Don't ask me how I got to an old David Brooks column but...

I'd never read it before and it deserves a brief comment:

f you survey the literature (and I’d recommend books by Newberg, Daniel J. Siegel, Michael S. Gazzaniga, Jonathan Haidt, Antonio Damasio and Marc D. Hauser if you want to get up to speed), you can see that certain beliefs will spread into the wider discussion.

First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions. Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love. Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.

In their arguments with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, the faithful have been defending the existence of God. That was the easy debate. The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits. It’s going to come from scientists whose beliefs overlap a bit with Buddhism.

In unexpected ways, science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other. That’s bound to lead to new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation. Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They’re going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day. I’m not qualified to take sides, believe me. I’m just trying to anticipate which way the debate is headed. We’re in the middle of a scientific revolution. It’s going to have big cultural effects.

It is kind of interesting that Brooks went there when he did, though I think that Dawkins and others in particular have cogent arguments for not having belief in Western monotheistic deities.

But, I think he's uh... missing the point.

I should also point out I think Gudo Nishijima misses the point again, too, with his emphasis on the autonomic nervous system "balance," but then again I'm a layman, he's not, and he does Dogen, and I do Hakuin.

Re: Tibet: Oh, yeah, this is gonna fly..

And regarding Tibet:

DHARAMSALA, India — The influx of Han Chinese and the growing restrictions on religious practice have become the biggest threats to Tibet, which faces “something like a death sentence” under Chinese rule, said the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader.

The only solution is to allow genuine autonomy for the six million Tibetans, he said. The regional authority would make policy on education, religious practice and the use of natural resources, while Beijing would retain the right to keep military forces in the region and oversee foreign affairs, he added.

An autonomous Tibetan government would not force out Han Chinese who had already settled in the vast Tibetan plateau in China’s west, but would place limits on any future migration. “Autonomous regions should be the native peoples’ majority,” the Dalai Lama said during an hourlong interview this week.

I'm sorry but this is kind of nonsensical given the historical relations of Tibet and the rest of China.

As I've mentioned, Tibet's thought to be ridiculously rich in resources such as copper and other metals, and despite what other bloggers might have written, HH the DL is making it quite plain that "genuine autonomy" would start from a position of "You Lose" when it comes to being able to develop the regions natural resources. Gee, that ought to go over well with the folks who wield ultimate control over this stuff.

Yes Tibetans are very poor, but is there not a way to have all prosper? Without making nasty on the environment?

And why should anyone be 2nd class citizens in their country, whether Tibetans or Han Chinese?

There was once a time when the ancestors of Tibetans and Han Chinese did not think of themselves as such, just as there was a time when my ancestors thought of themselves as Slovaks or Poles or Germans.

Isn't it the American thing to transcend such things?

At any rate, of course, as an American I find it reasonable to understand why one wants to adhere to cultural traditions, and do believe that there's certainly blame to go around when it comes to Tibet. But to truly have peace, all concerned are going to have to make concessions. Including the Dalai Lama and Tibetans.

Fascinating article on Tienanmen Square from English language Chinese media

Reported on in the NY Times (who linked to it), the Times didn't even go into the depth of import of the article; the first time "the events of May 35th" have been mentioned.

Here's an excerpt of the the original article from the Chinese Global Times:

Twenty years after the June 4 Tiananmen incident, public discussion about what happened that day is almost nonexistent in mainstream society on the Chinese mainland.

It’s still a sensitive topic. Scholars, officials and businessmen declined interviews with the Global Times on the subject. And searches for “June 4 incident” on the Chinese versions of Google, Baidu and Yahoo were blocked.

When asked to comment on China’s road to development in the last 20 years, an academician at the Chinese Academy of Sciences cautiously responded with his own question, “Why the last 20 years (1989-2009) instead of 30 years?” After all, economic reform started in 1978.

People born in the late 1970s and after have little memory and vague ideas of the incident.

During a training session for 120 college volunteers before the Olympic Games in Beijing last year, Chen Ping, former deputy venue manager for Media Operations at the Olympic Green Tennis Center, told the volunteers that China failed its first bid for the Olympic Games in 1993 because international society was unfriendly toward China after the turmoil in 1989. He asked the volunteers, mostly sophomores aged 19-20, if they knew what he was talking about. They all looked puzzled.

Li Xiang, who worked as a computer programmer for a small IT company in Beijing, was 9 years old in 1989. He lived on Fuxing Road, a west extension of Chang’an Avenue. His memory? The primary school he attended near the China National Radio building complex on Nanlishi Road was closed for a week in June 1989.

“I was happy for no school and no homework,” Li said. “My parents watched news broadcasts on CCTV attentively with serious looks. I also took a few glimpses. The pitch-black burnt bodies of soldiers impressed me, but I had no idea what happened.”

The comments are even more interesting.

I'll say one thing about this: there's a bit of karma working around here. Tienanmen Square is one of those places one should visit if one has the means to do so; it's hugeness is hard to imagine even if you've been there.

If you haven't been there you have no idea how huge it is, and its symbolism is striking: it proclaims by its hugeness that the sovereignty of China rests with the people.

