Lankavatara Sutra Chapter 3, Section LXXIII

I'm using the usual translation....and as usual, I'm not authorized to say a word by a teacher;  my words and comments  are purely mine.

The Buddha remarks:

The Lokayatika who is skilled in varieties of incantations and in the art of eloquence, Mahamati, puts the minds of the ignorant in utter confusion by means of various reasonings, by [clever manipulation of] words and phrases, and what he teaches being the mere prattle of a child...

[H]e himself does not understand what all things mean, he puts the minds of the ignorant into utter confusion by his dualistic views, thus ruining himself. Not being released of the transition from one path to another, not understanding that there is nothing but what is seen of the Mind itself, and attaching himself to the idea of self-nature in external things, the Lokayatika knows no deliverance from discrimination...

 A Lokayakita, according to this source, in the Hindu tradition, is one who holds to the idea of a prime or fundamental cause, that something comes from nothing.  It also evidently has the meanings of being "worldy" or being that of a commoner.

 

 All questions raised to the Buddha regarding first causes, causelessness,  non-existence and so-forth this sutra calls forms of materialism, for which the Buddha equates as:

So long as there is a mental perturbation which makes one cling to an objective world of discrimination, there is materialism.

Rather, the Buddha says (putting the actual order of the text  out of order),

I do not teach anything approaching the discrimination of the philosophers. For what reason? Because there are no external objects, there is nothing to get attached to; when one abides in Mind-only, beyond which there is no external world, dualism ceases; as there is no realm of form based on discrimination, one comes to recognise that there is nothing but what is seen of the Mind itself; and for these reasons the discrimination of what is seen of the Mind itself does not take place. Owing to the cessation of discrimination, one enters into the triple emancipation where is the state of no-form, emptiness, and effortlessness. Hence it is called deliverance.

Go read this post by Tom Armstrong

Here, wherein he notes a big distortion of Jack Kornfield in the Sacramento "Loaves and Fishes" "homeless ministry" "newsletter"  wherein they make a plea for money disturbingly reminiscent (to me at any rate) of the pitches of "missionaries" to Native Americans and Alaskan Indigenous People for money from the middle classes using  metaphors akin to the "foreign" "noble savage."

The contrast between the dana requested by these missionaries and that of the Forest Monks is telling: clearly the "Christians"  wish to portray the ultimate recipients of the dana as separate from them as well as the original givers.

Tom doesn't quite say those things; what he says is perhaps more significant than anything I could say here.

Lankavatara Sutra Chapter 3, Section LXXII

As I often say, I'm using the usual translation....and as usual, I'm not authorized to say a word by a teacher;  my words and comments  are purely mine.

This section is summed up with the Buddha saying:

[T]here are two forms of teaching the truth attained by the Tathagatas, Arhats, Fully-Enlightened Ones of the past, present, and future. They are: the teaching by discourses, and the teaching by the establishment of self-realisation. What is meant by the studying of the discourses is this, Mahamati: there are various materials and canonical texts and discourses by which sentient beings are taught according to their dispositions and inclinations. What then is the truth of self-realisation by which the Yogins turn away from discriminating what is seen of the Mind itself? There is an exalted state of inner attainment which does not fall into the dualism of oneness and otherness, of bothness and not-bothness; which goes beyond the Citta [virtually synonymous with vijñāna (consciousness) and manas (intellect) ], Manas [intellect], and Manovijnana [mind, thought; discerning, recognizing, knowledge]; which has nothing to do with logic, reasoning, theorising, and illustrating; which has never been tasted by any bad logicians, by the philosophers, Sravakas, and Pratyekabuddhas, who have fallen into the dualistic views of being and non-being— this I call self-realisation.

So in case you were wondering, this Zen idea of a transmission outside the scriptures is, uh, captured in the scriptures, and at least since the existence of the Lankavatara, has been consistent with the Mahayana Buddhist canon.

I'd also note that this teaching of the truth isn't the whole ball of wax of Buddhism; there's actually putting these teachings into practice.  Very important wording here.

The 5 day Buddhist monk diet?

I've no doubt it works. I've no doubt mindful eating works.  I've no doubt that we could all be healthier by eating less meat and animals, but we should avoid any kind of prideful feelings that come from saying "My diet is better than yours."  

A colleague of mine, who has taken up marathon running  told me that the human being evolved because he could do things like expend energy on a long term basis running long distances, and somewhere in the world there are people who still catch their animal meals by chasing their meals until they drop.  I think that's probably true too, but  very non-Buddhist.  As for myself, I've been swimming, using weights and doing some aerobic exercise.

I also think, given my recently renewed exercise regimen, that humans have evolved to expend physical energy.  We simply need to be able to expend energy, in such a way as  our bodies have evolved to help maintain our health as best as our lives and bodies permit.   I think a more unsung issue, in terms of right livelihood  is commuting long distances. How much do you commute?

I have a very short commute, and it affords me more time than I otherwise would have to be with my family.  It also affords me the time to exercise to the point where my body mass index is in the bottom 20% of those my age and height.   If you can structure your life to avoid a long commute I think that will go a long, and relatively painless way to a  better livelihood.

Silva Life Systems?

I'm getting an ad on my blog for the "Silva Life System" which, when you click on the link,  has that infamous phrase, "What if I told you..."

What if I told you that all it takes to achieve the deepest levels of meditation known to man…
Is to download a FREE 30 minute-audio, play it on your computer or mp3 player, and listen?

And what if I told you , dear reader, as I have before, that you already meditate like a monk if you're a beginner or not, because all the tools you need are right between your ears?

All this stuff is predicated on a  quid pro quo: they want to get money in order to give you something, which you already have.

Great business model, eh?  So if you see their ad, be sure to click on it (so I will be able to donate more  money to worthy Buddhist temples & charities), but note the tab below; it's not for nothing that this seems like spiritual hucksterism to me.  I mean, if Jack Canfield and Wayne Dyer  endorse it, it must be worth a revenue stream from them!

Oh, and that applies of course to any other scamming ads on my site you might see.  You know what they might look like.

There do exist monks who depend for their livelihood on people who are pretty poor themselves.

As I mentioned here.  The monks here:

evidently give back to the community the idea of mindfulness, of the ability to dwell in but not be attached to whatever comes into awareness, but to mindfully live one's life.

That said, though, the economic issues involved in taking such a path still cannot be ignored.  It is manifestly obvious that for most people, this path cannot really be an option because of the need to apply expedient means to the people in one's life right now.   There are such people who can do this though, although in watching the video clip above (taken from Paul Gerhards' blog)  it is clear that the guy who had 6 kids and a wife was included to bring up this issue; it begs the question: How did he get there?  One might hope there was a reason and a way in which the wife and kids were taken care of one way or the other, or that they were sufficiently grown.    Regardless, even in the idyllic but difficult ideal of the forest monks, such messy questions still exist.

