伐するのが、即ち正義の戦さである、ここに殺しても殺さんでも不殺生戒、この不殺生戒は剣を揮う。この不殺生戒は爆弾を投げる。だからこの不殺生戒を参究しなければならん。この不殺生戒と云うものを翻訳して、達磨はこれを自性霊妙と云った。」

Read as a whole, Sawaki is not saying that throwing bombs is in itself a perfecly good way of keeping to the Buddhist precepts, so Zen monks should go ahead without hesitating and kill as many as possible, but rather quite oppositely: When people have to go to war and kill people, they should still try to keep the precepts in mind when they throw bombs etc. They shouldn't let themselves allow to be carried away by excitement, as he did when he was in the war. They should stay aware of the contradiction (killing an enemy that you are supposed to identify with) and try to make the best of it, i.e. not killing enemies thoughtlessly ("killing one's fill", as Sawaki has done himself during the Russo-Japanese war), looting, other violence (rape?). When he adds that "even from a military point of view" this makes sense, he does not say that soldiours should keep to the rules only to "ensure victory", as you claim in your e-mail to Dan. In my opinion, he first tells the soldiours to care for the people, and only after that, to back up his claim against criticism, he says that this makes sense "even from a military point of view". This is supported by the following quote that Matsuoka makes (Sawaki saying in 1943):

物には重点がなければならぬ。人間にも重点がある。これが無上菩提である。戦さまでして人間を殺して最後の無上のものを求めぬならば、フウケモノ（実のない奴、愚か者）ばい。勝ちさえすればよい、負かしさえすればよいというが、それから先に何があるか。私はそれから先が大切じゃという。これが正法眼蔵である。
（１９４３年７月提唱『返照』２５６号）

My English:
"things have a gravitational center. human beings also need to have a gravitational center. if you go to war and kill people but don't seek for something final, something that goes beyond, you are an empty person. people think it is all about winning, about not losing, but the question is: what comes after that? i think only that what comes afterwards is important. and that is the shobogenzo."

THAT mind isn't THIS Mind...

A good debunking of the idea of "Biocentrism" is here... with a "but" or two...

In their recent article in The Huffington Post, biologist Robert Lanza and mystic Deepak Chopra put forward their idea that the universe is a product of our consciousness, and not the other way around as scientists have been telling us. In essence, these authors are re-inventing idealism, an ancient philosophical concept that fell out of favour with the advent of the scientific revolution. According to the idealists, the mind creates all of reality. Many ancient Eastern and Western philosophical schools subscribe to this idealistic notion of the nature of reality. In the modern context, idealism has been supplemented with a brand of quantum mysticism and relabeled as biocentrism. According to Chopra and Lanza, this idea makes Darwin’s theory of the biological evolution and diversification of life insignificant. Both these men, although they come from different backgrounds, have independently expressed these ideas before with some popular success. In the article under discussion their different styles converge to present a uniquely mystical and bizarre worldview, which we wish to debunk here...

Note that "Mind Only" Buddhism doesn't say that your mind - that thing in your head - creates reality, but rather that Mind, universal mind, is everywhere...

The nut of what is the problem with Robert Lanza's Biocentrism is this:

Lanza questions the conventional idea that space and time exist as objective properties of the universe. In doing this, he argues that space and time are products of human consciousness and do not exist outside of the observer. Indeed, Lanza concludes that everything we perceive is created by the act of perception.

The intent behind this argument is to help consolidate the view that subjective experience is all there is.

We don't say the subjective is all there is, that there is only the subjective, but rather that the objective and subjective are interdependent.

Read the rest of the article though; from a scientific perspective it's spot on.

Perhaps it's my déformation professionnelle, but I have long believed that metaphysics should stay in the metaphysical realm, but that what we have do to in this world of phenomena must be phenomena. And of course, as a guy with some knowledge of probability and random processes, it is absurd on its face that to go around and equate "uncertainty" with complete subjectivism, when what we observe is a predictable uncertainty.



(HT: Myers)

Boat: Leaking. Capatain: Lied

I'm not happy with recent events in the health care reform area; people need to have a modicum of health and security to work without anxiety. It is one of the crude aspects of American culture that many people take a ridiculously simplistic viewpoint of motivation of people.

Furthermore, there are people, such as social workers, teachers, charity workers, and so forth who deserve "Cadillac" health and retirement benefits, because the pay in those fields is abysmal and will be while capitalism runs wild.

Speaking of Spiritual Hucksterism

Ray Comfort's name almost doesn't need mentioning. Would it surprise you if it turned out he was a plagiarist?

So the fact that it seems Comfort doesn't want people to talk about "Dr. Dino" Kent Hovind on Comfort's blog seems to have a context.

This all doesn't really matter to most of us, but there are folks that are keeping people financially afloat, and to this end there is suffering in the world created by such flim-flammery.

Nobody's mug is sacred...

Despite what some folks would have you believe.

For all the charges and counter-charges that have been raised during the crisis — including vote rigging, the rape of jailed protesters and the plotting of a velvet revolution — each side seemed to agree that burning an image of Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the state who is revered as divine, was going too far.

The opposition has rebutted charges that its supporters were responsible for the trampling, ripping or burning of images of Ayatollah Khomeini that were broadcast on state-controlled television after student protests spread across the nation on Dec. 7. Thousands of students clashed with Basij militia members at universities across Iran, in the largest protest rallies in months.

Since then, state television has broadcast images of the damaged pictures. None of the videos showed clearly who was responsible.

Zen Care...

It's a good thing to put mindfulness in hospitals, though it's no substitute itself for medical care.

Thoughts on Teachers and Ethics

This post by Gniz made me think about putting into the blogosphere some thoughts that have been swirling about my head for some time now.

• Dharma transmission, inka shomei, whatever you want to call it, must not be very important relative to how you live your life. Some of the most notable teachers didn't have certificates, scrolls or what-not saying what a great realization they've had.



• Corrupt and immoral teachers do not - cannot - invalidate the way. Your way is your way, and you're still empowered and condemned to be on it, no matter what folks say. While some would certainly make the same arguments for Christianity, and in a sense I would agree with them, the presence of corrupt teachers in and of itself cannot invalidate the truth of one's way. The truth of one's way as a Christian versus as a Buddhist or a non-religious atheist is another matter. But if you are attached to a great teacher or a corrupt teacher, you're not on your way, but merely in somebody else's shadow.



• Teachers with some fall-back position, some income generating method, such as being a professional artist, physician, or some other such thing seem to be more ethical than others. I think this helps quench an understandable money hunger that seems to arise as we age. In the US, monks that exist purely by begging their way through life strikes us as a bit cynical, and in addition, the charitable urge for Americans, despite the appendage waving, just isn't enough to keep folks from going hungry and worse.




• It is on its face unethical to accept money accumulated from the estate of a fraudulent "teacher" to "promote Buddhism," especially when that "teacher's" life and death were at odds with the ethical precepts of Buddhism. It is unethical if only because there are those who have still not been made whole as a result of contact with this "teacher," and in fact there is no admission that this "teacher" left people unwhole. And this unwholeness stems at least in part by the fact that this "teacher" conflated Buddhism with something entirely different, and this conflation continues now, and those who accept largess from this teacher are silent about this conflation. It is though a great treasure had been plundered from an indigenous people, and you build a temple showing of the great treasure you plundered, and you claim that as some kind of skillful good work!