To the extent that any ruling class in China recognizes this fact that built the "New China" (warts and all), they're legit. If they don't they aren't. At least that's the message of the architecture.

Lotus Sutra Chapter 12: Exertion and Chapter 13: Peaceful Life

Text is here for Chapter 12.

Even when things turn bad the "in monks" would preach from the Lotus Sutra.

In case you were wondering. Here's a few of stanzas worth noting (emphasis mine):

4. At that dreadful last epoch men will be malign, crooked, wicked, dull, conceited, fancying to have come to the limit when they have not.

5. 'We do not care but to live in the wilderness and wear a patched cloth; we lead a frugal life;' so will they speak to the ignorant.

6. And persons greedily attached to enjoyments will preach the law to laymen and be honoured as if they possessed the six transcendent qualities.

7. Cruel-minded and wicked men, only occupied with household cares, will enter our retreat in the forest and become our calumniators.

8. The Tîrthikas, themselves bent on profit and honour, will say of us that we are so, and-shame on such monks!-they will preach their own fictions.

9. Prompted by greed of profit and honour they will compose Sûtras of their own invention and then, in the midst of the assembly, accuse us of plagiarism.

10. To kings, princes, king's peers, as well as to Brahmans and commoners, and to monks of other confessions,

11. They will speak evil of us and propagate the Tîrtha-doctrine. We will endure all that out of reverence for the great Seers.

12. And those fools who will not listen to us, shall (sooner or later) become enlightened, and therefore will we forbear to the last.

13. In that dreadful, most terrible period of frightful general revolution will many fiendish monks stand up as our revilers.

14. Out of respect for the Chief of the world we will bear it, however difficult it be; girded with the girdle of forbearance will I proclaim this Sûtra.

This is the kind of religious text that raises a red flag, or should, although (or because?) this sutra does contain its own "escape clause" i.e., the doctrine of skillful means, to allow for such "new texts" to be added to a scriptural canon (provided it does indeed help foster transcendence over suffering and delusion).

Knowing a bit of the history of this sutra can make one conclude, as I've said earlier, that there was likely a great deal of skepticism expected toward this sutra when it was to have been "rolled out," and this text was evidently thought of as a way to inoculate the audience from skepticism. The problem though was that twenty centuries down the pike, such text fuels greater skepticism, provided, of course, you don't read the text as coming from the place in all beings that can transcend suffering, greed, and ignorance. As for me, thankfully there's enough "meat" in this sutra to be, uh, skillfully applied, and I can live with what reads like unnecessary theatrics which can't but be read in light of being jaded by watching The Life of Brian. "Skillful means" is an important and effective moral doctrine which although there are allusions to it elsewhere in the Buddhist writings, aren't really as summed up here.

Chapter 13, deals with how, among other things, how a Bodhisattva Mahâsattva comports himself. It mentions vendors of pork, jugglers, and transgendered people as classes that Bodhisattva Mahâsattvas should avoid, except insofar as one preaches the Lotus Sutra.

However, there is a bit more to this:

Further, Mañgusrî, a Bodhisattva Mahâsattva looks upon all laws (and things) as void; he -sees them duly established, remaining unaltered, as they are in reality, not liable to be disturbed, not to be moved backward, unchangeable, existing in the highest sense of the word (or in an absolute sense), having the nature of space, escaping explanation and expression by means of common speech, not born, composed and simple, aggregated and isolated, not expressible in words, independently established, manifesting themselves owing to a perversion of perception. In this way then, Mañgusrî, the Bodhisattva Mahâsattva constantly views all laws, and if he abides in this course, he remains in his own sphere. This, Mañgusrî, is the second proper sphere of a Bodhisattva Mahâsattva.

The law's ineffable. Hmmm...and then again...

Again, Mañgusrî, the Bodhisattva Mahâsattva who lives after the extinction of the Tathâgata at the end of time when the true law is in decay, the Bodhisattva Mahasattva who keeps this Sûtra is not envious, not false, not deceitful; he does not speak disparagingly of other adherents of the vehicle of Bodhisattvas, nor defame, nor humble them. He does not bring forward the shortcomings of other monks, nuns, male and female lay devotees, neither of the adherents of the vehicle of disciples nor of those of the vehicle of Pratyekabuddhas. He does not say: You young men of good family, you are far off from supreme, perfect enlightenment; you give proof of not having arrived at it; you are too fickle in your doings and not capable of acquiring true knowledge. He does not in this way bring forward the shortcomings of any adherent of the vehicle of the Bodhisattvas.

The text starts to fold in on itself, doesn't it?

Seriously, to a great degree Chapters 12 & 13 stand in contrast to each other. One is trying to shill the legitimacy of the Lotus Sutra, but the other (more sensibly, I'd submit), after allowing for some class-separation with respect to religious, economic or sexual minorities (yeah, it's the 21st century) says that they should be disparaging of other Mahayana Buddhists.