Clearly in Thailand these monks have a symbiotic role with the lay community, and benefit people far removed from their locality, even me.   They do it because at least some of them  see it as obviously necessary for them to do it, not because they're pretending to be cultural innovators; it's just what is done.  What applies to where you are now?  I'd say that most Western and middle class readers of my blog would say the thing to do is not to abandon your family and all your possessions and go off into the forest.  Even the Buddha had a better safety net than that, in that he never completely cut off the possibility of all future contact with his family according to legend; he later did contact his family according to legend.  We who must live our lives for others and for ourselves must do so now, where we are, regardless of whoever posits whatever other alternative way of existence as an ideal.  They might be able to help, but ultimately it's not up to them as to what cultural innovations you may or may not be required to make to be unstuck in your own place and time.

A bit more on the Portland Buddhist Festival

The above two pictures were from the Portland Buddhist Festival.  As it turned out, I had to leave somewhat early as I had to go back to work...an idea which never materialized, thanks to the horrendous traffic situation on the freeways.  Well, that happens from time to time.  It was a great day to be stuck in traffic.The highlight of the festival for me at any  rate was a discussion with Nichiren priest about the Lotus Sutra.  They do read it differently than I do, though he was not without respect for my interpretation, and they did say they do read other sutras.  

I also spoke with  Jodo Shinshu Oregon Buddist Temple's senior minister  Jundo Gregory Gibbs (above, left), although not for nearly as long as I'd have liked.  I wanted to ask him about his relationship, if any, with the Vietnamese and Chinese Pure Land temples in the area.  I did figure out I'd be in town for their wonder O-Bon festival. One other person I talked to, besides those already mentioned here and yesterday, was a wonderful woman from the Kagyu etc. school; it was great having a discussion with her, who assured me that they weren't as politically active as the folks who follow the Dalai Lama.  Tibetan stuff is always quite a bit more complex to me, naturally.   One final thing I noticed was the relative lack of presence of other Asian temples this year, and that was a bit of a pity; maybe a fluent translator for a dharma talk would help.

I did, before I returned home, visit Miao Fa Chan Temple a few blocks away.  They used to have a website, but it disappeared.  But they're still around, I'm happy to say; perhaps they might go to next year's event.  If you want to see a resplendent Chinese Pure Land Temple in Portland, this is the place to go. 

Perhaps, next year  I might, if others didn't mind, contact a few other temples, such as Hui Lin Si, to get their interest.

However, one thing was quite apparent to me: I  completely am not, at this time, in any way ready or able to actually, uh, get up and teach people.  About the Dharma at any rate, in a Dharma setting.  My words would have come out rather disruptive and jarring, and I don't think that would have been very skillful.  My teacher hasn't emphasized a wordy style of teaching, to say the least; I do wish I were more fluent in Japanese so he could give a Dharma talk and I could translate.  But it has given a certain interesting flavor to his style of not-teaching-because-Bodhidharma-is-the-teacher.  Too,  many of the speakers at the Portland Buddhist Festival introducing their temples would say, "Come visit us."  I don't think my teacher would mind people visiting at all once his routine settles down, but  getting a constant influx of new students isn't something he actively pursues at all. And I would not either.   It's that old tradition of having barriers to practice.  Now don't get me wrong: the folks such as they are at the Zen Community of Oregon I think are needed; people do need some kind of access to what the Dharma is, and what Zen practice is.  

But being taught by my teacher is, at present, between them and my teacher, although I do discuss some of these things from time to time.  As for myself, though, if someone doesn't want me to teach them, it's because it's not manifestly obvious that I have anything to teach.  Which is the case. I have found out in the course of my work that I do have to teach the Dharma.  It's just not called the Dharma at all.

I do have to slightly update my view on monastic/lay practice

Paul Gerhards, who I met at the Portland Buddhist festival, and who has a blog, has a post that reminds me that there do exist  monks who depend for their livelihood on people who are pretty poor themselves (scroll down to the Ajahn Chah documentary parts).  Read the rest of Gerhards' post as well; his advice is good advice.

I'll have more to say on the Portland Buddhist Festival; but it did feel really good to help out the Buddhist Peace Fellowship and their efforts there, thanks to Ken Wilber's ads on this site.

Keep clickin', dear readers.  I'm doing what I said.

Portland Buddhist Festival Today

Luckily the folks at the Buddhist Peace Fellowship, the main organizers of the thing, have a blog.  A while back, they decided (correctly, in my view) that it was better for the Dharma not to be associated with the Frederick Lenz Foundation, and that's not why it's called "Change Your Mind Day."  As of today, (scroll to the bottom of the page) Tricycle's webpage on Change Your Mind Day  still says that Change Your Mind Day is co-sponsored by The Frederick P. Lenz Foundation for American Buddhism.  As anyone who's read my blog knows, Frederick Lenz was a spiritual huckster using Buddhism as a pretense for some fairly unsavory activities, according to those who knew him.    He was not certified as particularly learned in Buddhist scriptures, activites etc. by any recognized teacher.  (Of course, neither am I but I don't put myself out there as an incarnation of Vishnu...and then call myself a Zen master!)  In fact, he did not hail from any established Buddhist tradition. His descriptions of the goals of meditation do not match in any way what the teachers in the Zen tradition have taught, and did not match the descriptions of the goals of  Zen practice as found in the Buddhist sutras such as the Lankavatara or Perfection of Wisdom sutras.

It is sad that Tricycle magazine, a major force in Western Buddhism, still associates itself, through its flagship event, with someone that is not very helpful in practicing and propagating the Dharma.  Perhaps Tricycle and his heirs view this as some kind of karmic penance (?) for Lenz...perhaps Tricycle needed the money at the time.  Perhaps the folks at Tricycle were not aware of the full extent of Lenz's follies.  Whatever, it's regrettable.

Then there's Dennis Genpo Merzel, but I think I've said enough for today.

I'll be at the Portland Buddhist Festival, and if there's something interesting, I'll post about it.  Tricycle's Change Your Mind Day, I would assume from the once or twice I attended in NYC back in the day really will have Buddhists at it.

And yet more on Barbara O'Brien's "Buddhism without Buddhism" & Stephen Batchelor

I seem to be getting a great deal of mileage out of Barbara O'Brien's post here.  It's helping to clarify my views, and I would say,  points of how I would critique "Western Buddhism"

In her latest comment; she mentions Stephen Batchelor, and points to her review of his latest book..  Thanks to her, assuming her review's right, I have learned that I  too have my points of disagreement with him, and thank her  for sparing me the time going though his book.  I would agree, from a "Four Dharma Seals" criterion, that he's stepped out of Buddhism, if that is the criterion for who's a Buddhist and who isn't a Buddhist.  On the other hand, is the "Four Dharma Seals" a gate that admits those who are Buddhists and keeps out those who aren't?

