Thoughts Chase Thoughts

...and now for something a little different

2007-12-31T20:22:00.000-08:00

Steve [Nagarjuna] and I are going to try something a bit different with the new year.

This past year, Steve has had Naked Reflections as the focus of his blogging and I've had a host of ill-defined blogs to which I am giving equal-opportunity neglect.

So, this year we're going to try using Thoughts Chase Thoughts as a place where opposing ideas meet, based on what we find out there in the blogosphere. We're going to take representations of opposite sides of a dispute and see how they can be reconciled. Or, at the very least, we're going to see if we can understand what the crux of the dispute is.

Does it come from different ways of apprehending the world? Is a conflict due to different weightings of what's important? How well can we find a middleground that satisfies both sides? Maybe we can just sidestep the rancor and divine solutions.

Or, in other types of situations, Why did things develop the way they did? How did we get here!?

We at TCT will diagram the conflict and then invite bloggers who've written about the topic to 'come on down' and post their comments here.

Anyway, it's something new to try, fitting for the name of this blog, and I think it will be fun.

The New Year starts tomorrow.

Quest of the Seeker

2007-12-02T10:01:00.000-08:00

Many of us embrace Western Buddhism as an effort to improve or understand ourself, or to understand or escape the illusion of self.

This is reasonable, of course. Buddhism centrally focuses on dukkha, the discomfort of experiencing the world from the vantage of ordinary mindedness.

But after that touchstone of dukkha, Buddhists diverge in their approaches. Variations in Buddhist instruction, our individual needs and assessments of ourself, cause us to veer apart from one another in what we try to do to reach the goal [or goalless goal] of no longer being whipped about by the vicissitudes of life and suffering sorrowful pangs for those hurt by us and the pain of hurt that we believe has been visited by others on us.

I enjoy very much the blogs Zen Under the Skin and Mystery of Existence, each of which is an expression from the tenacious, greatly intelligent effort of a blogger, walking the bodhisattva path, confronting dukkha, and coming to understand “how to be” and how to embrace the world. Still, these are very different blogs written by bloggers utilizing different methodologies.

Chalip of Zen Under the Skin wrote a post, recently, “A Solitary Work,” about breaking out of the cycle of judging others. In her conclusion, she endorsed these words of Shirdi Sai Baba, “Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it kind, is it necessary, is it true, does it improve on the silence?”


	Chalip's blog, Zen Under the Skin.
-

	Moe's blog, Mystery of Existence.

I could relate to the dilemma that inspired her post: “How much venting does one need? How long can you continue to discuss something or someone until you have utterly exhausted the topic? At what point has enough been said? When do you know that you've crossed the line from constructive conversation to judgmental bashing?”

I can relate to the thrust of so very much of Chalip’s blog: the effort to do the right thing -- to find and stay on the bodhisattva path -- and use one’s time and give of one’s time wisely. A central value for us readers is to relate another blogger’s personal quest through our own life’s challenges and to test, through the lense of our own life, the application of another blogger’s ideas, wisdom, and borrowed wisdom from the greats.

All of this can be both difficult and enriching. But because we are forever doubtful, skeptical and timid we fear we are unprepared to make the great leap. We fear we are falling short of making a full commitment and that this is the cause of our continued suffering.

I think it is a very curious thing, relating to others and relating with society. It certainly seems hard (and quite wrong, often) to “eat all blame,” oneself, in dealing with others, as chalip has alluded to in several posts. Taking others’ blame doesn’t feel like it serves truth or justice, and only rarely might it seem to be helpful. Besides, it is contrary to the Golden Rule: I wouldn’t want others to take the rap for my tresspasses. But is thinking this way the epidome of ordinary mindedness? Must we give up anything and everything that smacks of being self protective?

Something well short of absolute passivity may be called for. I think with people we can suppose are a little rugged, we can ourselves be rugged. Often you have to be a little course to get your point across. People you find to be highly sensitive, should be treated sensitively. But we should be aware that it can be a great disservice to treat anyone as if they are fragile glass.

A sense of what is true about the world comes from knowing others won’t approach you too delicately. Most people want to be in tune with the truth and that comes best from people who are established as straightforward expositors of the truth, as best they know it.