And if you're thinking I (yes, layman) am just making this up, consider this:

Further, Mañgusrî, the Bodhisattva Mahâsattva, living at the time of destruction of the true law after the extinction of the Tathâgata, who is desirous of keeping this Dharmaparyâya, should live as far as possible away from laymen and friars, and lead a life of charity. He must feel affection for all beings who are striving for enlightenment and therefore make this reflection: To be sure, they are greatly perverted in mind, those beings who do not hear, nor perceive, nor understand the skilfulness and the mystery of the Tathâgata, who do not inquire for it, nor believe in it, nor even are willing to believe in it. Of course, these beings do not penetrate, nor understand this Dharmaparyâya. Nevertheless will I, who have attained this supreme, perfect knowledge, powerfully bend to it the mind of every one, whatever may be the position he occupies, and bring about that he accepts, understands, and arrives at full ripeness.

I love when things are considered self-referentially, and I do not think that's an anachronism. I think a self-referential reading was intended for this sutra.

Your mileage might vary.

Lotus Sutra Chapter 11

Test is here.

Then there arose a Stûpa, consisting of seven precious substances, from the place of the earth opposite the Lord, the assembly being in the middle, a Stûpa five hundred yoganas in height and proportionate in circumference. After its rising, the Stûpa, a meteoric phenomenon, stood in the sky sparkling, beautiful, nicely decorated with five thousand successive terraces of flowers, adorned with many thousands of arches, embellished by thousands of banners and triumphal streamers, hung with thousands of jewel-garlands and with hourplates and bells, and emitting the scent of Xanthochymus and sandal, which scent filled this whole world. Its row of umbrellas rose so far on high as to touch the abodes of the four guardians of the horizon and the gods. It consisted of seven precious substances, viz. gold, silver, lapis lazuli, Musâragalva, emerald, red coral, and Karketana-stone. This Stûpa of precious substances once formed, the gods of paradise strewed and covered it with Mandârava and great Mandâra flowers. And from that Stûpa of precious substances there issued this voice: Excellent, excellent, Lord Sâkyamuni! thou hast well expounded this Dharmaparyâya of the Lotus of the True Law. So it is, Lord; so it is, Sugata.

At the sight of that great Stûpa of precious substances, that meteoric phenomenon in the sky, the four classes of hearers were filled with gladness delight, satisfaction and joy. Instantly they rose from their seats, stretched out their joined hands, and remained standing in that position. Then the Bodhisattva Mahâsattva Mahâpratibhâna, perceiving the world, including gods, men, and demons, filled with curiosity, said to the Lord: O Lord, what is the cause, what is the reason of so magnificent a Stûpa of precious substances appearing in the world? Who is it, O Lord, who causes that sound to go out from the magnificent Stûpa of precious substances? Thus asked, the Lord spake to Mahapratibhâna, the Bodhisattva Mahâsattva, as follows: In this great Stûpa of precious substances, Mahâpratibh'ana, the proper body of the Tathâgata is contained condensed; his is the Stûpa; it is he who causes this sound to go out.

In the point of space below, Mahâpratibhana, there are innumerable thousands of worlds. Further on is the world called Ratnavisuddha, there is the Tathâgata named Prabhûtaratna, the Arhat, &c. This Lord of yore made this vow: Formerly, when following the course of a Bodhisattva, I have not arrived at supreme, perfect enlightenment before I had heard this Dharmaparyâya of the Lotus of the True Law, serving for the instruction of Bodhisattvas. But from the moment that I had heard this Dharmaparyâya of the Lotus of the True Law, I have become fully ripe for supreme, perfect enlightenment. Now, Mahapratibhâna, that Lord Prabhûtaratna, the Tathâgata, &c., at the juncture of time when his complete extinction was to take place, announced in presence of the world, including the gods: After my complete extinction, monks, one Stûpa must be made of precious substances of this frame (or form) of the proper body of the Tathâgata; the other Stûpas, again, should be made in dedication (or in reference) to me. Thereupon, Mahapratibhâna, the Lord Prabhûtaratna, the Tathâgata, &c., pronounced this blessing: Let my Stûpas here, this Stûpa of my proper bodily frame (or form), arise wherever in any Buddha-field in the ten directions of space, in all worlds, the Dharmaparyâya of the Lotus of the True Law is propounded, and let it stand in the sky above the assembled congregation when this Dharmaparyâya of the Lotus of the True Law is being preached by some Lord Buddha or another, and let this Stûpa of the frame (or form) of my proper body give a shout of applause to those Buddhas while preaching this Dharmaparyâya of the Lotus of the True Law. It is that Stûpa, Mahâpratibhana, of the relics of the Lord Prabhûtaratna, the Tathâgata, &c., which, while I was preaching this Dharmaparyâya of the Lotus of the True Law in this Saha-world, arose above this assembled congregation and, standing as a meteor in the sky, gave its applause.

There's clearly a metaphysical notion in play here (despite what must have seemed clearly to have been allegorical, as when this was a "new" sutra Buddhism was already in play for a few hundred years).

Or there was much credulousness.

Why such melodrama? Was it a case of the more gilding the more faith? I cannot read this text with my mind, skeptically, objectively and still read this in the frame of mind of the people who believe in this sutra (whatever that might mean).