From her latest comment on "Buddhism without Buddhism:"

These days many of us are struggling to maintain the integrity of undiluted Buddhism in the West in spite of the push by people like Stephen Batchelor to take all the power out of it and repackage it as McDharma. Hey, it sells books, right?

 In her hyperlink here on Batchelor she points out:

For example, on page 34 of Confessions Batchelor writes about the 7th-century philosopher Dharmakirti -- "His philosophy gave me an excellent conceptual framework for interpreting my practice of mindfulness as well as the other experiences I had had in Dharamsala." However, "Emptiness of inherent existence, by contrast, is just a conceptual and linguistic abstraction."
"Emptiness of inherent existence" -- shunyata -- is the key to understanding Mahayana Buddhism. Without some appreciation for shunyata, you will misunderstand everything else. Realization of shunyata is the perfection of great wisdom evoked by the Heart Sutra. And it's a "conceptual and intellectual abstraction" only until one learns how to reach beyond the limits of conceptual thought to understand it.

I think her hyperlink to Batchelor is spot on, but I think her implication that he's trying merely to sell books misses the mark.  For whatever reason, "Emptiness of inherent existence, by contrast, is just a conceptual and linguistic abstraction" is no doubt a belief sincerely held by him.  I have no idea now an intelligent, learned man can have that as a sincerely  held belief these days, but, as my grandma would have said, there you are. 

What I mean by that is  to me, everything from the cosmology of the universe to Treblinka and Rwanda and 9/11 to Big Horizon to the prevalence of deconstruction as an explanation for what we communicate manifests the voidness of essence.

But I think Batchelor came to his conclusions after careful thought, just as I would say I came to Buddhism after careful thought.  I just think, (ah, think) that like Newt Gingrich, he has made a rather odd choice of paths, and I would suspect that - as his book title - Batchelor still considers himself a Buddhist.

O'Brien's distinctions here, even the "Four Dharma Seals" criterion, I would say, are somewhat arbitrary insofar as these are things that were decided by people, hence their validity is ultimately negotiable .(See "Zen master" Herb Cohen's books on negotiation as to why this is so.  It is simply amazing to me that when the book linked here came out in the 70s, Cohen, a corporate lawyer of some kind, was using the skills in this book to negotiate deals with clients, using the very underlying ideas of emptiness as Nagarjuna and Sartre and Derrida,  the latter of whom was also in his prime.  Cohen just put these concepts in a very user-friendly mass market paperback, having nothing whatsoever to do with Buddhism or a spiritual path..  But I digress.)

Barbara continues in her comment on "Buddhism without Buddhism:"

When I say “undiluted” Buddhism I don’t mean slavish copying of Asian forms just because it’s traditional. Rather, right now we’re all going through a process of discovering what will best function as upaya in western culture. Buddhism has always gone through some re-tooling as it has spread into new cultures. But what many of us have found is that bowing chanting, rituals — work. The litrugy works. The old commentaries and sutras work. They are transformative. They are a powerful skillful means. So we’re adapting and retooling, but not in a way that dilutes what the dharma ancestors have given us. 

The bowing and chanting etc. are, in my experience, far more powerful in some forms than others, and some "adaptations of the Asian forms for Westerners" are simply dreadful, esthetically speaking, and for whatever reason, much of the impetus for why Asian forms are the way they are is strained out of the Westernization..

The White Plum Asanga has 延 命 十 句 觀 音 經  in their liturgy,  but they completely miss the lineage and provenance of this chant when they do chant it, based on my experiences in more than one of the temples in their lineage.  Even though this chant comes down from the Rinzai line via Hakuin, they have "anti-adpated" it to the West; they've drained it of all its power (literally doing so, I'm certain Hakuin would insist).  But heck, Soto guys like Brad Warner probably don't even chant this, so what am I complaining about? Besides, I would submit that all, all are Buddhists.  But it does trigger the thought in me that perhaps a post explaining how it's done in the Rinzai tradition might be helpful at some point.  Just don't do it that way at 3 in the morning in a house full of non-Buddhists on a clear warm summer night with the windows wide open or you might get arrested for a domestic disturbance...but I digress again.


However, with the world the way it is, with Kentucky Fried Chicken popular in China (go figure!), and Tabasco sauce ubiquitous in Japan, much of the idea that "Buddhism must be adapted for Westerners" seems much like cultural chauvinism.  To each their own on this, but always be on the lookout for the genuine article.  To make a (no-no!) meat eating analogy, it's the difference between real Japanese teppan and Benihana.

More on Zen, Politics, Authenticity, and "Lay versus Monastic Practice"

Evidently I am able to comment on Barbara's Buddhism blog.  She was mentioning Jack Kornfeld's schtick, and I'd had replied to Barbara's remark:

There's also the old and ongoing problem of adapting monasticism to lay life. Buddhists have been struggling with this for centuries. 

 I know once source from whence this might have come.  It is mentioned in The Eight Gates of Zen, an introductory text on Zen for the White Plum Asanga affiliated Mountains and Rivers Order, in which  I practiced for a while when I was in NYC.  I'm sure Barbara's well familiar with this book; having mentioned on her blog several thoughts that have parallels in the book (among them, that 無 shouldn't be done while driving, which is of course true).  Now don't get me wrong in the least - this is a fantastic book, and I recommend reading it, especially if you're new to Zen practice. In that book there is a great deal of space given to the "monastic versus lay" dichotomy, and while I find no problem whatsoever with those who wish to take a monastic/hermetic lifestyle, I did realize after several years of practice out here in the Pacific Northwest, with the example of my own teacher as temple and family guy, as well as learning the history of the Hakuin- Kosen Imakita  lineage to realize that this dichotomy is absolutely irrelevant to my own practice.

I remember the times I'd sit and have to interrupt it to do things for my son, and I'd feel guilty about not being able to sit longer! In retrospect it was completely absurd to worry about this!  My "teacher" needed his milk, warmed, in a sipping cup.  I JUST. DIDN'T. GET. IT.  The Whole Thing was right where I was, and I was putting John Daido Loori's words in my head, as another head, when I had a perfectly good one. Well, like they say about apps and the iPhone, there's a koan for that. (Case 39.)

So I can empathize with Barbara when she replied:

As someone who struggled for years with formal Zen training while raising two children by myself and working a full-time job to support them, I say it’s damn hard to combine lay life with anything resembling standard Zen training.

Because, like her, for years I didn't realize that there is no such thing as standard Zen training. Sure, there's koan curricula, methods for shikan taza, Zen-related arts and "athletics" (for want of a better word).  But it's all, all singular.  It's akin to that quote in the famous Zen movie, Beetlejuice.