We think of the idea of “eating all blame” as meaning taking blame all upon oneself. But I wonder if that ancient idea might only mean ‘making blame disappear.’ Ancient people, unknowledgeable about anatomy, may not have had in mind the idea of, say, the molecules of an apple one eats become the cells in one's body. Certainly they knew that food gives one pleasure and energy and is related to bowel movements that occur later. But at its simplest, eating an apple makes it disappear. Could it be that “eating all blame” really only meant not discussing things in terms of blame -- a technique that Dr. Phil and other modern-day psychologists might heartily approve of?

Moe [or Per] of Mystery of Existence is much the free spirit, unattached to any belief system. AND, I think it is true that he doesn’t think of himself, formally, as a bodhisattva or a Buddhist. He delves deeply, and frequently, into the psychological mystery of being human, with keen interest in the mystical and Cosmic Consciousness - thinking creatively, originally; unchained to dogma.

In a post a couple months ago, Moe gave multiple answers to each of a core ten questions a writer at ChristianAnswers.net would want to ask Guatama Buddha. You can see in Moe’s answers a response that pulls away from the rigid worldview of the Christian questioner. MoE, it would seem, endeavors to widen the questioner’s sense of what is possible, and hope the questioner might, at least, come to appreciate the POV of someone schooled in the more open approach that comes from the East.

Here, one Q&A exchange:

Q: If your teaching, which came on the scene in the sixth century B.C., alone represents truth and liberation–what provision was there for the millions who lived previous to the advent of your enlightenment and teaching? Why do you suppose that you, of all humankind, were the one to come on this insight when you did?

A: I don’t see Buddhism as alone representing truth and liberation. On the contrary, people from a wide range of traditions and cultures have expressed similar insights as those expressed in Buddhism, including many Christian saints and mystics. If Buddhism points to anything that is real and available to be discovered, then it is available to anyone independent of tradition or culture. There is no need to adhere to Buddhism to notice these things, Buddhism is just one of many collections of pointers and practices that can help you notice it for yourself.

I embrace the approaches of both chalip and Moe and thank them for allowing me to ride along on their adventures in finding themselves and, by so doing, finding all of us.

Tags: buddhism, seeker, Zen Under the Skin, Mystery of Existence

Governments acting against the interests of citizens

2007-11-26T07:19:00.000-08:00

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Iraq's government is prepared to offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq and preferential treatment for American investments in return for an American guarantee of long-term security including defense against internal coups, The Associated Press learned Monday.

--

Good God, more of the same. A government [the Iraqi one in this case] acting to protect itself in exchange for giving up its public's treasure. It's counterpart government [the US] is being asked to have more of its soldiers die in exchange for more filthy lucre for Halliburton and its ilk.

The Powerful looking for advantages for themselves for the petty price of a vast many young lives.

Truly, Greenspan was right: The reason the US is in Iraq is spelled O-I-L.

Tags: buddhism, oil, Iraq, greenspan

Biden Has Style and Substance and No Chance

2007-11-16T10:22:00.000-08:00

I watched the Democratic debate last night. At least, I more or less watched it. I haven't yet disciplined myself to pay full attention to things that don't reach out and grab my interest by the neck. And political debates have a very limited reach and weak grasp in that respect. So does almost everything else connected with politics. There just seems to be so much posturing involved. Mostly style. Little substance.

Now don't get me wrong. I love good style. But I want it to walk hand-in-hand with plenty of substance. Political debates don't seem to do that very well. It's probably more the fault of the formats than of the debaters. The formats force the debaters to give thirty minute answers in one minute soundbites, or less. The result is not real debate. I'm not sure what to call it so long as it isn't debate. An "exhibition" perhaps. An exhibition of oratorical skill and personality under pressure. And this is how they're judged by the media "pundits" after the fact.

Immediately after last night's debate, all the analysts talked about were how Edwards and Obama came out swinging, how Hillary gave it back and then some to them, how the crowd seemed behind her when they clapped and cheered for her and booed Obama and Edwards, and how Hillary seemed to "want it" more than Obama did. It was an analysis of style and crowd reaction to style, not of the substance or actual content of what anyone said. I turned it off. I had better things to do. It would have been different if there had been some strong, concise analysis of what the exhibitors (or exhibitionists?) proposed in their rushed soundbites.

Now maybe that's too much to ask of a medium obsessed with ratings involving an audience of people who, in general, would apparently rather hear mostly about style and little or nothing about substance. Or is this only appearance and not reality? And maybe we can't legitimately expect even "the best political team on television" to know enough about the subjects exhibited to analyze the soundness of what the exhibitors presented. Yet, I somehow think that some of them are capable of this. But they, like the exhibitors/debaters themselves, aren't allowed the opportunity to strut their stuff.