Not exactly Buddhist but...if you could play a guitar like that...

Behold Roger McGuinn in later life with a 7 string guitar...

The irony of Google's Ad Auction Algorithm....

(Click image for larger size.)

I think one of my advertisers might be able to use the services of another's.

Anyway, I'm glad at least the "Business Ethics" folks I can seem to endorse.

The others, as I say, it's not that I endorse them, and if they want to pay me for clicking through when I criticize them, well, who am I to turn down their dana?

Keeping the woo out of 無

The confluence of a post by PZ Meyers mentioning one Robert Lanza, and a post on The Buddhist blog on "Biocentrism" makes me realize that it's a good idea to put up a post on science and Buddhism. Perhaps it will illuminate other posts and comments made this week.

This is something I'm quite passionate about as an engineer (we are applied scientists, you know). And I'm quite passionate about it as a Buddhist. So so so much of what spiritual hucksters push is based on the assumption - often a correct one - that their markets are ignorant and gullible. This is true whether you're talking about "meditation technology," "voice dialogue," or creationism and textual literalism. It's all bunk.

Science has to do with the observable, measurable, that can be explained within the natural world. We may need machines to help us with the observation, but if we can't make an experiment that can answer questions about it, it's not falsifiable and it's not science.

For more on this, see "Baloney Detection Kit" (google with Carl Sagan).

Or watch this:



Now having said all that, what is outside the range of what can be measured and observed rightly belongs to the metaphysical, and make no mistake about it, even die hard methodological naturalists who say "There is nothing else!" are making claims about the metaphysical.

When we say "Buddha nature pervades the whole universe" we are making a statement about Buddha nature and the universe. To a certain extent this seems to comport with observation (the impermanence of phenomena, e.g.) and to a certain extent we are making a statement that is beyond physics (an aware Buddha nature pervades the whole universe). When we speak of satori (悟り)we are making claims about awareness that likely are correlated with observable patterns in brainwave activity that themselves are absent when the living brain ceases to exist. The permanence or impermanence of awareness is a metaphysical question, though from all available evidence the idea that this memory (of myself, or even my particular experience of 悟り - assuming I have had it of course) survives brain death is absurd, or at best unprovable, especially given what we know about brain damage and the structure in which memories are formed in the brain. That there may be a universal awareness is another issue entirely, but it - like the very issue of subjective awareness itself - seems to elude the ability to assess an objective repeatable observation.

Now while as a Buddhist and a scientist I have no problem with "What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness," and ". Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined," there are other "tenets" of Biocentrism that are simply absurd from a scientific (and should be therefore from a Buddhist) point of view. Quoting from James Ure's quotes from Wikipedia:

• The behavior of subatomic particles, indeed all particles and objects, is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves.
  
  This is mashing up a few concepts from quantum physics and imposing a metaphysical subjectivism on the whole mush. There are quantum states linked to specific probability distributions. Wave/particle duality - a phenomenon that has to do with specific ways of making specific experiments - should not be invoked to conclude that without an observer all particles are in some kind of shadow maybe existence. This is a big leap away from what the actual theory says! In fact, these theories imply that there is are well-known predictable relationships among the parameters describing the objects! In particular, they imply that position and momentum are Fourier transform pairs, and it "just falls out of the mathemtatics" that there is forever dual uncertainty in both measurements.
  
  Moreover, if one reads a bit about quantum physics on the 'net, you'll see the idea being referred to with respect to observers is quantum coupling of states (i.e., multiple normally separate systems are connected somehow), which again, need not invoke living beings.
  



• The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism.
  It should be immediately apparent that this is not the case.
  



• Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception.
  
  To a certain extent this is a metaphysical statement; but it seems to be absurd given what we know about cosmology (i.e., it is pretty much a given that spatial dimensions and time came into being with the advent of the universe).

I could go further, much further on this.

That we "inter-be" with the rest of the universe does not mean that the laws of physics depend on us for their existence, and if we were all to perish, and there was no way to communicate in a sophisticated way inter-specially, we could not have a way to assess the human aspect of biocentrism, and so we could not assess the theory.

But let's go in one more direction (sorry for the length of the post). Recently...

Scientists say they've made a breakthrough in their pursuit of computers that "think" like a living thing's brain - an effort that tests the limits of technology.

Even the world's most powerful supercomputers can't replicate basic aspects of the human mind. The machines can't imagine a wall painted a different colour, for instance, or picture a person's face and connect that to an emotion.

If researchers can make computers operate more like a brain thinks - by reasoning and dealing with abstractions, among other things - they could unleash tremendous insights in such diverse fields as medicine and economics.

A computer with the power of a human brain is not yet near.

But this week researchers from IBM are reporting that they've simulated a cat's cerebral cortex, the thinking part of the brain, using a massive supercomputer.

You see where I'm going I hope: is the computer included in biocentrism? Why not? Why?

We might be electrochemical thinking meat machines. We can't seem to observe otherwise. Clearly we're connected to the rest of existence, and we can sometimes sense a greater awareness of that than at other times.

But let's not push woo into 無 (which is pronounced as "wu" in some forms of Chinese, in case you didn't get the pun).

The inevitable "Some Christians are Buddhist" article

USA Today is an idea way past its prime. It's a media outlet for people who are staying in hotel rooms in the US alien to their hometown. So it's not surprising that blandness, superficiality, and lack of detail rule the day.

And it's also not surprising that conservative ideas tend to hold sway; thus their article today about how some Christians hold "Eastern" and "New Age" beliefs...

In a Catholic church? Chances are that one in five members believe in reincarnation in a way never taught in catechism class — that you'll be reborn in this world again and again.

Elements of Eastern faiths and New Age thinking have been widely adopted by 65% of U.S. adults, including many who call themselves Protestants and Catholics, according to a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released Wednesday...

And, according to the survey's other major finding, devotion to one clear faith is fading.

Of the 72% of Americans who attend religious services at least once a year (excluding holidays, weddings and funerals), 35% say they attend in multiple places, often hop-scotching across denominations.

They are like President Obama, who currently has no home church. He has worshiped at a Baptist church, an Episcopal one, and the non-denominational chapel at Camp David...

Well, they're not all Hindus, Buddhists, and Ramtha-followers, are they?

No...

[Polling outfit] Pew says two in three adults believe in or cite an experience with at least one supernatural phenomenon, including:

•26% find "spiritual energy" in physical things.

•25% believe in astrology.

•24% say people will be reborn in this world again and again.

•23% say yoga is a "spiritual practice."

Mohler calls these "the au courant confusions," attachments to the latest fashionable free-floating beliefs...

"People have always mixed religions, either in ignorance or willfully," says Stephen Prothero, director of the Graduate Division of Religious and Theological Studies at Boston University.

Despite the late Pope John Paul II's warnings to explicitly avoid Buddhist and Hindu practices, Prothero says, "American Catholics are so used to not caring what the official church tells them on birth control, divorce, premarital sex and other points that they don't think they are un-Catholic when they believe and do what they please."

Combating syncretism has troubled popes for centuries, says the Rev. Dan Pattee, chairman of the theology department at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio.

The problem with borrowing spiritual ideas is that "the life-giving truth becomes compromised as we understand it as Catholics," Pattee says

"They don't think they are un-Catholic when they believe and do what they please."" is about the same thing as saying "They're not doing what we tell them to do."