[in the waiting room of the afterlife]
Barbara: Adam, is this what happens when you die?
Receptionist: This is what happens when *you* die.
[points at a gaunt man smoking]
Receptionist: That is what happens when *he* dies.
[points at a woman cut in half on the sofa reading]
Receptionist: And that is what happens when *they* die. It's all very personal. And I'll tell you something: if I knew then what I know now...
[shows her slit wrists]
Receptionist: ...I wouldn't have had my little accident.
[the dead people laugh] 

It's all very personal.  That's why political people don't stop being political people when they take up a practice, and non-political people don't necessarily become politically aware and engaged. Mutatis mutandis  about Barbara's recent post about Kyle.

She's spot on there. There's just about 10,000 ways that this point is true.  You do become "more authentic" with this practice, but not in a way that is intentionally more authentic...'cause that's that être-pour-soi again.

It's really easy to put another head on top of the one we already have.  There's 10,000 ways to do that, too.

And so to my final point in my comment on Barbara's blog: It does seem to me that American Zen - heck, probably all forms of Buddhism as practiced by the worlds bourgeoisie is predicated on the existence of leisure time.  As an engineer, I have been nurtured in the benefits of making stuff to give people more leisure time and use it more effectively.  However, traditionally human existence has not been this way.   If we are to be serious about our practice we have to be serious about really alleviating the sufferings of all beings. I don't know how Jordan's able to be a Marine (and I absolutely admire his practice), but I simply cannot fathom how Tom Armstrong lives his life now, and deeply respect him for it. 

I have it way, way easy, and I know I don't even know how easy I have it.  I know Bernie Glassman tried to move in the direction of helping the homeless in his Greyston thing, and maybe that's still working well; I haven't read more on it lately.  I do know there's a multitude of beings that it is absolutely critical for me to help today though, as part of my own  job and family life and career.  So while I can say I have it easy, and I have worked to cultivate skills to make it "easier" for me, I  know there are others who have it what seems to be hopelessly difficult to me. 

One reason I do Zen

I used to take up much of my mind with questions as to my own sincerity and authenticity.  When I got some vague notion where I was in the world, and where I wasn't in the world, I realized that it was better to be alive in the world, albeit with some risk of being sincerely insincere, rather than to dwell in the être-pour-soi, as per the waiter who pretends being a waiter, who plays at being a waiter in Sartre's L'Être et le Néant.

And then I realized there was such a thing as statements - and those modes of behavior that may be neither true nor false, but performative.

All of this was born of that feeling out of place in the world, in this body in which I animate.


I got better doing this Zen stuff.

Lankavatara Sutra Chapter 3, Section LXXI

I'm using the usual translation....and as usual, I'm not authorized to say a word by a teacher;  my words and comments  are purely mine.

Mahamati points out that true knowledge is independent of any objects supporting it; and any statements we would make about such knowledge would be the product of thought-construction, and hence having no intrinsic essence, and hence not to be taken ("seized" or apprehended) as real.  Without this apprehension, discrimination ceases to evolve.  Mahamati then asks why true knowledge might be unobtainable; is it because of its aspects of unity or separateness, or because of obstructions, the distortion of the senses, etc.?

If, Blessed One, knowledge was not obtainable because of our not recognising individuality, generality, unity and plurality, then, Blessed One, such cannot be [transcendental] knowledge; it is to be called ignorance (ajnana), for in spite of the fact that objects to be known are before us we do not know them. Again, if knowledge is unobtainable because [such ideas as] individuality, generality, multiplicity, and self-nature overpower one another, such is ignorance (ajnana). Blessed One, it is not [transcendental] knowledge. Where there is something to be known, Blessed One, knowledge evolves; where there is nothing, none evolves; knowledge is possible [only] where there is a correspondence with that which is known.

The Buddha replies that such transcendental knowledge, that which is not obtained via the myriad methods of discrimination, or true knowledge, is not ignorance.

It is not because of the deeper sense that I say this, but when [we know that] there is knowledge gained independent of any supporting object, whatever statements we make about it are no more than thought-constructions. That [transcendental] knowledge is unobtainable is due to the recognition that there is nothing in the world but what is seen of the Mind, and that these external objects to which being and non-being are predicated are non-existent. As this [knowledge] is unobtainable, there is no evolving of knowing and known, and as thus the triple emancipation is realised, there is unattainable knowledge [which is transcendental]. 

 I get the feeling from reading this that if such exchanges did take place, then the Buddha must have been really  patient; because it seems (by now!) that Mahamati was expending a lot of thought construction getting the Buddha to speak on this like this at this point.

The Buddha summarizes:

If [transcendental] knowledge fails to see an objective world which lies before it, such is ignorance and not knowledge; this teaching belongs to the logicians.

 If [transcendental] knowledge fails to see, though various obstructions far and near, its own unique object that does not present itself [as an object], such is to be called wrong knowledge.

If [transcendental] knowledge fails to know, on account of defective senses such as infancy, old age, and blindness, its own object which is present, such is to be called wrong knowledge.

 Unity does not mean the annihilation of separateness, and vice-versa.

The bizarre oddness of Ken Wilber...

I'm a Doctor of Philosophy.  True, it's in electrical engineering, but I'd say I've read more philosophy than those who are "premium members" of... of what?

One of the ads on my blog asserts:

• Loading...

End Culture War

Ken Wilber calls for an Integral Revolution

IntegralLife.com

 

 That's the ad that I referenced here.  Well, at least they take any e-mail address ...but then you get that bald guy saying "It's an extraordinary fact" that "anyone can be integrally oriented."  And "one of the best things we can do...is to create these new rules for the gifted."

And how to you "help out" to create these new "rules for the gifted?"

If you enjoy what you find and want to stick around (and we think that you will), simply do nothing, we'll charge your card the $14.95 membership fee one month after the day you sign-up. If not, cancel anytime and your DVD/2CD gift is still yours to keep forever. 

 

 Gee, that'd be...rounding to $15/month...$180/year.  That's a good gig considering that Ken Wilber's credentials.  

I've got a good gig myself, but please, if you see one of Ken Wilber's ads on this site, please click it!  Really, for the schlock he's peddling he might as well pay some tribute my way.  I'm at least attempting to speak honestly of what I find on his site.

I won't charge your credit card, and I won't send you a DVD/2CD "gift."

Polishing the tile, being political

I was thinking about Zen Buddhism and politics following this recent post by the Venerable Warner.  He said:

I also feel like Zen should not be politicized. I really hated it in the early 80s when all the televangelists used their position to push the Reagan agenda. These days I see a lot of Buddhist organizations using their positions to push left-wing politics, which I think is a similar abuse. Because I've said this some people imagine I must be a neo-Nazi. Because in certain circles the view seems to be that anyone who doesn't shout the praises of liberalism from the rooftops at every opportunity has to be a neo-Nazi. But I promise you I'm not. I just don't think Buddhism ought to get mixed up in such matters.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know the come-back. "What if the fascists come back in power??? What if your neighbors are being rounded up and sent to re-education camps???" I'll worry about that if it actually happens. For now, there's no good reason to mix the two.