On the other hand, It's hard to ignore what happens when one practices; the sense of harmony from acting with the state where you are. And perhaps because of the oddity of this text I'm spurred on to find out why they wrote this (besides conflict of interest?) because when I practice properly there is a notion of great "rightness" that was always there, that even in dreadful situations can be observed.

It's not a Western god, to be sure. I don't see any flying stupas, though, either. It's quieter. More like in accord with Garrison Keillor's version of the Lotus Sutra, if there were such a thing.

But to keep and preach this Sûtra in the dreadful period succeeding the extinction of the Chief of the world, that is difficult.

I'm doubtful we're there yet frankly, despite my skepticism and the state of the world.

Little Murders: The Wedding Scene

I've had family get togethers as absurd as this.

Yes there are times when one must harm another

Of course, unlike the cartoon at PZ Meyer's post (here) it's important that such things be well thought out.

One should not harm another unless there is a real chance of a greater harm arising from not doing harm, and one ought to be near metaphysically sure of that.

Yet another day

Right now is eternal,
As is suffering for those dying.

Must make the most of today,
tomorrow there may be a funeral,
and I'll have to pay respects.

Lotus Sutra Chapters 9 & 10:

Chapter 9 continues more or less in the flavor of Chapter 8.

Chapter 10's a bit more interesting.

• One should support those who expound from the Lotus Sutra.



• Those who are hostile to those who expound from the Lotus Sutra aren't going to fare well.



• And those who support this are indeed fortunate.
  
  

  ...[O]n any spot of the earth where this Dharmaparyâya [i.e., the Law of the Lotus Sutra] is expounded, preached, written, studied, or recited in chorus, on that spot, Bhaishagyarâga, one should build a Tathâgata-shrine, magnificent, consisting of precious substances, high, and spacious; but it is not necessary to depose in it relics of the Tathâgata. For the body of the Tathâgata is, so to say, collectively deposited there. Any spot of the earth where this Dharmaparyâya is expounded or taught or recited or rehearsed in chorus or written or kept in a volume, must be honoured, respected, revered, worshipped as if it were a Stûpa, with all sorts of flowers, incense, perfumes, garlands, ointment, powder, clothes, umbrellas, flags, banners, triumphal streamers, with all kinds of song, music, dancing, musical instruments, castanets, and shouts in chorus. And those, Bhaishagyarâga, who approach a Tathâgata-shrine to salute or see it, must be held to be near supreme and perfect enlightenment.

My reading of this - again as a lay person - is that what is really being promulgated is the use of skillful means as an adjunct to what was already widely considered to be Buddhism, along with generally "good karma" for acting in harmony with this sutra.

Whether the Lotus Sutra as a whole helped or hindered the growth or decline of Buddhism, I suppose one could debate, as one could see the use of skillful means as perhaps both supporting a more inclusive Dharma, yet possibly allowing (a "false detection") of things being peddled as the Dharma which were not conducive to the cultivation of generosity, wisdom or compassion.

Lotus Sutra Chapter 8: Announcement of the future destiny of the 500 monks

A sublime, grand, splendid, and matchless prediction,
but what about those gods? And that nasty bit about women?

And as to the Buddhas, monks, who have in future to appear in this Bhadra-kalpa, to the number of a thousand less four, under the mastership of them also shall this same Pûrna, son of Maitrayanî, be the foremost among the preachers of the law and the keeper of the true law. Thus he shall keep the true law of innumerable and incalculable Lords and Buddhas in future, promote the interest of innumerable and incalculable beings, and bring innumerable and incalculable beings to full ripeness for supreme and perfect enlightenment. Constantly and assiduously he shall be instant in purifying his own Buddha-field and bringing creatures to ripeness. After completing such a Bodhisattva-course, at the end of innumerable, incalculable Æons, he shall reach supreme and perfect enlightenment; he shall in the world be the Tathâgata called Dharmaprabhâsa, an Arhat, &c., endowed with science and conduct, a Sugata, &c. He shall appear in this very Buddha-field.

Further, monks, at that time the Buddha-field spoken of will look as if formed by thousands of spheres similar to the sands of the river Ganges. It will be even, like the palm of the hand, consist of seven precious substances, be without hills, and filled with high edifices of seven precious substances. There will be cars of the gods stationed in the sky; the gods will behold men, and men will behold the gods. Moreover, monks, at that time that Buddha-field shall be exempt from places of punishment and from womankind, as all beings shall be born by apparitional birth. They shall lead a spiritual life, have ideal bodies, be self-lighting, magical, moving in the firmament, strenuous, of good memory, wise, possessed of gold-coloured bodies, and adorned with the thirty-two characteristics of a great man.

Yes, this book is very much a product of its time and place, and thankfully this can be read allegorically.

One wonders what sorts of doubts existed amongst whom that gave rise to such cheer leading.

Yet....yet...

It can be seen that there is the possibility of a better future destiny if one lives one's life one way as opposed to another.

I recently saw the movie The Legend of Baggger Vance (again.) The parts where Will Smith's character describes how the shot one takes one's was prepared by one's whole life is a worthwhile point, gilded in its own way.