That's the real issue for many of these people: they aren't able to control these people.

Although I'm all for religious tolerance, there simply is no way given my outlook and learning that it's possible for me to be any kind of Christian. Just no way. Christianity's texts themselves make claims to rest upon their historical truth as a foundation for their moral truths, and it just can't be historically (or morally) accurate, especially from a Buddhist standpoint.

Would I welcome a {Christian, Hindu, Muslim...} into a zendo/temple? Of course. It's not really my business to ask questions. On the other hand, if someone makes a claim that "all religions are the same," or makes syncretist appeals in a dialogue, I am not going to pretend agreement. There are aspects to Christian, Jewish and Islamic traditions that contradict Buddhism.

Just as I won't pretend that Buddhism is not a religion, and I won't pretend that Buddhism is the same as other religions, I think it's important to note the differences.

And as for Bodhi Day

Here and here are some reminders.


Just do your best, moment to moment.

Dispelling a Few Myths about Buddhism

An "I don't want to be associated with Rick Warren" comment on a post on P.Z. Myers' blog grew into something odd yesterday. I had wanted to post there to make a point: namely that I abhor, as a nontheist practitioner of a religion being lumped in with Rick Warren either by Rick Warren or nonreligionists. I don't think it's an accurate characterization, and given the information, it cannot be particularly truthful.

I'm not one to proselytize Buddhism, although proselytizing sanity seems like a good idea to me. But I was more than a little surprised to see the lack of knowledge on the part of some of the posters on that board. Hopefully wasn't considered troll-ish to them, because I generally do sympathize with much of what they say (although for me, completly denying the metaphysical rather than bracketing it is an absurd position).


All of that said, here's my response to some comments there which I couldn't seem to avoid getting directed towards me...plus &alpha, as they say in Japan...

[Y]ou'd get along famously with Karen Armstrong; you redefine Buddhism much as she does Christianity...

I have found Karen Armstrong's work to be milquetoast; deliberately mild and inoffensive. I found her treatment of the historical Buddha to leave too much of the myth in, and too little of the reality that it's not Siddhartha's journey that we're making, but it is ours...

Seriously, what is Rebirth if it isn't reincarnation?

Reincarnation would mean that my essence, memories, dreams, experiences, etc. get plunked into another fetus/baby at some point in/after gestation.

Buddhists, as I noted previously on that thread, do not have the notion of an essential "self," so reincarnation in this case cannot be, the Dalai Lama notwithstanding. Rebirth, on the other hand, can be considered as a continuance of cause and effect from one life to another, and as an instance of Karma qua dependent origination or interdependence of all existants, rebirth can be understood with out appeal to the supernatural.

Now that might not have been what the Buddha thought, but it somewhat tracks Nagarjuna, even if informed by Sartre.

MikeTheInfidel said my phrase, "I think it's inherently useful that we try to live life peacefully on earth, and try to be generous, compassionate, and free from ignorance, and I think it's inherently useful to do this in a disciplined way." is a fantastic description of Humanism.

Buddhism is a form of existentialism, (see William Barrett's treatment of Sartre as reflecting Nagarjuna), and Sartre himself made a very powerful point that existentialism is a humanism, so I'm not surprised.

John Morales wrote:

Gnosis is considered to be a valid form of knowledge by adherents (i.e. non-epistemological (intuitive) knowledge), oxymoronic as it might seem to us rationalists.

I must admit, I'm not completely a rationalist. All things, especially things that involve sensation, perception, awareness, volition and the like are not approachable purely by reason.

I cannot rationally, in words, convey to you the feelings and perceptions of playing tennis beyond the top of your game. I don't consider it gnosis, or awareness of a deity, but I think it's in the same category of things. It is, as William James might have noted, in the category of things meaningful to the one having the experience, but of little or no truth value to others.

Anyway, there's probably other myths about Buddhism as well, and I think on the whole it is good to have these kinds of discussions.

Rick Warren, please don't associate yourself with Buddhists

at least as long as you have contempt for atheists...

.. "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist," Warren told Fox News anchors Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum Monday.

"You know, Steve, if I'm walking down a mountain and I see rock out of place and I go 'that's an accident.' If I'm walking down a mountain -- on the trail -- and I find a Rolex that's evidence of design," he explained. "It actually takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in God."...


While Warren scoffs at atheists, he seemed to respect every other belief system. "The are 600 million Buddhists in the world. There are 800 million Hindus. There are one and a half billion Muslims and there are 2.3 billion Christians. The actual number of secularists in the world is actually quite small outside of Europe and Manhattan," said Warren. "You know the future of the world -- you may not like this -- is not secularism, it's pluralism. So we better find out what everybody believes."

There's way worse things you can write about Warren these days (just google "Rick Warren gays Uganda, e.g.) but the idea that he can lump Buddhists such as myself with snake handling creationists, well, even the Dalai Lama's not one of those.

HOW not to write...

I am not a very very big fan of 90% of all mass market business books; with few exceptions (Peter Drucker being one notable exception - everyone in modern business should read at least something that he wrote) they are all watered down nonsense, or propaganda or worse. I also find them to be muddled, incoherent, and mystifying in the Marxist sense (i.e., their purpose is to keep one confused, but "motivated" to behave in certain ways, in particular, ways that don't ask questions.) Well, the heck with that.

The only reasons I think one can find for reading most of them is a mixture of schadenfreude and/or as cautionary tales. That's why, on the trip home yesterday from Boston, I was amused to read an excerpt from Dov Seidman's "HOW: Why HOW We Do Anything Means Everything [sic]".

I have always thought that three pillars give life integrity: physical security, material prosperity, and emotional well-being. Like the three legs of a stool, when they sit soundly on the ground life is authentic and meaningful; the stool has integrity. When something damages any leg, however, the stool becomes wobbly; life becomes unsafe and insecure. At the beginning of this century, concurrent with the growth of the information age and the sudden connectedness and transparency technology brought to people the world over, the Western world experienced a series of shocks that collectively rocked our stools.

I can imagine this guy thought that in 3rd grade.

Seriously, what kind of nonsense is this? "Three pillars give life integrity."

That sentence doesn't mean a damned thing! I or you have (or lack) integrity.
Life, an abstract idea about our condition, cannot, in and of itself have integrity, and no metaphorical "pillars" can imbue this concept with integrity.

Furthermore, physical security, material prosperity, and emotional well-being are not essential to one's integrity! Sometimes, if you have transgressed your own principles, you should not feel good! It's a sign of one's integrity to feel bad as a result of one's transgressions!

Shorter following text in "HOW...": Then bad things happened...

And then...

In democratic societies, we look to rules — in the form of laws — to provide the certainty, consistency, and predictability we require. In the days of fortress capitalism, we got very good at writing rules, but as the century came to a close, we began to sense that rules were letting us down....

This is one reason I hate reading this garbage: sweeping generalities. I rarely fly US Air, but when I see dreck like this in their magazines, I can't help but think: who the hell is their target market? Not me...

But one thing struck me: clearly the guy that wrote this is completely ignorant or else doesn't want to compare his ideas with the concept of regulatory capture, most recently prsented in the Notebook section of this month's Harper's...