However, I believe that the person who came closest to strutting his stuff last night was Joe Biden. He might well be my pick for president if I were voting today. Why? Because he seems to me to have the best combination of what we desperately need in a president at this extremely urgent time including an unrivaled grasp of both foreign and domestic policy, obvious high intelligence, a potent blend of perspicacious realism and passionate idealism, unforced eloquence, and an intriguing mix of gravitas and not taking himself too seriously.

Yes, I know he has supported the war in Iraq, although he's also offered what may be the most realistic plan for getting us out of it:

1. Giving Iraq's major groups a measure of autonomy in their own regions. A central government would be left in charge of interests such as defending the borders and distributing oil revenues.
2. Guaranteeing Sunnis — who have no oil rights — a proportionate share of oil revenue and reintegrating those who have not fought against Coalition forces.
3. Increase, not end, reconstruction assistance but insist that Arab Gulf states fund it and tie it to the creation of a jobs program and to the protection of minority rights.
4. Initiate a diplomatic offensive to enlist the support of the major powers and neighboring countries for a political settlement in Iraq and create an Oversight Contact Group to enforce regional commitments.
5. Begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces in 2007 and withdraw most of them by 2008, leaving a small follow-on force for security and policing actions. The plan named as The Biden-Brownback Resolution passed on the Senate floor 75-23 on September 25th, 2007, including 26 Republican votes. (from Wikipedia)

Yes, I know he can come off as almost egomaniacally self-promoting at times. So, he's not perfect. But he may be the least imperfect presidential candidate from either side of the political aisle. He seems to me to be the most complete package. If he were president, I would feel assured that we were in the best hands we could probably find. Perhaps we need Dennis Haysbert doing a political commercial for him reassuringly boasting, "You're in good hands with Biden."

Of course, Biden doesn't have a chance of getting the nomination. He's way down in the polls, although I don't know why, and that alone keeps him from receiving the media attention that might elevate his position. But one can only hope that a Democrat is elected president and that she or he appoints Biden Secretary of State.

So much for my post-debate commentary. I realize that it, like the "exhibits" and analyses I criticized earlier, is very short on substance. But then what do you expect? I'm not even a member of the best political team on television.

Myth As Fact?

2007-09-22T06:59:00.000-07:00

God has created the world in play.
– Sri Ramakrishna

A simple, childlike story in India’s ancient scriptures tells how multiplicity emerged from unity. The Lord, the One without a second, felt very lonesome one morning. After all, he was the only thing that existed in the entire universe, so when he looked around him, he could see no one but himself. This did not satisfy him at all. He wanted to play.

So he made playmates. Out of himself he created the myriads of creatures, the two-footed and the four-footed. He started playing with them, playing hide-and-seek, which is what life is all about. We are all playing this game with the Lord. We are all seeking him, and he is hiding playfully from us.

It is easy to talk about this, sing about this, paint this, but it is an entirely different matter to experience it. Yet in deepest meditation, the veil separating you and me can drop. Then, beneath the varied costumes, we will be able to perceive the same supreme Reality whom we call God, who is playing his game in the world.

--Eknath Easwaran

I like Easwaran's wonderfully clear and simple telling of this ancient Hindu story better than I do almost any other version I've come across. But the thing is, Hindus and Wilberians alike seem to take this story as fact. They may call it "myth" and explain that it "points at" rather than embodies Reality, but it seems to me that, when all is said and done, they take the story quite literally. The "Ultimate Reality" is consciousness that has intentionally "involuted" Itself into the world that subsequently struggles and evolves to regain its original unity.

But every time I hear and consider this, I wonder why the perfection of Ultimate Unity would EVER consciously--i.e., intentionally--become a messy and chaotic multiplicity wracked by suffering. Yes, I know that the Hindu and Wilberian mystics joyfully proclaim that this multiplicity and suffering is still, ultimately, a perfect Unity. But their perception and mine on this seem so far apart that I wonder if one of us isn't terribly deluded and whether I am necessarily the one so afflicted. This world seems anything BUT unified and perfect, and just because mystics and integral philosophers tell me it is doesn't mean I buy what they tell me.