It's like vegetarianism. I've been a vegetarian longer than I've been a Buddhist and I'm pretty committed to it. Yet I try very hard not to use my position as a sort-of-but-not-really-very famous Buddhist teacher-thing to push vegetarianism. This came up at one of the talks in Germany, where someone asked if it was necessary to stop eating meat to be a good Buddhist. I told him "no."

 Now if you're asking me or Brad Warner what political stripes you should have or what you should eat in order to be a good Buddhist you could be a better Buddhist simply by not asking that question.

But I want to point out that what I think Warner's trying to say is that Zen Buddhism is not representative of a single political philosophy any more than say, tennis or violin playing is in itself.  Can you use tennis or the violin or Zen Buddhism to reinforce certain political acts and aspirations?  Of course.  Should you?

This is where I must part company with the Venerable Warner: with the practice of Zen "we become more us," that is, we function more in harmony and in synch with our environment and those around us.  To those of us who are more political animals than others, our Zen will inform our political acts.   The good teacher will know when to teach, but his words will not necessarily have the baggage of Zen buzzwords intermixed with them.  The good parent will coax the children out of the burning house without religious appeals.

But it will all be Zen

Even PZ Myers falls from trees...

I've much appreciation for the dark, sacrilegious with of PZ Myers.  Admittedly, he does from time to time live up to his critics worst invectives, but I understand from whence his own invective emerges; it's kind of the sickness and medicine he and religion trade with each other.  But, as they say in Japan, even monkeys fall from trees now and then.

His latest fall is in an otherwise biting article against a quack practitioner of Chinese medicine. Now I've been a consumer of Chinese medicine now and again; some of it works, especially the wintergreen oil preparations they use (containing saclicylates - aspirin like compounds).  In Myers article, though, he gets a bit too dismissive:

... I'm left marveling: there are no acupuncture points anywhere, it's all a load of hokum, so where do they get off rejecting so unambiguously an assertion from another quack? I see claims that sticking a needle in an ankle will fix a problem in an elbow, for instance, so using their own unsubstantiated illogic, maybe dithering about in the vagina is just the thing to fix a case of dandruff.

Well... there's a study out now...

Acupuncture eases pain in the limbs because it releases a natural molecule called adenosine, neuroscientists in the United States reported on Sunday.

The mechanism was discovered through experiments in lab mice, which were given an injection of an inflammation-inducing chemical in their right paw.
The researchers inserted fine needles below the midline of the mice's knee, at a well-known acupuncture location called the Zusanli point.

They rotated the needle gently every five minutes for 30 minutes, mimicking a standard acupuncture treatment.
During and just after this operation, levels of adenosine in the tissues surrounding the needle surged 24-fold. The mouse's discomfort -- measurable by the rodents' response time to touch and heat -- was reduced by two-thirds, they found...

Previous work has focused on acupuncture's effectiveness on the central nervous system -- the trunk of nerves in the spinal cord and brain -- rather than the peripheral nervous system.

In the central nervous system, acupuncture creates signals that cause the brain to produce powerful anti-pain chemicals called endorphins.

I'm  inclined to give this credence; its authors are with the University of Rochester Medical Center. They do real science there and are funded to do so.  It is true that like chiropractic (which is useful for very minor back and neck problems, but not much else, in my understanding), acupuncture is often touted as a panacea, but it does have its place in medicine it seems.

Lankavatara Sutra Chapter 3, Section LXX

I'm using the usual translation....and as usual, I'm not authorized to say a word by a teacher;  my words and comments  are my responsibility alone.

The Buddha explains:

"All things are unborn" is not to be maintained by the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva as valid. Why? Of this thesis it is to be stated that anything of which something is asserted partakes thereby of the nature of being, and that the reason for this thesis is characterised with the quality of birth; while it is being asserted by the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva that all things are unborn, the very assertion destroys his thesis. The thesis that all things are unborn acts against the one who holds it because it is born of the principle of mutuality.

"All things are unborn" is still a form of dualistic thinking.  Furthermore, the sentence "all things are unborn" is self-referential, leading to a paradox.  The Buddha continues:

As with [the thesis that] all things are unborn, so with [the thesis that] all things are empty and have no self-nature—neither is to be maintained by the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva. But, Mahamati, this is to be pointed out by the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva, that things in their self-nature are like Maya, like a dream; for they are in one way perceived [as existing] and in another way are not perceived [as such], and all things are thus seen in [two] ways, in accordance either with knowledge or ignorance. Let it be pointed out that all things are like Maya and a dream, except when the feeling of fear is aroused in the minds of the ignorant. Mahamati, the ignorant and the simple-minded are addicted to the views of being and non-being, and are liable to tremble [at our teaching]; Mahamati, let them not be frightened away from the Mahayana. 

It's hard to give up attachments of whatever form, and our inability to fully grasp this and act within this leads to disturbance.

I'm going to take up the Shurangama Sutra after the Lankavatara

Thanks to Jordan, I've become aware of this sutra, and I've told him in the comments that I'd get to it next.  And since that's something I said to a Marine on Memorial Day weekend, I consider that an obligation.

Wikipedia tells me that it's very Zen-related, so I'm psyched to do that..  I  plan to use this translation, as it's on-line and folks can readily access it.  Yes, it also means I don't have to do much typing input of text, too.

But I am very psyched to do this; I think that this activity has greatly deepened my practice and I can understand why the old Zen guys were not only sitting on their buts, but also out working, and reading these texts.
.

Keep clickin' those advertisers!

Evidently on some second price  auction bids, an ad wins which asserts that Ken Wilber calls me.

You're one click away from accessing the video. It's yours for free, just enter your email address below. Email Address: *We respect your privacy. We will never share your information with anyone. Discover the single most important thing you can do right now to help create the next major global shift in consciousness. Previously available only to our premium members, this exclusive video with Ken Wilber, the world's foremost integral philosopher, is yours free. Simply enter your email address in the form to the right, and it will begin playing instantly on the next page. Right now, there’s a small group of people on our planet—less than 5%—who are in a position to create the next major step for humanity… and if you’re reading this page, you’re one of them.  In fact, if you’re even aware that a new world is possible, and you know it’s only through your own transformation, development, and connection with other like-minded people that you can bring it into being, then you can be participating in what may be the world’s most important cultural transformations—one that’s happened only a handful of times in human history.  And if that inspires you, then you absolutely have to watch the video on the next page.   You’ll see an up-close-and-personal talk with Ken Wilber, widely considered the world’s leading integral philosopher, in which he talks about the single most important thing he thinks anyone can do to become an agent for integral transformation.   Just enter your information in the form to the right, and you’ll be able to access the video instantly.