The idea that there is a competitive “private sector” in America is appealing, but generally false. No one hates competition more than the managers of corporations. Competition does not enhance shareholder value, and smart managers know they must forsake whatever personal beliefs they may hold about the redemptive power of creative destruction for the more immediate balm of government intervention. This wisdom is expressed most precisely in an underutilized phrase from economics: regulatory capture.

When Congress created the first U.S. regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, in 1887, the railroad barons it was meant to subdue quickly recognized an opportunity. “It satisfies the popular clamor for a government supervision of railroads at the same time that that supervision is almost entirely nominal,” observed the railroad lawyer Richard Olney. “Further, the older such a commission gets to be, the more inclined it will be found to take the business and railroad view of things. It thus becomes a sort of barrier between the railroad corporations and the people and a sort of protection against hasty and crude legislation hostile to railroad interests.” As if to underscore this claim, Olney soon after got himself appointed to run the U.S. Justice Department, where he spent his days busting railroad unions.

The story of capture is repeated again and again, in industry after industry, whether it is the agricultural combinations creating an impenetrable system of subsidies, or television and radio broadcasters monopolizing public airwaves for private profit, or the entire financial sector conjuring perilous fortunes from the legislative void. The real battle in Washington is seldom between conservatives and liberals or the right and the left or “red America” and “blue America.” It is nearly always a more local contest, over which politicians will enjoy the privilege of representing the interests of the rich.

Rules are often made for the benefit of the organization. And still are. Period. In the case of laws, regulations are made largely with the consent of those to be regulated. Period.

This bit in the Seidman book exerpt got some chuckles from me:

Innovating in WHAT powered twentieth-century capitalism, but those days are gone. If the McVickers came up with Play-Doh today, someone could take it to China, reverse engineer it in a week, and deliver it around the world at a fraction of the price. A Xerox machine might suffer a similar fate in just a few months. It is difficult to invent a better product in a world of commodities, and that is where we find ourselves. Starbucks unleashes a newfound appreciation for coffee drinks, and now every diner and greasy spoon serves caffe lattes. Dell makes an inexpensive personal computer, and Hewlett-Packard is soon doing likewise. Johnson & Johnson finds a way to protect the integrity of Tylenol, and nearly instantly every analgesic bottle has the same antitampering device.

It is harder now to Innovate in WHAT. It takes a lot of luck and money to be a pioneer, and even if you pull it off, the ability for someone to reverse engineer you in six months and not in six years eliminates a lot of the incentive for doing so. In 1999, two companies, ReplayTV and TiVo, simultaneously rolled out the first consumer versions of the digital video recorder (DVR), an invention that so completely revolutionized the television-watching experience that it held the power to fundamentally undermine the business model of the entire broadcasting industry. Seven years later, ReplayTV is gone and TiVo still struggles to be profitable with a medium-sized share of a small market. The DVR has become a generic commodity, made by any number of companies worldwide, and TiVo struggles to redefine itself as less about its hardware (its WHAT) and more about the experience its software delivers (HOW you use it).

This is why the United States has trouble competing in the world: their business writers are writing dreck like this and people are believing it.

In fact, people in the United States today can innovate, and the concept of "intellectual property" is becoming increasingly well known. Moreover, the fact of the matter is, there is no one-size-fits-all method for managing innovation known yet. This guy simply is not writing anything in conformance with reality.

Finally here's his recommendation:

Success now requires new skills and habits, a new lens for seeing, and a new consciousness for relating. In our see-through world, there’s an overabundance of information and it flows too easily for anyone to control it and outfox everyone. You can no longer game the system and expect that no one will find out. You need to stop dancing around people and start leading a dance that everyone can follow. Long-term, sustained success is directly proportional to your ability — as a company or an individual — to make Waves throughout evanescing networks of association, to reach out to others and enlist them in endeavors larger than yourself, and to do so while everyone watches you.

If we're going to be making Waves throughout evanescing networks of association, to reach out to others and enlist them in endeavors larger than yourself, and to do so while everyone watches you, I'd recommend a designated driver.

Note: it sure as heck doesn't sound like a bad thing for people to embrace "doing the right thing."

The issue, though is, in any corporation, the corporation according to laws must act for the benefit of the shareholders of the corporation. That is the corporation's prime directive. The benefit of the shareholders may or may not necessarily conform to purely ethical behavior, as the phrase "benefit" in capitalist societies translates to "maximize profit." It may be short term or long term, but morally and ethically, a corporation is as ethical and moral as a snake or a knife, which is to say morality and ethical behavior are not essential attributes of a corporation. Its objectives are completely divorced from that, and one's actions in the corporation either comply with the corporation's directives or they don't. They might not because one's personal code of ethics conflicts with carrying out the objectives of the corporation. Corporations and individuals should engage in certain behaviors (prohibiting discrimination of employees based on ethnic origin, anti-trust behavior, etc.) because they're in the interest of the corporation's shareholders.

All of that's not to say that one should not exercise the highest morality and ethics in one's business affairs. Of course you should; there's bad consequences both legally and existentially otherwise. But the idea that this is somehow related to the ability of a corporation to execute is tenuous at best, I'm afraid. People are motivated by ethical behaviors, to be sure, but there were those that enthusiastically carried out Auschwitz as well.

But, ethically and morally, you're still on the hook.

Jukai and Performative Speech/Acts

I'm not a big fan of comic books, but I'd recommend that Brad Warner read "Derrida for Beginners," as this painless to read book introduced me to idea that there is a whole class of speech and action labeled as performative, that goes beyond that kind of speech we find in plays or songs song on the street.

These "performative utterances" are also referred to as illocutionary acts.

[A]n illocutionary act is an act (1) for the performance of which I must make it clear to some other person that the act is performed (Austin speaks of the 'securing of uptake'), and (2) the performance of which involves the production of what Austin calls 'conventional consequences' as, e.g., rights, commitments, or obligations. For example, in order to successfully perform a promise I must make clear to my audience that the promise occurs, and undertake an obligation to do the promised thing: hence promising is an illocutionary act in the present sense.

Jukai, in which someone before an assembled sangha makes a declaration of refuge in the Buddha, Sangha, and Dharma, and pubicly vows to uphold certain precepts (10 typically for us layfolk) is an example of a performative act.

It is like signing a contract - the truth or falsity of of the signature on the contract lies not in that document, but in the behavior of the signatories after the contract is signed.

I find it odd that people of a certain age are still wedded to the notions of an abhorrence of traditional ceremony. This abhorrence is no doubt a reaction to exposure to post-performative speech bad behavior a.k.a. hypocrisy. That hypocrisy and failure to live up to contracts, vows, and precepts is pandemic there can be no doubt. But the value of such speech is to create places in our minds where the value of upholding such vows and precepts are remembered, cherished, and where such vows and precepts may remain in our consciousness. You've got to have neural connections broken to store information; you might as well have few of them dedicated to the prospect of not screwing up yourself and others.

Deepak Chopra vs. Richard Dawkins

Nyogen Senzaki vs. Genpo Merzel

Tricycle revisits the Dharma Wars with a "we're open to all points of view." (HT: NellaLou)

Would Tricycle publish what's in this post? I doubt it somehow. I do wish they'd publish and adhere to certain ethical standards...