One can quibble with the cultural and historical aspects of much of the Lotus Sutra, for sure, but it is undeniable that there are better ways to live one's life, and there are worse ways to live one's life, and the whole past gives rise to what it's like to be in this present moment, and what can be done in this present moment.

Is that in Chapter 8 of the Lotus Sutra? Not really, I'd admit, but I suspect a sentiment was in effect when they wrote it.

Back in the Northwest

I am back from seeing my mother who is ill. I have found that resentments in others aren't inflamed when applying some of the techniques used to ward off distracting thoughts during meditation. (Or, see "Relaxation of Thoughts.") It had occurred to me that what I heard from others was what I was hearing in my mind, and perhaps a similar "Relaxation of Thoughts" process applied to dialogue might bear fruit.

It's a pity I didn't learn that years ago, but it's an awesome thing to discover.

Ah well, the roads I took were roads to this present point in space and time. Not bad. I'm somewhat optimistic about things in the future with respect to my family. Now to be expertly skilled at such things...ah...well, practice continues.

"Quackadoo"

Newsweek finally says the obvious about Oprah Winfrey:

The secret of The Secret was something called the Law of Attraction. As Oprah put it on the show, "It says that the energy, that the thoughts and feelings that you put out into the world, both good and bad, are exactly what is always coming back to you, so you have the life that you have created." Oprah and the teachers of The Secret, as they call themselves, did not mean this metaphorically. They explained that the universe and everything in it are made of vibrating energy, and by thinking positively we can actually "attract" the positive vibrations of the universe and bend them to our will. "You're a field of energy in a larger field of energy," one of The Secret's teachers said. "And like attracts like, and that's very, very scientific."

By harnessing this powerful science, they said, we can have anything we want—happiness, love, fabulous wealth. This was so inspiring to Oprah that she devoted three shows to the product and appeared on Larry King to talk it up more. She said it encapsulated everything she believes. "I've been talking about this for years on my show," she said. "I just never called it The Secret."

On one of the Secret shows, Oprah gave an example of the scientific power of the concept. She said that once, while she was hosting an episode about a man who could blow really big soap bubbles, she was thinking to herself, "Gee, that looks fun. I would like to blow some bubbles." When she returned to her office after the show, there, on her desk, was a silver Tiffany bubble blower. "So I call my assistant," Oprah told the audience. "I say, 'Did you just run out and get me some bubbles? 'Cause I got bubbles by my desk.' And she says, 'No, the bubbles were always there. I bought you bubbles for your birthday and you didn't notice them until today'."

There are many lessons that might be drawn from this anecdote. One is that if you give Oprah a thoughtful gift, she may not bother to notice it or thank you for it. This is not the lesson Oprah took away from her story. Because the way she sees it, her assistant hadn't really given her the gift at all. She gave it to herself. Using the power of The Secret, she said, "I had called in some bubbles."

According to The Secret, however, the Law of Attraction can use the vibrations of the universe to deliver more than just bubbles. The book that Oprah urges everyone to live by teaches that all diseases can be cured with the power of thought alone: "The question frequently asked is, 'When a person has manifested a disease in the body temple … can it be turned around through the power of "right thinking"?' And the answer is absolutely, yes."

Death will happen. No sense denying it. Live with that in mind.

Still on the East Cost...

There are so many things I cannot talk about on this blog, both because some of the things cannot be put into words as well as the fact that there are confidences to uphold.

It was a useful synchronicity that last week I was able to watch The Legend of Bagger Vance, and then deal with some of the things in which I had to be involved.

The world is very dense. At this very moment there is need.

Out of town for the next few days...

I'm off for a bit of a business trip - someday I've got to post details of these things.

Then on to NY to visit my family there. If you're at Saturday sitting at the NYC Zen Studies Society, you might run into me. That's one of those places that, for American Zen Buddhism are truly legendary.

Lotus Sutra: Chapter 6 & 7

Buddhas will have the good life. Moreover, the Buddha and all that good stuff's been around for a while.

Dawkins and Buddhism and fundamentalism.

I almost missed this article from the Guardian via the Buddhist Channel, on one Buddhist's take on Richard Dawkins.

Buddhism's principles tend to be fungible, as I've noted elsewhere (maybe not on this blog, but elsewhere). Buddhists can see eye to eye with atheists Christians, Jews, Hindus, and even other Buddhists.

The scriptures do not have to be taken literally, and under many circumstances should not.

But I don't think Buddhism is really "pick and choose" Buddhism (one that ignores the difficult stuff) for many, probably even most Western Buddhists. For most of us, it really is the framework about which a discipline is practiced and cultivated. True there's the Edie Monsoon types who "practice Buddhism almost religiously," but that is not a fair characterization of all Western Buddhists.

Someone somewhere else recently gave me the inference that I was perhaps being to Buddhistly correct in that I was apparently bringing in some reference to Buddhist scriptures in describing some Buddhists' take on the god conception. That's not me, I'd submit. And I'm not like The Zennist either.

Chapter 5 Lotus Sutra

Hard to grasp...

1. I am the Dharmarâga, born in the world as the destroyer of existence. I declare the law to all beings after discriminating their dispositions.