Please click these ads - Google's close to a payout, and I will donate 1/2 to my temple or a nice Buddhist charity...remember, every penny that Ken Wilber spends on his ads here (or the fundamentalist Christian churches for that matter) goes to a Buddhist, and his choice of charity or his temple!

Sweet!

Memorial Day

And a bit of back...and forth to come?...with 12 Step Buddhists

Darren Littlejohn illustrates the problem with mixing and matching Buddhist ideas (not necessarily the practices) with other ideologies, in this case, 12 Step ideology...

From a Buddhist perspective, emotions are considered poison and need to be restrained or transcended fully to achieve enlightenment. Ask any monk or nun about their vows and they'll tell you - getting carried away emotionally is a no-no. In 12-Step practice, emotions are based on instincts gone wild and need to be leveled off to maintain sobriety (clean-time). 

 My comments:

1. From a Mahayana Buddhist perspective, emotions are an aspect of the 5 aggregates, a manifestation of Mind, and fundamentally empty.   They are not poisons, and "getting carried away emotionally" isn't the problem with the emotion it's a problem with the being stuck in dukkha doing the emoting.  In Buddhism, and in Zen, we try to act in accordance and in harmony, and this harmony means recognizing responsibility.
2. Denial and suppression of emotions is a sure-fire recipe for some bad karma; this has been part of the human story since at least the ancient Greeks, the ancient Chinese, the ancient Indians, and even the Buddhists. Feelings that are harmful - "evil, unskillful, thoughts" exist, have existed and will continue to exist; they are no different from an itchy nose in their form and substance and yield to similar techniques.
3. Simply abstaining from intoxicants won't do jack for you, in the Buddhist view.  Also in the Buddhist view, it affords you no bragging rights.  There's a whole lot more to it, and, well, it just ain't captured in the holy doctrines of Bill Wilson. 

P.S. Do click on my advertisers... especially the weird ones....

I might as well accrue revenue from all the Evangelical Churches that are trying to save me, not to mention the purveyors of woo. (I almost wish this guy advertised on my blog.)

Now if I knew how to remove and filter more of this stuff I would, and do intend to try to filter things better in the future.  But right now, if they're willing to give money to have me talk about Buddhism, who am I to turn them away?

I will give at least 1/2 to my temple or the Tzu Chi folks, by the way.

A bit of back and forth with "New Atheists"

I do regularly visit P.Z. Myers' blog, as anyone who reads my blog regularly knows.  My thinking largely parallels Petteri's thinking on this.  Regarding the New Atheists, and with great thanks to Petteri for thinking about this in the first place, I  part company on with New Atheists on the following:

a)Whether Buddhism is a religion : I say it is.

b) Whether religion is a net negative: I do admit there's an awful lot of evidence against the big monotheistic ones, but for the same reasons I say Buddhism is a religion - it's a set of skills one hones and said skill honing - I'd have to vote in favor of a net positive

c) Whether people are fundamentally rational: I think it's quack science to suggest this; I don't think the neuroscience supports this.  Furthermore, anyone who's pondered their place in existence either has to accept the extreme singularity (and hence the apparent absurdity) of their predicament, or they choose to invent a religious narrative that wishes this away.  I'd include "people are fundamentally rational" in the latter category; though, and Buddhism in the former category. 

d) Whether religion is nothing more or less than a set of (flawed) propositions and behaviors accepted on faith: I would say this is to some extent true in Buddhism at first, but the honing of skills takes a bit of the scientific method as applied to one's self.

Petteri adds this one bit here, by the way:

The world ends at Wittgenstein 7. If something can't be defined or verified, it's as good as non-existent and therefore not worth talking about.

Now I do have to point out that Wittgenstein didn't actually say what Petteri says, but I think he is accurately characterizing much New Atheist thought.  Wittgenstein's "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" is as much an admission of the existence of the mystical as it is for the phenomenological.  I, myself, lean toward the phenomenological (sort of in this sense).  Whether or not, though there is something beyond in the realm of where one cannot speak, if we cannot speak of it for all intents and purposes, one can neither assert nor deny; the nonexistence of god is ultimately as relevant as its existence.  We Zen Buddhists go one step further (in both Rinzai and Soto traditions); we know there are some things whereof one cannot speak, and they do not necessarily fit into categories of "natural" and "metaphysical."   And furthermore, we seek to observe, express, and embody these things and natural things and all logical combinations thereof in a non-dualistic manner. 

Naturalists, it would seem to me, literally don't play much tennis or swimming, 'cause you can't do those activities and not be doing some kind of non-dualism.  And yeah, yeah, yeah, you don't need a "religion" to do those activities well.  But then again what we're talking about here is various deconstructions of the term "religion," and Southern Baptists have one preferred meaning, New Atheists have another, and this Buddhist ex-Catholic has sort of jury rigged his own, and freely admits your mileage may vary.

Anyway, that was a long but overdue digression.  Yesterday P.Z. Myers finally got around to a blog entry that went over that saccharine op-ed from the Dalai Lama.  I'd mentioned this article here. So anyway, I commented on Myers' blog:

I was wondering when you'd get to the Dalai Lama. Regular readers to my blog know that although I'm a Buddhist, I tend to be very critical of the Dalai Lama.
It tends to get me in trouble with certain other Buddhist bloggers.
I have differences with you folk in that you'd call my religion as I do it a philosophy, whereas I call it a religion because it has elements of the cultivation of skills (which most religions admittedly lack, but which pretty much all philosophies definitely lack).
But the Dalai Lama is problematic, as well as the holder of some quite large conflicts of interest.

Somebody replied, and I noted that it is the skill of using breath and mindfulness (and I could have  added actions, behavior, etc.) that makes Buddhism the religion that it is. Eventually that person wrote:

My objection is more along the lines that your use of the word "religion" strains against the common usage of the term in the English language and (at first blush) smacks of sophistry. It renders the term even more meaningless than it already is, and muddies up the water instead of making it clearer.

Note that the fact that it helps you to be mindful and breathe doesn't make it a religion. The cultivation of skills is, by your own admission, not a necessary condition of religion, and so it cannot possibly make the difference between Buddhism being a philosophy and a religion. That's the other element of my objection (and why I made the comment about logical consistency).

None of this should be read as a criticism of Buddhism in general or your particular flavor; the latter especially seems pretty reasonable to me.

I do think there is much common ground with everyone, and although we might quibble on what's a religion and what's not a religion, we should be able to live with each other, whether fundamentalist or New Atheist.   I think it's amazing how little interaction there is with  Western Buddhists in the blogosphere and other religions in general, or atheists, given the fact that we're a minority, and our practice is in the midst of these other belief/non-belief systems.