Ken Wilber suggests that if I undergo the right "injunction" or spiritual discipline, I will discover for myself that the mystics are right and that my old way of seeing things was wrong. But I wonder if this is isn't all-too-analogous to saying that everyone who takes psilocybin will, at some point, see strange things happen to the objects in front of their eyes; therefore, those things are ACTUALLY happening. The floor is REALLY undulating like the ocean, and those plants in the vase before you are REALLY growing and shrinking, growing and shrinking before your very eyes.

The Bee in Gwen Bell’s Bonnet: Are middle-aged white guys stinking up mainstream American Buddhism?

2007-09-22T03:00:00.000-07:00

In a podcast at Zen is Stupid called “Privilege,” Gwen Bell makes some serious charges against middle-aged, middle-class (and wealthy) male American Buddhists whom she accuses of using Buddhism as another trapping of the good life, instead of as a base for doing good in the world. She also says that the reason women are slighted or unseen and non-whites are largely absent from Western Buddhism – in meatspace sanghas and online – is because of the toxic presence of certain white males that Western Buddhism attracts. Her remarks merit attention to assess the validity of the problem she identifies, which could lead to curative efforts, or, if she’s wrongheaded about much of this, to understand what all the grumbling is about. She is not the first to complain.

In another aspect, the “Privilege” conversation is troubling since Gwen seems clearly to be taking potshots at authors Brad Warner, Ethan Nichtern and Noah Levine (each of whom, separately, saw publication of his Buddhism book this year and each of whom Gwen interviewed as a member of the Buddhist Geeks team) and at Vincent Horn (her fellow Geek who openly, frequently writes and talks about his long meditation retreats, one of the activities Gwen disdains).

Zen is Stupid posts weekly audiocasts that are a conversation between Gwen and Patrick Reynolds concerning life topics. Past topics include stripping; blogging; ill-health; non-belief in enlightenment and difficult people. The conversations are all casual, always a bit goofy and spiked with a little obtuse or politically incorrect sentiment, usually from Gwen who is more the firebrand of the pair, with Patrick damping things down when he's not trying to rev up passions.

In addition to her weekly ZIS thing and being the most prolific Geeks interviewer, Gwen writes reams about herself at gwenbell.com and, [I think] with long-time boyfriend Patrick, is owner of a yoga studio in Yokohama, Japan. She is currently on a year-long sabbatical, of sorts [I think], from her duties as an instructor at the studio.

White Male Buddhists. Gwen’s Gripe.

There is uncertainty in the “Privilege” podcast as to the parameters of the group that is being criticized. The text blurb in the RSS feed reads “Let's be honest, American Buddhism is dominated by middle-aged white dudes. What does this mean?” In the early part of the audio, the terms used are “stupid white Buddhists, most of them male,” “stupid white Buddhist zen men,” “white middle-class men [Buddhist teachers]” “Buddhism, a pursuit of wealthy white men” “middle-class white men [in Buddhism]” “privileged white folks,” and, near the end of the podcast, “Buddhist jerks,” and “asshole drivers.”

Zen is Stupid podcasts are unrehearsed conversations that are uninhibited. It is healthy (maybe) for there to be a place for that. It’s a kind of brainstorm that encourages black clouds and thunder, with two people whipping themselves up into a bit of a frenzy. So if it is frustratingly non-conducive to close scrutiny, is self-contradicting and a bit crazy, that’s to be expected. I should allow for that. But such an environment where people are encouraging each other’s over-reaches can become surreal with hypocrisy. And when it is done in front of the whole wide world, it may be more of a wild and hurtful and damaging thing than a society-healthy means to touch on issues that are taboo, yet need to be explored.

From this rough slightly-abridged transcript scrap, starting from near the beginning of the podcast, Gwen gets into her issues:

Gwen: What’s my gripes? … Well I was reading a review recently in a Shambhala publication … and there were three books being reviewed, all by up-and-coming Buddhist teachers, all of them white middle-class men. [The review that Gwen is referring to can be found here.]…[A]t the end of the piece … it says this “If there’s one concluding observation to make regarding the next generation of Buddhist teachers, it’s the absence of women’s voices. … Although Sumi Loundon’s Blue Jean Buddha: Voices of Young Buddhists rounded up younger practitioners of both genders, young female teachers have yet to develop a high profile. This is ironic … given that a distinguishing characteristic of Western Buddhism is gender egalitarianism. So while plenty of first-generation Western female teachers have influenced students and made their mark on contemporary practice, on the matter of second-generation female Buddhist teachers, you’ll have to stay tuned.”