The point of view here:





is somewhat in conflict with that of seminal teachers of Zen in the west, notably Nyogen Senzaki (who was certainly in the "humble business" out of obligation to his teacher Soyen Roshi as well as his dire economic straits). (You can read of him on Wikipedia, and "How the Swans Came to the Lake" for more on him.)

It is also at odds with the practice of ethics and the precepts, and, as I've learned it, welcoming all without regard to position. Plus, as a guy who manages people, I can say categorically if you don't care for people as people, and exercise authority when needed, you don't cut it. My authority as a manager flows from my responsibilities of my position, and in that sense I cannot act authoritatively save out of the fiduciary responsibility I have to my employer. Analogously, what Merzel and Cohen are saying here is the hierarchical equivalent of "God gives me the authority," and one must call BS on that. If Genpo is a decent, ethical teacher he has a fiduciary responsibility to his sangha, and his sangha is composed of people not "vessels for transmitting the Dharma."

Gniz wonders how one can sit on a cushion for many years and yet be a jerk. I would answer it has to do with the lack of dedication to practice, as well as the practice, of mindfulness and ethics in everyday situations.

I don't want to see you "only as a vessel for transmitting the Dharma," because that makes you some object of my desires for whatever I think/feel/act is the Dharma. You're a human being for Void's sake. If I don't see you first and foremost that way, and welcome you without regard to your status (even if you are a fundamentalist or Genpo Roshi), then I am putting another head where mine is, and you won't like it and you won't benefit from it.

P.S., I'd never heard of this Andrew Cohen guy until recently, but I can't quite get why anyone would think this guy who wants to "enlighten the world" is any kind of a "spiritual teacher."

Traveling in the next day or so...

Light blogging, becoming clearer on Sunday...

Regarding the Maurice Clemmons Thing...

Maurice Clemmons, of course, was the really violent guy "Reverend" Michael Huckabee pardonned who went on to murder four policeman. Be it known though that Mike Huckabee didn't cut everyone loose.

On August 8th, 1996 I witnessed the killing of my friend and brother monk, Rev. Jusan Fudo Sifu Frankie Parker. This is the reason the publication of this issue of Gateway Journal has been delayed for so long...

The greatest blow to our efforts [ to get the execution commuted to life in prison for Parker] came on July 22nd when we learned that the new Governor, Rev. Huckabee, in a totally unprecedented action, issued a proclamation, his first in office, moving Jusan's execution date to August 8th! In effect, with his signature, he cut six weeks of Jusan's life. We were stunned. It was reported that the Governor had met with the family of Frankie's victims. Jim Harris, a spokesperson from the governor's office said, "This [date change] was out of consideration for the victim's family. They've waited years and we could determine no reason to delay it more."

We had prepared the text for this issue of Gateway Journal and the printer was scheduled to begin the press run on July 23rd. Given the change in the execution date, the prepared text was now out of date so we canceled the printing. We had the printer run the center fold page with the third installment of Zen Karmics, a tribute to Jusan, since we wanted to be able to show it to him before he was killed.

I began calling Governor Huckabee's office on a daily basis to request a meeting between the Governor and myself, Jusan's mother, Janie, and his sister Shari. The Governor's assistant on Criminal Justice, Mr. Dale "Butch" Reeve, finally informed me on July 29th that the Governor had agreed to meet with Janie, Shari and myself. The following day I was informed by Mr. Reeve that the Governor had canceled the meeting with us in retaliation for Jusan taking part in a radio talk show! Mr. Reeve seemed to be personally embarrassed by the actions of his superior. I was disturbed by the Governor's action; it appeared that on a psychological level the Governor was acting like a spoiled child. This was ominous indeed. The following day Jusan's sister Shari was on the same radio program and read a profoundly moving letter to the Governor pleading with him to spare her brother's life.

Whether or not Parker would have committed more crimes is not really relevant, just as it is not really relevant that Clemmons had a sentence of 108 years. (Huckabee has implied that his only choices were either 108 years or cutting the guy loose.)

What was relevant - at least to Huckabee - is that Parker was a Buddhist, and other recipients of Huckabee's clemency were Christians.

However, as PZ Meyers, godless rationalist that he is so trenchantly notes, Mike Huckabee did get around to killing Clemmons.

Meyers is eventually right: safety concerns should reign here.

And by that standard, Huckabee basically made us all unsafe, and killed a Buddhist to boot.

OMG They're coming to Seattle...so I have some questions...

A whole Big Mind Weekend Workshop with Genpo Roshi in March of next year...and they ask:

How often do you have the chance to work directly with a real Zen Master on the important issues of the Self and the Transcendent, and to learn practical and effective ways to tap into the infinite power and love you were born with?

Actually, here in the Pacific NW, we have a surplus of Dharma. In the Seattle region alone there are temples in the Kwan Um, Rinzai, Japanese Soto (Jiyu Kennett), Sambo Kyodan, and Chinese Cha'n traditions!

As for myself, I live in the Portland OR, area, and I have been training "with a real Zen Master" for over 16 years, the last 13 of them, with one "Master," in this area we, too, have a smorgasbord of Zen schools from which to choose.

So given that question was trivial to answer with the aid of the Google, maybe it's time to pose a few questions for the Big Mind folks. After all, they say right here:

Questions? Our staff will be happy to talk with you. Call 801-328-8414 in the US, or write us an email at bigmindoffice@bigmind.org.

So, I think it's time for a list of questions:

1. Why did the writers of this web page think it's a rarity for people to be able to work "with a real Zen Master," when so many opportunities abound?

2. The term "roshi" (老師) stems from the Chinese "laoshi" meaning literally "old teacher." Ven. Genpo Merzel seems to use this term as though it is a Zen equivalent of a Ph.D., whereas traditionally it is bestowed in old age or posthumously to a teacher. While it is true that many teachers in the west, such as Eido Shimano, and especially teachers in the White Plum Asanga use the term 老師 in this way, Ven. Genpo Merzel's organzation seems to use this term whenever his organization is referring to Ven. Genpo Merzel. Does Ven. Merzel think his title 老師 in any way distinguishes himself from other teachers of other traditions, even if in their tradition the use of 老師 is suppressed until late in life or after death? And if that is the case, is there any other basis for this other than an argument from authority, other than Ven. Glassman "allowed" the Ven. Merzel to call himself a 老師?

3. Does Ven. Merzel think that his "Big Mind" process will lead to 悟り or 見性 comparable to what real Zen students achieve after years of study, as has been widely reported and quoted? If so, how does his process comport with what is explained in the Lankavatara sutra?


That was the easy round. Now the questions get a bit more difficult...

4. Why were the people chosen for the Big Mind "advisory board?"

5. What advice do they provide?

6. How, if at all, are they compensated?

7. Who are the owners of the corporation which promotes Big Mind?

8. Why do people on the Big Mind advisory board overlap with people in the Frederick Lenz Foundation?

9. Why are recipients of grants form the Frederick Lenz Foundation also, in some cases, members of the Frederick Lenz Foundation Advisory Committee? Is it within the fiduciary responsibilities of either Big Mind or The Frederick Lenz Foundation to have an "Advisor" of one group involved making a decision on a "Grant" to another via a member of both groups?

10. Doesn't the association with the Frederick Lenz Foundation, which is still trying to hawk "intellectual property" originally owned by Dr. Lenz conflate the meaning of Buddhism as is commonly understood by practitioners in the United States as well as the rest of the world?