2. Superior men of wise understanding guard the word, guard the mystery, and do not reveal it to living beings.

3. That science is difficult to be understood; the simple, if hearing it on a sudden, would be perplexed; they would in their ignorance fall out of the way and go astray.

4. I speak according to their reach and faculty; by means of various meanings I accommodate my view (or the theory).

5. It is, Kâsyapa, as if a cloud rising above the horizon shrouds all space (in darkness) and covers the earth.

6. That great rain-cloud big with water, is wreathed with flashes of lightning and rouses with its thundering call all creatures.

7. By warding off the sunbeams, it cools the region; and gradually lowering so as to come in reach of hands, it begins pouring down its water all around.

8. And so, flashing on every side, it pours out an abundant mass of water equally, and refreshes this earth.

9. And all herbs which have sprung up on the face of the earth, all grasses, shrubs, forest trees, other trees small and great;

10. The various field fruits and whatever is green; all plants on hills, in caves and thickets;

11. All those grasses, shrubs, and trees are vivified by the cloud that both refreshes the thirsty earth and waters the herbs.

12. Grasses and shrubs absorb the water of one essence which issues from the cloud according to their faculty and reach.

13. And all trees, great, small, and mean, drink that water according to their growth and faculty, and grow lustily.

14. The great plants whose trunk, stalk, bark, twigs, pith, and leaves are moistened by the water from the cloud develop their blossoms and fruits.

15. They yield their products, each according to its own faculty, reach, and the particular nature of the germ; still the water emitted (from the cloud) is of but one essence.

16. In the same way, Kâsyapa, the Buddha comes into the world like a rain-cloud, and, once born, he, the world's Lord, speaks and shows the real course of life.

17. And the great Seer, honoured in the world, including the gods, speaks thus: I am the Tathâgata, the highest of men, the Gina; I have appeared in this world like a cloud.

18. I shall refresh all beings whose bodies are withered, who are clogged to the triple world. I shall bring to felicity those that are pining away with toils, give them pleasures and (final) rest.

19. Hearken to me, ye hosts of gods and men; approach to behold me: I am the Tathâgata, the Lord, who has no superior, who appears in this world to save.

20. To thousands of kotis of living beings I preach a pure and most bright law that has but one scope, to wit, deliverance and rest.

21. I preach with ever the same voice, constantly taking enlightenment as my text. For this is equal for all; no partiality is in it, neither hatred nor affection.

22. I am inexorable, bear no love nor hatred towards any one, and proclaim the law to all creatures without distinction, to the one as well as the other.

23. Whether walking, standing, or sitting, I am exclusively occupied with this task of proclaiming the law. I never get tired of sitting on the chair I have ascended.

24. I recreate the whole world like a cloud shedding its water without distinction; I have the same feelings for respectable people as for the low; for moral persons as for the immoral;

25. For the depraved as for those who observe the rules of good conduct; for those who hold sectarian views and unsound tenets as for those whose views are sound and correct.

26. I preach the law to the inferior (in mental culture) as well as to persons of superior understanding and extraordinary faculties; inaccessible to weariness, I spread in season the rain of the law.

27. After hearing me, each according to his faculty, the several beings find their determined place in various situations, amongst gods, men, beautiful beings, amongst Indras, Brahmas, or the monarchs, rulers of the universe.

28. Hear, now, I am going to explain what is meant by those plants of different size, some of them being low in the world, others middle-sized and great.

29. Small plants are called the men who walk in the knowledge of the law, which is free from evil after the attaining of Nirvâna, who possess the six transcendent faculties and the triple science.

30. Mean plants are called the men who, dwelling in mountain caverns, covet the state of a Pratyekabuddha, and whose intelligence is moderately purified.

31. Those who aspire to become leading men (thinking), I will become a Buddha, a chief of gods and men, and who practise exertion and meditation, are called the highest plants.

32. But the sons of Sugata, who sedulously practise benevolence and a peaceful conduct, who have arrived at certainty about their being leading men, these are called trees.

33. Those who move forward the wheel that never rolls back, and with manly strength stand firm in the exercise of miraculous power, releasing many kolis of beings, those are called great trees.

I, speaking for myself, can't but help see a "this is really really really really really so good you can't even find good metaphors for how good this is" mentality pervading this text.

But behind that text, this is merely stating that Buddha nature is pervasive, immanent.

That's the cloud metaphor mixed with the plant metaphor.

Should people get what they want? Should they try?

Warner Roshi says:

I master my life by not trying to master my life. That way I always feel successful about it! If your goal is not to achieve your goals you'll come out a winner every time!

He's wrong of course; in fact, you'll only come out mired in paradox (because if your goal is not to achieve your goal, if you've achieved your goal, you haven't achieved your goal, which means you've achieved your goal...)

His radio show host says:

Welcome

You have found this site for a reason.

People find me and the products because they want a miracle.

Miracles happen regularly.

I see them every day.

I have seen them happen on a regular basis to my 7,000 clients in the last 10 years.



I get people what they want.



People come to me to feel better and realize their dreams.


I get people what they want whether it’s financial health, physical health, business improvement, or saving a marriage.