Patrick: So you feel that Buddhism in America is basically a pursuit of wealthy white men?

Gwen: Right! It’s almost another thing to add to an already very rich, full, fulfilling life, and then waving the suffering flag like “Oh we all have suffering; we all have suffering” but failing to see that most of these middle-class white men are pretty close to samadhi compared to the rest of the developing or developmentally challenged world.

Patrick: I totally feel you on that. …People’s idea on suffering is all relative. … Suffering isn’t like a glass that gets more full. Pain is pain, right? So what’s the difference between a girl-who-doesn’t-get-into-a-sorority’s pain and someone in war-torn Africa who’s lost her family? For both of those people that’s the worst thing that’s ever happened to them. Is there a difference? What do you think?

Gwen: The major difference from where I stand, or sit, is the capability of these privileged white folks to get out there and do something and act and to creatively reduce suffering in the world rather than from their high-horse wave their “I am suffering” flags. Do you understand what I’m saying?

Patrick: I think that’s a much better way to go about it. Because I don’t really think it’s cool to say “you guys are rich, therefore your suffering doesn’t count as much.”

Gwen: No, no. That’s not my accusation at all. The point I’m really trying to make is “Get a grip guys. You’re suffering; we’re all suffering. But you have so many more options. You have health care available to you, and you have so many options to reduce your suffering than many other inhabitants on planet earth.

Patrick: Sometimes I think that being born American, especially a white American, is kind of like being born into royalty. … We’re white Americans. We have been given a very good chance, here, to do whatever we want with our lives.

Gwen: That’s true. And I think that both of us are making the choice to do things that elevate the lives of those around us in any way we can and in the communities of the people in which we’re a part. So I think we have been very pro-active and I think this idea of Engaged Buddhism and being engaged in the world instead of thinking of going away for two months to do another retreat. What about taking those two months and taking them and getting involved in Habitat for Humanity and helping people? You know, in yoga there’s this idea of Karma Yoga, some sort of “giving back.”

In response to refining questions from Patrick, Gwen better defines her “gripes.” Gwen says the kind of male Buddhist that bothers her is not the guy who quietly engages in his practice. “The kind of guy that bothers me is more vocal, and quicker to fling poo and spends numerous hours on chat boards and that sort of thing and instead of contributing to a community maybe breaking a community apart. That kind of thing.” She says, “But that’s not the only thing. These books that I’ve been reading by middle-aged or younger white dudes aren’t really doing much to stoke my fire as a practitioner. And I guess my beef is just sort of with this rehashing what the gurus have already said, rehashing what the masters have already talked about, trying to make it come off, like, ‘this is accessible or approachable by a twentysomething Buddhist.’ Give me a break.”

You have to think the “middle-aged or younger white dude” writers she’s focusing on are Brad Warner, Ethan Nichtern and Noah Levine, the three guys whose books were reviewed on the page of the Shambhala publication ["Buddhism's Young Turks"; Shambhala Sun; Sept. 2007 issue] Gwen read from that began the podcast. The three dudes fit the description, in addition each one of them was interviewed by Gwen for Buddhist Geeks this year. The Brad Warner Interview can be found here: Part I, Part II, Part III. The Ethan Nichtern Interview has been partially posted: Part I, Part II. The Noah Levine Interview was conducted, but Gwen told us in a BG podcast midyear, a conversation among the Geeks, that she felt the interview was too much of a book push, so she didn’t turn it in to Ryan to eventually get posted.

Where are all the Women? The Black Buddhists? The Latino Buddhists?

Later in the Gwen-Patrick conversation …

Patrick: …. let me ask you, Where are the women? Where are the black people? Where are the Latino Buddhists?

Gwen: Maybe they’re like “Do I want to be part of this Boys’ Club? I don’t think so.” … I’m just throwing that out there. That being said, I think a lot of female and people of color and all sorts of Buddhists are doing their Karma Yoga, as it were -- their Karma Buddhism -- quietly, in perhaps a lot less -vocal, -ostentatious way. That’s how it’s been for eons, I guess. That’s how it always will be. You know. Maybe that’s how it always will be. The people who are absolutely crucial in building a foundation for all these things to happen, as usual, are the ones who aren’t getting recognition, aren’t speaking up, or whatever. I mean, I’ve made the call multiple times on my blog, including Buddhist Geeks, saying “Where are the women?” When the comment sections are just getting deep in academia, or whatever, women don’t want to get involved in that a lot of times, because our practice and, perhaps, our ethos is living from the heart, connecting with people, taking what we can from books that we‘ve read and the teachers that we’ve sat with and practiced with and integrating that to what we’re doing on a daily basis.”