11. Why did Kanzeon Inc. (I believe that's the name of the entity) trademark "Big Mind" in 2002, when the term had already been in use in the American Zen community for more than 30 years? Doesn't this conflate the meaning of a process developed by the Ven. Merzel with a term well-understood within the Buddhist community for decades, if not longer, a term which correlates with terms in some of the oldest Mahayana sutras?

12. Given all these concerns, and given that the practice of Buddhism involves not merely meditation, not merely psychological insights, but also Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, as well as Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration, just why should someone fork over several hundred dollars to your organization for the chance to "work with a real Zen Master?"

Now I'm not saying that Genpo Merzel, or members of his organization engaged in any ethical or legal improprieties. Clearly, all I have mentioned above is concerns I have based on what I've read from Merzel's organziation's own site and those of the site on which he sits on in some kind of advisory role. But as a Buddhist in the Zen tradition I am concerned that much of what I read here is not complimentary to Zen Buddhism in much the same way that Tiger Woods' recent troubles do not bring fame upon professional golf.

Some answers would be appreciated.

Full disclosure: Thanks to Genpo's organization for putting up Google ads on my site.
It's awfully nice of them.

Just What *Is* Buddhism? Or: Why Conflating Frederick Lenz with Buddhism Reeks of Racism and Worse

If you don't know about the (still extant) Rama Page, it's worth a look to see what this guy Lenz was really about, and why it's quite absurd to conflate what this guy was doing with what the rest of the world regards as Buddhism. Compare, for example, what's written in this book from Sri Lanka on the Eight Fold Path, with what this cult report wrote about Lenz, or with what at least one ex-member said.

Real Buddhists - i.e., ones from around the world, know better, and not only is it a mockery of Buddhism, but it is also ethically questionable that the "Advisory Committee" of The Frederick Lenz Foundation consists of:

* Elizabeth Cecil


* Walter Goodwin


* Joaquin Lievano


* Dana Schwartz



* George (Dai En) Burch
Friends of Zen, Inc., East Brookfield, MA

* Fleet Maull, Sensei in the
Zen Peacemaker Order, Boulder, CO

* Dennis (Genpo) Merzel, Roshi
Kanzeon Zen Center, Salt Lake City, UT

* Gerry (Shishin) Wick, Roshi
Great Mountain Zen Center, Boulder, CO

many of whom appear to be legitimately ordained Buddhists. Now it is true that the official mission of the Foundation:

is dedicated to promoting the benefits of Zen Buddhism, meditation, yoga and related Buddhist practices as a pathway to self-realization and the harmonious blending of the material and spiritual in contemporary American society. The Foundation encourages the study and practice of these disciplines so that Americans with a Western mind set may come to appreciate these ancient gifts of Eastern thought, and utilize them in a way that is relevant to American culture and values.

However, their "Vision" is:

Dr. Frederick P. Lenz, "Rama" to his students and associates, dedicated his life to the proposition that Westerners in a modern, fast-paced America can achieve spiritual enlightenment, without religious ceremony, and better enjoy the benefits of an American lifestyle by embracing and practicing the principles of Zen Buddhism, meditation, yoga and related Buddhist practices. Rama's vision is embodied in the Foundation's core values: to spread as broadly and for so long as possible throughout American society the knowledge and benefits of these disciplines, using where feasible Rama's own writings, tapes and music as an aid. The challenge for those who carry on in Rama's name is to translate this ancient body of wisdom, which includes for example Tantric Buddhism, Vajrayana Buddhism and Tibetan yoga, into a system of practice adapted for Americans so they may more easily share in its benefits. The Foundation seeks partners with which to establish such programs and will make grants to other qualified charitable organizations which share the Foundation's vision, or which offer programs that will promote the Foundation's goals.

"Rama's" vision is embodied in the Foundation's core values: that you can get something called "enlightenment." Now there is such a thing as enlightenment, but when it is dangled out there as something separate and apart from the life you're living, it's not the thing in which Buddhists are actually engaged.

I daresay you'll be hard pressed to find much Buddhism in "Rama's" writings.

And how can this not but look like a joke to Asians, that Americans engaged in this are utter fools?

Lenz only got as far as he did because at the time he did it Buddhism had not penetrated much of American society; Chinese restaurants - think about that. That was Americans' experience with Asia at the time.

Buddhism still has not penetrated much of American society, and the evident lack of obligation some teachers seem to feel towards their ancestral teachers is appalling.

Needing a Teacher?

Aaron/gniz has two posts exploring "How do we know a teacher is legit?" and "Why a teacher might not be necessary"

I think it's good to have what, for want of a better term, is a teacher (I'd say "mentor," but that word's been ravaged by business-speak.) I think it's good to know someone who acts differently from you, whose behavior is not as dependent on your behavior.

Of course it is important that the teacher abide by ethical guidelines, and in my way of thinking a teacher who is not so financially dependent on keeping an institution running by soliciting funds from his sangha/congregation is of paramount importance. Ethical considerations follow in such positions that mirror the counselor/client or doctor/patient relationship, and these should be stated and maintained.

Aaron's right: you're going to make most of the progress on your own. I wasn't able to make it all on my own though, and that's why a teacher was highly necessary for me. Luckily, I met a good one; the scam artists out there are more prevalent than they ought to be. But, as I'd written elsewhere, even an ethically challenged teacher might help some students sometimes. But be aware. Caveat emptor.

Maybe I've been too soft on Dennis Genpo Merzel

Although Aaron/gniz's posts here and here and here seem a bit like guilt by association, they're not, because it's clear that the unsavory people around Merzel are an ongoing nexus.

I'd like to go somewhere slightly different here: how the hell could they have had the cojones to trademark Big Mind? Now although the recommended uses seem to be currently suppressed on the Big Mind website, a trip to the US patent office website will readily reveal that as of today, "Kanzeon Inc." holds a trademark on "Big Mind," for "Education services, namely, conducting workshops and classes in the field of psychospiritual processes that facilitate a shift in human consciousness." (I'd hyperlink but hyperlinking from the US patent office is notoriously unreliable.)

The mark includes:

(3) DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS
26.01.03 - Circles, incomplete (more than semi-circles); Incomplete circles (more than semi-circles)
26.01.21 - Circles that are totally or partially shaded.
26.01.28 - Circles with irregular circumferences; Miscellaneous circular designs with an irregular circumference

So what they did was take a term that had been in use for at least 30 years within the American Zen community (at least since Shunryu Suzuki's book came out), along with the classic Zen enso and claim that is a distinctive identifier of Merzel's organization's "Education services, namely, conducting workshops and classes in the field of psychospiritual processes that facilitate a shift in human consciousness."

I do not have the time and money to challenge this man's appropriation of what I think rightly belongs in the public domain, and the fact that he, and others have tried to conflate Merzel's marketed "shift in human consciousness" with satori (as has been copiously documented by Warner & gniz) really does appear unethical, and is certainly in the direction of being a fraud, if not an outright fraud itself.

Now, of course it might be "my word against Merzel's word" as to whether or not he's selling the real deal or a cheap fake, except for one or two other things: 1) There already have been others speaking out about this (namely Ven. Warner), and 2) You don't see a whole lot of other Zen masters (even the ones on the "Big Mind Advisory Board") lining up to give inka shomei to those folks who paid for "Big Mind^TM" workshops.