I think there are times when it's really important for people not to get what they want, and depending on the person those times could range from "now and then" to "almost always."

I think most people would uniformly agree it's not a good idea to give a coke-fiend 4 kilos of Peruvian snowflake.



I'm not sure it's a good idea to get cigarette manufacturers to "improve" their business if it's confined to making cigarettes.

You could go on from there.

On the other hand, people do have all that Maslow stuff wired into them: there does appear to be a need not only to mark one's territory, but to do so in a way that future generations will not only see it, but see that this marking was done for the betterment of all.

Just people shouldn't invest their whole existence for a mere trifle as a monument.

The monument stuff comes from the strangest of places.

Lotus Sutra: Chapter 4

The notion of attaining supreme enlightenment; sensing that all is void, is related to the Buddhist parable of the prodigal son.

You did know of such a parable, didn't you?

It is a case, O Lord, as if a certain man went away from his father and betook himself to some other place. He lives there in foreign parts for many years, twenty or thirty or forty or fifty. In course of time the one (the father) becomes a great man; the other (the son) is poor; in seeking a livelihood for the sake of food and clothing he roams in all directions and goes to some place, whereas his father removes to another country. The latter has much wealth, gold, corn, treasures, and granaries; possesses much (wrought) gold and silver, many gems, pearls, lapis lazuli, conch shells, and stones(?), corals, gold and silver; many slaves male and female, servants for menial work. and journeymen; is rich in elephants, horses, carriages, cows, and sheep. He keeps a large retinue; has his money invested in great territories, and does great things in business, money-lending, agriculture, and commerce.

In course of time, Lord, that poor man, in quest of food and clothing, roaming through villages, towns, boroughs, provinces, kingdoms, and royal capitals, reaches the place where his father, the owner of much wealth and gold, treasures and granaries, is residing. Now the poor man's father, Lord, the owner of much wealth and gold, treasures and granaries, who was residing in that town, had always and ever been thinking of the son he had lost fifty years ago, but he gave no utterance to his thoughts before others, and was only pining in himself and thinking: I am old, aged, advanced in years, and possess abundance of bullion, gold, money and corn, treasures and granaries, but have no son. It is to be feared lest death shall overtake me and all this perish unused. Repeatedly he was thinking of that son: O how happy should I be, were my son to enjoy this mass of wealth!

Meanwhile, Lord, the poor man in search of food and clothing was gradually approaching the house of the rich man, the owner of abundant bullion, gold, money and corn, treasures and granaries. And the father of the poor man happened to sit at the door of his house, surrounded and waited upon by a great crowd of Brâhmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sûdras; he was sitting on a magnificent throne with a footstool decorated with gold and silver, while dealing with hundred thousands of kotis of gold-pieces, and fanned with a chowrie, on a spot under an extended awning inlaid with pearls and flowers and adorned with hanging garlands of jewels; sitting (in short) in great pomp. The poor man, Lord, saw his own father in such pomp sitting at the door of the house, surrounded with a great crowd of people and doing a householder's business. The poor man frightened, terrified, alarmed, seized with a feeling of horripilation all over the body, and agitated in mind, reflects thus: Unexpectedly have I here fallen in with a king or grandee. People like me have nothing to do here; let me go; in the street of the poor I am likely to find food and clothing without much difficulty. Let me no longer tarry at this place, lest I be taken to do forced labour or incur some other injury.

Thereupon, Lord, the poor man quickly departs, runs off, does not tarry from fear of a series of supposed dangers. But the rich man, sitting on the throne at the door of his mansion, has recognised his son at first sight, in consequence whereof he is content, in high spirits, charmed, delighted, filled with joy and cheerfulness. He thinks: Wonderful! he who is to enjoy this plenty of bullion, gold, money and corn, treasures and granaries, has been found! He of whom I have been thinking again and again, is here now that I am old, aged, advanced in years.

At the same time, moment, and instant, Lord, he despatches couriers, to whom he says: Go, sirs, and quickly fetch me that man. The fellows thereon all run forth in full speed and overtake the poor man, who, frightened, terrified, alarmed, seized with a feeling of horripilation all over his body, agitated in mind, utters a lamentable cry of distress, screams, and exclaims: I have given you no offence. But the fellows drag the poor man, however lamenting, violently with them. He, frightened, terrified, alarmed, seized with a feeling of horripilation all over his body, and agitated in mind, thinks by himself: I fear lest I shall be punished with capital punishment; I am lost. He faints away, and falls on the earth. His father dismayed and near despondency says to those fellows: Do not carry the man in that manner. With these words he sprinkles him with cold water without addressing him any further. For that householder knows the poor man's humble disposition I and his own elevated position; yet he feels that the man is his son.