Patrick: Maybe the challenge for yourself is letting these dudes, these people, talk and just letting it go. You’re not going to shut ‘em up. Nobody’s going to listen to this podcast and say “You know what? I’m going to stop being a Buddhist jerk.”

Gwen: It’s true. But what about who’s going to answer the call when the call comes out: “Where are all the Buddhist women?” What about being a voice.

Patrick: Who you?

Gwen: Yeah, me and all the other Buddhist women who are out there going “Hi. What’s happening here?”

Patrick: You’ve gotta set up a system. How about a women’s Buddhist organization?

Gwen: I was thinking about DatingTheDharma.com

From here, as things wrap up, it gets strange. Patrick claims a connection between American royalty and Buddha - that seems completely backwards, if you know anything about Buddha’s life and ill-conceived if the point is that we should all become Engaged Buddhists. Buddha was not known for his construction of homes for the poor.

Gwen feels better after doing the podcast. What she takes from it is that she should just “let go and let that conversation [between the middle-aged white guys] continue to be had and just maybe rise above the din.”

And Patrick then says “the only people who are impressed by asshole drivers are other assholes. You know what I mean? So, I think that the only people listening to all this chatter on the boards, you know, and all this ‘I know the finer details of this sutra, and you don‘t.’ Let ‘em do it, whatever. They‘re not going to listen to this podcast, and that‘s good.”

Ethan Nichtern and Noah Levine Respond

Both Ethan Nichtern and Noah Levine gave me their responses to the Zen is Stupid podcast.

Both were troubled by the gross generalizations and slapdash way with “facts” in the podcast, but both agreed with Gwen’s sense that something’s wrong in the state of Buddhism.

“I felt that her perspectives were unresearched and unfounded on anything but a surface glance at Buddhism in America today,” wrote Noah. “[but]…her heart is in the right place...and I agree with her general sentiment.”

Ethan wrote, “I totally agree with the frustration behind Gwen’s sentiment. Totally. Sometimes I think I was born a white male because it gives me a lot of dark historical karma to purify…

“Also I think we need to be very precise demographically, which Gwen and Patrick’s conversation fails to be. There are very few truly rich Americans involved in the dharma. Very few. If there were more, American Buddhism would have more political and social clout than it does. About three people out of the many hundreds of meditators I know can afford Hummers. The idea that Buddhism is a pursuit of the wealthy is not backed up at all statistically. It is a very convenient misconception. American dharma is mostly a 40- and 50- and 60-something middle-class white pursuit. That is true.”

Noah wrote in defense of his and Ethan’s programs. “Ethan and his community are very engaged, working for social justice and equality. I have been told that my community is probably the most diverse and perhaps the most engaged group of Buddhists currently evolving …. The majority of people who study with me are involved in social and political action. And I, myself, have been serving the incarcerated population for over ten years. I can’t comment on Brad’s work because I am not familiar enough with what he is up to.”

Ethan wrote critically of the Shambhala Sun piece. “[W]hen I read the [review Gwen] referred to, I felt a little bad because [the writer] made it seem sort of like the three of us (Noah, Brad, and I) were acting as some intentional white male movement. I also felt bad because now there’s finally three “young" (none of whom are actually young) authors, and we’re already getting blamed for being men? It was hard enough for us to throw our voices into the self-help-obsessed, happiness-in-three-easy-steps publishing ring.”

Noah and Ethan ended their emails with similar good feeling about Gwen. Wrote Noah, “I met Gwen once...she interviewed me… I am sure she will become the engaged solution that she sees as currently missing.” Ethan wrote, “I like Gwen a lot. I hope she becomes a meditation teacher (a note to anyone who wants to do that – it is the hardest, most draining, and most fulfilling thing you could do). I hope she writes a great book. That would help solve the problems she refers to.”

My two cents.