Actually, I haven't even seen where Merzel's done that.

Guest Practice

Today's Thanksgiving; after sitting it's time for my family (they won't be sitting; I will) to prepare for guests.

Hope your Thanksgiving is fun & safe.

More on Vegetarianism...and the Lankavatara Sutra

I'd been going through the Lankavatara Sutra, dealing with a hiatus to deal with a death in the family, and various work related things, but the recent posts on vegetarianism made me remember that the Lankavatara Sutra, Chapter 8, is all about not eating meat.

How can a Buddhist not eat meat when it clearly, clearly says:

Said the Blessed One: Then, Mahāmati, listen well and reflect well within yourself...

Certainly, Blessed One; said Mahāmati the Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva and gave ear to the Blessed One.

The Blessed One said this to him: For innumerable reasons, Mahāmati, the Bodhisattva, whose nature is compassion, is not to eat any meat; I will explain them: Mahāmati, in this long course of transmigration here, there is not one living being that, having assumed the form of a living being, has not been your mother, or father, or brother, or sister, or son, or daughter, or the one or the other, in various degrees of kinship; and when acquiring another form of life may live as a beast, as a domestic animal, as a bird, or as a womb-born, or as something standing in some relationship to you; [this being so] how can the Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva who desires to approach all living beings as if they were himself and to practise the Buddha-truths, eat the flesh of any living being that is of the same nature as himself? Even, Mahāmati, the Rakshasa, listening to the Tathagata's discourse on the highest essence of the Dharma, attained the notion of protecting [Buddhism], and, feeling pity, refrains from eating flesh; how much more those who love the Dharma! Thus, Mahāmati, wherever there is the evolution of living beings, let people cherish the thought of kinship with them, and, thinking that all beings are [to be loved as if they were] an only child, let them refrain from eating meat. So with Bodhisattvas whose nature is compassion, [the eating of] meat is to be avoided by him. Even in exceptional cases, it is not [compassionate] of a Bodhisattva of good standing to eat meat. The flesh of a dog, an ass, a buffalo, a horse, a bull, or man, or any other [being], Mahāmati, that is not generally eaten by people, is sold on the roadside as mutton for the sake of money; and therefore, Mahāmati, the Bodhisattva should not eat meat.

For the sake of love of purity, Mahāmati, the Bodhisattva should refrain from eating flesh which is born of semen, blood, etc. For fear of causing terror to living beings, Mahāmati, let the Bodhisattva who is disciplining himself to attain compassion, refrain from eating flesh. To illustrate, Mahāmati: When a dog sees, even from a distance, a hunter, a pariah, a fisherman, etc., whose desires are for meat-eating, he is terrified with fear, thinking, "They are death-dealers, they will even kill me." In the same way, Mahāmati, even those minute animals that are living in the air, on earth, and in water, seeing meat-eaters at a distance, will perceive in them, by their keen sense of smell, the odour of the Rakshasa and will run away from such people as quickly as possible; for they are to them the threat of death. For this reason, Mahāmati, let the Bodhisattva, who is disciplining himself, to abide in great compassion, because of its terrifying living beings, refrain from eating meat. Mahāmati, meat which is liked by unwise people is full of bad smell and its eating gives one a bad reputation which turns wise people away; let the Bodhisattva refrain from eating meat. The food of the wise, Mahāmati, is what is eaten by the Rishis; it does not consist of meat and blood. Therefore, Mahāmati, let the Bodhisattva refrain from eating meat.

In order to guard the minds of all people, Mahāmati, let the Bodhisattva whose nature is holy and who is desirous of avoiding censure on the teaching of the Buddha, refrain from eating meat. For instance, Mahāmati, there are some in the world who speak ill of the teaching of the Buddha; [they would say,] "Why are those who are living the life of a Śramaṇa or a Brahmin reject such food as was enjoyed by the ancient Rishis, and like the carnivorous animals, living in the air, on earth, or in the water? Why do they go wandering about in the world thoroughly terrifying living beings, disregarding the life of a Śramaṇa and destroying the vow of a Brahmin? There is no Dharma, no discipline in them." There are many such adverse-minded people who thus speak ill of the teaching of the Buddha. For this reason, Mahāmati, in order to guard the minds of all people, let the Bodhisattva whose nature is full of pity and who is desirous of avoiding censure on the teaching of the Buddha, refrain from eating meat.

Mahāmati, there is generally an offensive odour to a corpse, which goes against nature; therefore, let the Bodhisattva refrain from eating meat. Mahāmati, when flesh is burned, whether it be that of a dead man or of some other living creature, there is no distinction in the odour. When flesh of either kind is burned, the odour emitted is equally noxious. Therefore, Mahāmati, let the Bodhisattva, who is ever desirous of purity in his discipline, wholly refrain from eating meat.

Pretty obvious that the writers of this did not want aspirants to eat meat.

There is a kinship with all living things, let there be no mistake about that.

But... it's more complicated than Gary Steiner's vegan views published in the NY Times on Nov. 22.
Some letter writers seem to have echoed some of my sentiments in response, I'd also note.

I'd like to make a few other brief points:

• This part of the sutra, as the editor/translator noted, and as can be easily seen by appeal to the lengths and styles in subject matter, is clearly a later addition. It is indisputable that at the time the Lankavatara Sutra was written, vegetarian, eating meat was not a paramount concern of the writer(s). It was about as prominent on their radar as gayness and abortion were with Jesus Christ.



• Now admittedly, someone who was vegetarian did later add this stuff.



• But...then...I must go to more fundamental issues in Buddhism, as I see it: what do my senses, knowledge, science tell me?




• Humans clearly evolved as omnivores. This is not something that would have been obvious to the author of this chapter.


• Humans clearly must carefully consider the effect on the environment of all their actions. That means whether or not eating meat is prohibited by one's self or not, what is not optional is careful consideration of the environmental effects of eating (or not eating) meat.


• The conundra of an absolutist vegetarian position might boggle the mind. If all animal life is precious, what are we to do with carnivores? Kill them? Let them die by keeping them from their prey so the prey over-reproduce and lead to havoc on their ecosystem? And then there are animals that depend on carnivorousness for their very survival: should we make tapeworms extinct? (HT: PZ Myers) Why not? Aren't they our kin too? (And make no mistake about it, they are.)
  
• Finally, to rephrase points made previously, the effects of not eating meat may be worse than eating meat. We know from experiences with wolves in the Western US that removal of predators has dramatic adverse consequences on many many species. The prey may be eaten, but other life forms depend on the predator eating his prey (and not just the predator species.

This is why, I think, many meat eaters don't like it when vegetarians get in their faces, so to speak.

The moral issues are actually more complex than would be made by many vegetarian activists.

What is very, very important for all of us is to reduce our footprint on the planet, and to be mindful of our effect on all living beings.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Those ads here...

I'll get back to meat eating and the Lankavatara sutra, but while this was fresh in my mind I wanted to get to it. Probably when the end of the year vacation comes I'll refurbish this site; I notice some links are (again) obsolete, there's more blogs to which I want to link to here, and the general look and feel of the place is due for an upgrade.

Anyway, I've got ads on this site. To some extent, it's because I'm a guy fascinated by algorithms, algorithms by Google determine which ads go here, and it amazes me who decides to bid on the spaces I have here.