The householder, Lord, skilfully conceals from every one that it is his son. He calls one of his servants and says to him: Go, sirrah, and tell that poor man: Go, sirrah, whither thou likest; thou art free. The servant obeys, approaches the poor man and tells him: Go, sirrah, whither thou likest; thou art free, The poor man is astonished and amazed at hearing these words; he leaves that spot and wanders to the street of the poor in search of food and clothing. In order to attract him the householder practises an able device. He employs for it two men ill-favoured and of little splendour. Go, says he, go to the man you saw in this place; hire him in your own name for a double daily fee, and order him to do work here in my house. And if he asks: What - work shall I have to do? tell him: Help us in clearing the heap of dirt. The two fellows go and seek the poor man and engage him for such work as mentioned. Thereupon the two fellows conjointly with the poor man clear the heap of dirt in the house for the daily pay they receive from the rich man, while they take up their abode in a hovel of straw in the neighbourhood of the rich man's dwelling. And that rich man beholds through a window his own son clearing the heap of dirt, at which sight he is anew struck with wonder and astonishment.

Then the householder descends from his mansion, lays off his wreath and ornaments, parts with his soft, clean, and gorgeous attire, puts on dirty raiment, takes a basket in his right hand, smears his body with dust, and goes to his son, whom he greets from afar, and thus addresses: Please, take the baskets and without delay remove the dust. By this device he manages to speak to his son, to have a talk with him and say: Do, sirrah, remain here in my service; do not go again to another place; I will give thee extra pay, and whatever thou wantest thou mayst confidently ask me, be it the price of a pot, a smaller pot, a boiler or wood, or be it the price of salt, food, or clothing. I have got an old cloak, man; if thou shouldst want it, ask me for it, I will give it. Any utensil of such sort, when thou wantest to have it, I will give thee. Be at ease, fellow; look upon me as if I were thy father, for I am older and thou art younger, and thou hast rendered me much service by clearing this heap of dirt, and as long as thou hast been in my service thou hast never shown nor art showing wickedness, crookedness, arrogance, or hypocrisy; I have discovered in thee no vice at all of such as are commonly seen in other man-servants. From henceforward thou art to me like my own son.

From that time, Lord, the householder, addresses the poor man by the name of son, and the latter feels in presence of the householder as a son to his father. In this manner, Lord, the householder affected with longing for his son employs him for the clearing of the heap of dirt during twenty years, at the end of which the poor man feels quite at ease in the mansion to go in and out, though he continues taking his abode in the hovel of straw.

After a while, Lord, the householder falls sick, and feels that the time of his death is near at hand. He says to the poor man: Come hither, man, I possess abundant bullion, gold, money and corn, treasures and granaries. I am very sick, and wish to have one upon whom to bestow (my wealth); by whom it is to be received, and with whom it is to be deposited. Accept it. For in the same manner as I am the owner of it, so art thou, but thou shalt not suffer anything of it to be wasted.

And so, Lord, the poor man accepts the abundant bullion, gold, money and corn, treasures and granaries of the rich man, but for himself he is quite indifferent to it, and requires nothing from it, not even so much as the price of a prastha of flour; he continues living in the same hovel of straw and considers himself as poor as before.

After a while, Lord, the householder perceives that his son is able to save, mature and mentally developed; that in the consciousness of his nobility he feels abashed, ashamed, disousted, when thinking of his former poverty. The time of his death approaching, he sends for the poor man, presents him to a gathering of his relations, and before the king or king's peer and in the presence of citizens and country-people makes the following speech: Hear, gentlemen! this is my own son, by me begotten. It is now fifty years that he disappeared from such and such a town. He is called so and so, and myself am called so and so. In searching after him I have from that town come hither. He is my son, I am his father. To him I leave all my revenues, and all my personal (or private) wealth shall he acknowledge (his own).

The difference between this parable and the Christian version is simply in this version, the son cultivates skills and transcends greediness through his experience, whereas the son in the Christian version gets "immediately forgiven" with no effort on his part. The former earns what is his birthright, the latter is reconciled to his father, but without material recompense.

Naturally I prefer the Buddhist version.

Brad Warner on Atheism & Buddhism...

I don't disagree with the ultimate point, I just think it's easier to identify as a nontheist.


The comment thread on Warner's blog entry on the video on this subject is interesting; I'll reproduce one of my comments below:

In addition to the implications for a deity by the Fourteen Unanswerable Questions (at least implications for the Judeo-Christian deity), I would also point out a kind of truth about Buddhism, which seems to be lost on many people.

Buddhists don't take our writings as "proof texts" nor do we read them the same way as Baptists read their texts.

That's why Mr. Warner and atheists can share a zendo.

Or even Mr. Warner, myself, and some of those guys from Sambo Kyodan who are Catholic clerics.

The point is adherence to the literal texts themselves. In fact the Lotus Sutra, if applied to itself, would militate against such a position, if one takes the notion of skillful means and the text to its logical conclusion.

The existence, non-existence, character, etc. of a deity is not something that is core to Buddhism.

The transcendence of dukkha is core to Buddhism, and adherence of belief in a deity one way or the other is not core to this belief.

On the other hand, for Mahayana Buddhists, (and this is where Brad is going, IIUC) is that we do have the notion of the Dharmakaya, and this notion, of Buddha nature pervading the universe, one might call god, but it's not a monotheistic deity nor does it require the existence of polytheistic deities.

I'd also note (once again) that Soyen Shaku's sermons translated by D. T. Suzuki are on-line for free. Copyright expired, IIUC.