On Yesterday's Buddha's Birthday, etc.

I was reading this article, and although I'm a Buddhist, in the tradition to which I belong, we observe this around April 8, perhaps for reasons due to the traditional significance of "4" and "8" in Chinese languages.

It was a good thing those ancestors went down this path.  It would be very difficult to invent Buddhism from scratch, and every time somebody tries to improve on it (either by religious or explicitly antireligious methods), in my view, these methods fall short.

Because of a confluence of the busy things that permeate this lay householder's life, I have to have much of my practice "just getting from Point A to Point B."

But I'm very grateful for the ancestors who didn't have the householder's life per se to do these things, as well as those more immediate ancestors who sought to combine the monastic and householders' lives.

It was a most excellent concept, and I am deeply grateful for that.

Today's thoughts....

It's been a weird, cool spring in the Pacific Northwest; although it's famously rainy and cloudy here, in spring, by this time, we should have gotten a few more sunny days, and a couple of days in the 80s. Instead, it's been cool to cold and rainy most of the time.

The result of this seems to be, in my case, the mother of all sinusitis complaints, brought on, no doubt, by a bumper crop of pollen.

Ah, sinusitis practice.

In addition, it is the umpteenth time my son was given an "arts and crafts" like assignment for his class; its subject matter, the Amoy tiger, is cool, but we, in our household have no arts and crafts capability...even my attempts at 書道 are those of a rank amateur, though that is the expression of myself and my environment, and so that's the point. And this diorama crap... I'm in my 50s...I did not have to do this in my severe and abusive Catholic school...I guess they never thought of the boring to death kind of abuse...and it occurs to me that the only way to make this interesting is to make a 3rd grader's diorama the equivalent of Piss Christ...that is, something transgressive, something that breaks the rules, something that actually is interesting...'cause I don't know anyone that actually likes to do this kind of thing without some ulterior purpose behind it.  This kind of stuff is the art equivalent of "Lies My Teacher Told Me."

And that somehow brings me back to the post below...Wiley Coyote is an archetype of elaborate folly, usually scored by the genius Carl Stalling. He is an archetype of extreme and elaborate attachment to the point of folly. In the case of South Korea, it's understood they're doing what they have to do to keep the murderous regime to the North at bay.

The Kim family of the North will not be looked at kindly by history, no matter what.

It's horrible that the Koreas might go to war...

And I truly hope disaster there is averted, especially since I've loved going to South Korea.  But, do you think, like BP's attempts to stop the oil spill disaster, that the attempts by the 2 Koreas to have a "propaganda war" have a certain  Roadrunner cartoon sensibility to them?

In the 1950s, North Korea began construction of the modern town of Kijongdong, in the demilitarised zone. Its modern concrete apartment buildings, complete with electricity, were designed to showcase the best of North Korean collective living to anyone looking over the border. It also sports the largest flagpole in the world - at some 160m (525 ft).
But observers believe the village has never been fully inhabited and that the buildings are empty shells, with lights turned on and off to give the illusion of a busy community.
South Korea also has one small village in the DMZ - Taesungdong, which has its own large flagpole. Its population is heavily protected by the military. 

Unfortunately, this is real life.

Lankavatara Sutra Chapter 3, Section LXIX

As you might have guessed, I'm using this translation, and of course nobody authorized me to say anything.  Take my words at your own risk. 

The Buddha says, "The self-nature of things is the discrimination of the ignorant and simple-minded, and it is not as it- is discriminated by them. [I]t is the creation of false imagination; nothing indicative of self-nature is to be ascertained. But, Mahamati, there is the self-nature of things such as is ascertained by the wise, by their wise knowledge, by their wise insight, by their wise transcendental vision.   Mahamati asks, among other questions, "Blessed One, what is derived from the imagination cannot be the self-nature of reality. How is it that while things are said to exist owing to the imagination [or discrimination], they are said again not to be such as are imagined?"

How can if discrimination is faulty and arising from false imagination lead to accurateness, from a the perspective of the Lankavatara sutra?

 Finally, we have in this passage:

Now, Blessed One, is it that in order to have all beings free from the notion of being [which is realism] and of non-being [which is nihilism], you in turn make them cherish a realistic view of existence by telling them to uphold the idea of the self-nature of reality, whereby they are led to cling to the realm of noble wisdom? Why do you deny the truth of solitude by teaching the doctrine of reality whose self-nature is [according to you] noble wisdom?

Said the Blessed One: Mahamati, it is not true that I deny truth of solitude, nor that I fall into a realistic view by upholding the noble doctrine of self-existing reality. But in order to save all beings from becoming frightened, who are addicted from beginningless past to the notion of self-nature, it is told them that there is truth of solitude, after making them realise by means of noble wisdom that reality in its self-nature is made the subject of attachment [by the ignorant]. Mahamati, the doctrine of self-nature is not taught by me. But, Mahamati, those who have realised by themselves truth of solitude as it really is and are abiding in it, will see that [this existence of] error has no form; and thereby knowing that what is seen is nothing but the Mind itself,  they are kept away from [dualistically] viewing an external world under the aspect of being and non-being; they are stamped well with the stamp of suchness which is gained by the triple emancipation; they will have an intuition into the self-nature of all things by the wisdom which is acquired within themselves, and thus get away from such ideas of reality as to lead themselves to realism and nihilism.

 It's good to have a bit of non-dualism in the morning.  As I've written in the past much of this sutra is quite repetitive in its themes, but you have to marvel at the myriad ways in which the notion of non-duality is continually expressed here.

And, speaking of the Dalai Lama, I suppose it would be impertinent of me to point out

That in writing this:

And I’ve learned how the Talmud and the Bible repeat the theme of compassion, as in the passage in Leviticus that admonishes, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 

he's also tacitly endorsing, with his silence some really really nasty stuff.  It's because there's all that love stuff in these texts that they can convince people to do the stoning, killing and other nasty bits in the bible.

But I suppose I'm being naive.

I'm all for religious tolerance and live and let live; don't get me wrong.  But there are differences in religions, and they have different moral and ethical imperatives and objectives.  If we can't be frank about the differences, then are we being sincere when we say we're tolerant? I don't think so.

And in today's lesson in realpolitik...

Speaking of the Dalai Lama geopolitics and China, it's easy to find stories on the 'net explaining how China playing the recent crisis over the navy ship being sunk by North Korea to its advantage.

What you may not have thought of, though, is this is all very good for Samsung, Hyundai, and the other chaebol who are export-driven.

Yuk.

Odds are: the world won't go into another Korean war, and it's a good time to profit handsomely in Korean stocks.

Sorry to put such reptilian thoughts on a Buddhist blog, but this is the way the world seems to work sometimes.