Of course, in no way do I endorse "Quantum Jumping," "Maharishi University of Management," or of course, Genpo Roshi. I'll let 'em in though a) because if you want to find out what they are you can always google 'em anyway, and b) if they want to pay me, and I call them bunk, who am I to turn down their ad-click dollars? (I do block Scientology, though, as I think that is beyond the pale when it comes to religious hucksterism. I also wouldn't sponsor crack-dealers on this website.)

And, as Donald Sutherland famously said in "Little Murders," it's all right. Evidently my credibility of criticizing certain groups, Buddhist or not, and the credibility of those groups is only affected insofar as they respond directly to my critiques, and vice-versa. Or at least that's what Campbell's and Progresso might have discovered:

Companies that were once content to fight in grocery-store aisles and on television commercials are now choosing a different route — filing lawsuits and other formal grievances challenging their competitors’ claims. Longtime foes like Pantene and Dove, Science Diet and Iams, AT&T and Verizon Wireless, and Campbell Soup and Progresso have all wrestled over ads recently.

The number of complaints over ads from competitors filed with the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, the industry’s main self-regulatory program for national ads, is on track to set a record this year. There have been 82 formal complaints so far in 2009, after last year’s record of 84 challenges, a sharp increase from 62 in 2007 and 52 in 2006.

The number of complaints over ads from competitors filed with the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, the industry’s main self-regulatory program for national ads, is on track to set a record this year. There have been 82 formal complaints so far in 2009, after last year’s record of 84 challenges, a sharp increase from 62 in 2007 and 52 in 2006...

Last fall, Campbell Soup started an ad campaign that said its Select Harvest soups were “Made with TLC” while labeling Progresso soups, from its rival General Mills, “Made with MSG.” Progresso responded with its own campaign, and then both companies complained to the advertising review division, which recommended withdrawal of some ads from both sides.

The damage was already done. Unit sales in the General Mills category that includes Progresso (called, unappetizingly, ready-to-serve wet soups) rose in the fourth quarter of 2008, compared with the same quarter a year earlier, said Information Resources, a research firm in Chicago.

But since then, unit sales of wet soups at both companies have declined every quarter. A UBS analyst, David Palmer, attributed the drop largely to the advertising battle.

So there you have it.

What fascinates me is how reptilian the Google model is by comparison.

They don't care where they advertise, and most advertisers don't care what the forum that they're using is saying about them.

There's limits, though.

But just in case you see some wild and wacky ads on my site, please don't think I endorse them, but if they endorse me, even though I think they're bunk, who am I to turn down their money? As long as they're not doing what I think is measurable, serious harm to people I don't think I'll ban them.

And feel free to click, click, away at those wacky websites! Every click grants me more money!

Also..

I wanted to do a post on some of the ads I see here, how wacky some are, why I leave them here, and why it's probably still effective for them to advertise here ( evidently the soup wars prove that not respnding to yourproduct's critics might be a good strategy).

But that's going to have to wait.

BB, like everything else is impermanent

I wanted to follow up the last two posts by a consideration of what the Lankavatara sutra says about eating meat. But Clear ain't accomodating me this day. Might be a spur to do the other things I must do today.

Shorter version of vegetarian post:

It's too simplistic to assume that the valuation of life can be maximized by forswearing the use of animals in the diet.

And it's certainly way to simplistic to assume that the ecosystem can be tuned to maximize the amount of animal life by forswearing carnivorousness or omnivorousness.

The latter, in particular, got us through the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event. Of course, "we" were shrew-like creatures, but still...

Why I am not a vegetarian... and especially not a vegan...at least for now

I know many Buddhists are vegetarians, and some Chinese, at least, expect their Buddhists to be vegetarians (or at least abstain from beef).

I am not.

This story from the NY Times should explain it... perhaps because the editors of the Op-Ed page are themselves not vegetarians. Let's go to the quotes...

[W]hen people ask [whether it is wrong to kill animals for human consumption], they almost always find a variety of resourceful answers that purport to justify the killing and consumption of animals in the name of human welfare. And even when people ask this question, they almost always find a variety of resourceful answers that purport to justify the killing and consumption of animals in the name of human welfare. Strict ethical vegans, of which I am one, are customarily excoriated for equating our society’s treatment of animals with mass murder. Can anyone seriously consider animal suffering even remotely comparable to human suffering? Those who answer with a resounding no typically argue in one of two ways.

Some suggest that human beings but not animals are made in God’s image and hence stand in much closer proximity to the divine than any non-human animal; according to this line of thought, animals were made expressly for the sake of humans and may be used without scruple to satisfy their needs and desires. There is ample support in the Bible and in the writings of Christian thinkers like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas for this pointedly anthropocentric way of devaluing animals.

Others argue that the human capacity for abstract thought makes us capable of suffering that both qualitatively and quantitatively exceeds the suffering of any non-human animal. Philosophers like Jeremy Bentham, who is famous for having based moral status not on linguistic or rational capacities but rather on the capacity to suffer, argue that because animals are incapable of abstract thought, they are imprisoned in an eternal present, have no sense of the extended future and hence cannot be said to have an interest in continued existence.

The most penetrating and iconoclastic response to this sort of reasoning came from the writer Isaac Bashevis Singer in his story “The Letter Writer,” in which he called the slaughter of animals the “eternal Treblinka.”

Let's leave the absurdity of the last sentence quoted for the moment and go to the two arguments above. I tend towards the latter argument, but I would add that in the case of animals such as turkeys, (and ducks and rabbits raised for food) these animals would not have existed but for their domestication by humanity. And it is clear that we have been domesticated to these animals, and if that sounds like a whopper consider how humanity has evolved lactose intolerance.

It is true that animals - moving things, to translate the Japanese literally - do have somewhat of an awareness, although it clearly is not at the level of ours. It is also true that there are ethical and moral issues to be considered in their treatment.

Humanity must kill to eat, and we cannot, as of yet, explain why A is aware and B is not other than an observed ability to modify behavior in response to a stimulus.

We can't really tell if that which cannot be responded to in a stimulus is aware in all cases; we only recently found out about the "locked" condition where people are aware yet unable to respond to external stimuli.

Perhaps everything is aware, in which case, we're quite screwed.

I tend to think awareness is substantially more distributed than even vegans are led to believe, in which case, the fact that they can empathize with vertebrates and mollusks does them no good morally in the grand scheme of things.

That is to say, if suffering is that ubiquitous, (even if our suffering, as opposed to other animals' suffering can be narrated in terms of a past, present and future), then we might as well eat meat.

The vegan has one more problem I might want to point out: what of the non-human carnivore? Should we wipe them out because they eat other animals? We could. Heck, we're almost there with the blue-fin tuna! Then their prey would be safer. But they might over-"graze" their environment, leading to a population/environmental collapse.

Which is to say, even animal-eating humans are part of the eco-system. True, we haven't been doing it sustainably, but clearly there's a point that we could, or if we didn't there'd be another stable point of the ecosystem which might - or might not - have been reached by a calamitous destruction of human and animal life.

So, let's go slow on this stuff for now, OK?

And besides, there are cultural implications to all this. Five will get you ten a survey of the acquaintances of the author of that Times article might reveal that the author was a bit...overbearing at times on this vegan stuff.



One more thing: I generally don't make turkey at Thanksgiving; and this year I couldn't decide if it was rabbit season or duck season.



So I'll be making both.