Some American Buddhists don't like my views on the Dalai Lama...

Sort of predictably, Barbara at the About.com Buddhism blog didn't really like my comments on the Dalai Lama. (And I guess I've been banned from expanding my comments there.)  I'm not surprised, because I've encountered this situation from a number of American Buddhists, both in the blogosphere and out of the blogosphere.  Odd that so few of these folks ever have a talk with Chinese folks living in this country, it seems.   But, for me, "Let's talk about everything."  Barbara at the Buddhism blog says:

Chinese people think the Dalai Lama is a trouble maker because that’s what they’ve been told all their lives. That’s not a sign of intelligence but of misinformation. And if things are so hunky-dory with Tibetan Buddhism in China, how come a majority of the monks of Lhasa were detained for “re-education” in the summer of 2009? How come several monasteries have been raided by authorities, and monks arrested, in the past several months?

And:

The fact remains that the government of China is absolutely insane where the Dalai Lama is concerned. For example, they’re behind the oppression of Thich Nhat Hanh followers in Vietnam, for the simple reason that Thich Nhat Hanh told an Italian interviewer that he thought His Holiness ought to be allowed to return to Tibet. And where is the Panchen Lama, btw? You said the Panchen Lama was discussed “frankly.” Were they so frank they could produce the young man to show he and his family weren’t executed years ago?

 Here's several responses to this:

1. RE: the Panchen Lama, no reputable news services has ever reported that the Dalai-Lama chosen one was "executed."

2. They're "behind" the oppression of Thich Nhat Hanh's followers in Vietnam sounds absurd on its face, simply because the Chinese and Vietnamese are historically mortal enemies and the trappings of a Communist government has done exactly nothing to change that historic relationship. If Thich Nhat Hanh said this alone it is more likely that the government of Vietnam would have sent him a birthday cake.

3. The Chinese government does not condone organizing to call into question the premise and legitimacy of its government, but this is simply how all Chinese governments have historically operated.  It is also, fundamentally, how the United States operates in regards to groups such as the FALN, the Black Liberation Army and other groups.

4. The United States still seeks the extradition of revolutionaries/criminals such as Assata Shakur. Leonard Peltier, a more tenuous case, remains in prison after decades.  What the Dalai Lama represents to the Chinese government is more serious than these people, and calling it, as Barbara does,  "old, old, old news, very widely known, hardly secret" is an attempt to minimize what in any other context (like putting the US in the position of China) would be obviously what the Chinese would do.

5. I was having dinner the other night with a Chinese colleague, who pointed out that the Chinese would never give up Tibet because of its strategic importance as a supply line from the west, as it was in World War II.  This, besides the abundant mineral wealth of Tibet is never discussed either by the Dalai Lama nor his supporters.  I'm amazed that folks like Barbara can bandy about terms like "misinformed" and "ignorant" when they are either guilty of those terms or deliberately downplaying the geopolitics here.  But I've seen that before.  Anyone looking at a map and with a rudimentary understanding in geography and geology and current events gets the geopolitics; it stares one in the face.  It's funny that people can be enchanted away from what ought to be plain as the nose on their face.

Buddhism and War

In yesterday's Independent, there was an excellent article on how China and Sri Lanka's Buddhist culture combined to help brutally defeat the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).  It's well worth reading the whole thing, but this part in particular is of interest to those thinking about Buddhism and politics.

We in the West by and large have a pretty foggy understanding of Buddhism, but one thing we know for certain is that Buddhists are for peace. So the idea that the war party in Sri Lanka – not just in the past five years but throughout the years of independence – was identifiable with Buddhist monks does not sound right. It's like finding Trappist monks engaged in a talk-athon or Orthodox Jews running a pork pie factory.

Buddhists don't do war. Look at the Dalai Lama: for 50 years he has strained every fibre to prevent Tibetan resistance to Chinese oppression turning violent. He has a great line on this challenge: "In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher."

Up close, Sinhalese Buddhism looks as harmless and pacific as any other variety. Visit any temple in the country during Poya or full moon day, a monthly national religious holiday on the island, and you will find scenes of perfect serenity as families dressed all in white offer food to the monks in their saffron robes, then picnic under the trees or stroll around the whitewashed stupa.

By contrast, listen to the words of the Venerable Athuraliye Rathana in 2002: "There are two central concepts of Buddhism," the monk said, "compassion and wisdom. If compassion was a necessary and sufficient condition, then the Buddha would not have elaborated on wisdom or prajna. Hitler could not have been overcome by maitriya [compassion] alone. Today there is a discourse about peace in Sri Lanka. It is an extremely artificial exercise and one that is clearly being orchestrated under threat of terrorist attack."...

How did Sri Lankan Buddhism veer off so sharply from the other schools? Buddhism was born in northern India in the 6th century BC, and spread throughout the subcontinent and beyond. But eight or nine hundred years later it began to lose ground to new schools of devotional Hinduism, which steadily supplanted it. Eventually it disappeared from the Indian mainland altogether.

Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka watched this process with alarm, and hatched a way to stop it at the coast: they wrote a new book of scripture, the Mahavamsa, to establish indissoluble links between the historical Buddha and their island. The Mahavamsa claimed that the Buddha had visited Sri Lanka three times and had declared it "dhammadipa", "the island of righteousness" – a sort of Buddhist Promised Land, where the Sinhalese should rule and Buddhism should be unchallenged. The Mahavamsa, although not accepted by scholars as a core teaching, helped to ensure that the island remained Buddhism's last remaining outpost in the subcontinent. But there was a price to pay: a vein of intolerant chauvinism, inimical to the religion elsewhere, became part of its permanent baggage.

After independence in 1948, Sri Lanka's Buddhists established themselves as a fierce, intimidating nationalist presence. Although the fourth prime minister, Solomon Bandaranaike, had done the Buddhists' bidding in making Sinhala the official language, he temporised over Buddhists taking over schools run by Christians. So in September 1959, a monk called Talduwe Somarama pulled a revolver out of his robes and shot him dead. 

 This bit here is not surprising; any practice can be misused, and the big problem of course is that this brand of Buddhism seems to have promoted views of separateness and superiority with respect to other paths.  It might be tempting to say they're "not real Buddhists," but that too would be a form of duality.  Simply put, though, one must be cautious about wanting to separate one's practice or views from the world in which one lives.  Clearly chauvinism was not the most expeditious response to the advance of devotional Hinduism.  There's a lesson here for Western (and Eastern) Buddhists.  As the article points out, there's also lessons for those who think they can install any leader they want an call it a democracy.  But for Buddhists the lesson should be cautiousness of a more specific yet generalized kind.  It is true that compassion and wisdom are necessary, and there are times when unfortunately, violence seems to be horrible "least worst" alternative.  But it's better not to get to that point in the first place.