My feelings are harsh toward Gwen and Patrick. But irony tumbling on stacks of irony, I do see, at this moment, the difficult in making a complaint about complaining. But my complaint isn’t really with their complaining (I tell myself). At its base, there is a difficult topic they are endeavoring to deal with and things that annoy them that they are trying to understand. And that’s good. I admire spunk and a journey of investigation.

Still, from my position judging others (horrors; I wish I wouldn‘t do that) they exhibit evidence of self-cherishing that goes off the scale.

I don’t know everything Gwen and Patrick are talking about, though I have little doubt I’m included in the class of folks they disdain. God knows, I can’t afford a Hummer, but I exhibit core characteristics.

While I’m not academic, I’m argumentative and more comfortable with objective issues than with subjective feelings. I have the right skin color, a penis, come from the middle-class even though I’ve dropped below that now, and the gray hairs are taking over like crabgrass.

I don’t know chat rooms or forums. I haven’t posted to one since I was tossed from the Tricycle forum for the fifth time in the late 90s. But I comment on blogs and tend to voice my heartfelt disagreements.

I like disagreement -- rather, I should say, discussions where we dig into things. If someone is comfortable disagreeing with you, they’re probably telling you the truth.

When everyone is sticky nice, agreeing with each other, I don’t consider that to be a tranquil community, or somewhere where you can learn anything. I consider that to be something from a fundamentalist church or the Stepford Wives. Rather, heated discourse among self-aware, self-deprecating people = Good. Insistence that ostracizing half the people, or complaining about complaining, is the path to Utopia = Bad.

Rising above the din isn’t something Gwen and Patrick are going to do right now. They ARE the din in the Zen is Stupid podcasts. They are the dinnest of the din. And the idea of “rising above” isn’t the path in any Buddhism I’m aware of - except for that stay-away-from-fools thing in the Dhammapada.

If I were to make a recommendation to Gwen and Patrick, and Buddha Knows I’m arrogant enough to do just that, I’d do it right here and now, since I have the expectation they will read this post.

So here it is [It‘s derivative guru stuff, no doubt. But read it, all the same.]:

Learn some appreciation for what you disdain. I don’t claim to live fully up to that ideal, but I do somewhat and I believe in it. It’s amazing what you can learn to appreciate in the lives and approaches to things of others.
Endeavor to be factually precise. At least when you cut corners, feel bad about it.
Doubt there are conspiracies. People are always more messed up than you think, unique and too cranky to gel a good conspiracy, and there is always too much chaos and disorder in people's lives to sustain any secretiveness. There is no network of middle-aged white guys in Buddhism, either in some grand scheme or in any locality.

There. Don’t you hate that, you twentysomethings? That middle-aged pontificating. But you can never know something until you take it on as your own. THAT is what those annoying middle-aged (or slightly younger) men are into. They are a step further into the dharma (they think, at least). It isn’t “recited dogma” anymore for them; they are getting a truer glimpse of the dharma and are jazzed by that. They have their own view into the forest and want to test it and share it.

What you are wrongheaded about, many of you twentysomethings, is thinking in terms that you aren’t yet adults, that those middle-aged so-and-so's are lording things over you. But as most of these older folks know, everybody past childhood, in the most important sense, is the same age. You’re the same age as your parents. You’re the same age as your grandparents. You aren’t really going to get more mature, you’re only going to mature by realizing you are mature. And that you’re arrived NOW and are as much in control as you’re ever going to be. Thus, there is no such thing as middle-aged fuddy-duddies. Adults stop thinking they're children.

God. I could write a book.

But the important question is how do we get many more young people and non-whites to get bit by the Buddhism bug? And how do we encourage more women to make their voices heard? I don’t know.

11/5/07 Update: In the description box of the 44th episode posted by Buddhist Geeks it is announced that Gwen is no longer a member of the BG Team. The wording is thus: "We ... want to thank Gwen Bell for the interview, of which it will be her last here on Buddhist Geeks."

Meng of "What Do You Think, My Friend?" on the front page of The New York Times

2007-08-31T21:23:00.000-07:00

Tan Chade-Meng, known as Meng, the fellow who in May of 1995 started “What Do You Think, My Friend?” , which is one of the oldest, most-venerated Buddhist websites, appeared on the front of The New York Times Online, today -- ID’ed as “The Google Guy.” He is pictured four times, in a montage with Madeleine Albright, Mohammad Ali, Robin Williams and Tom Brokaw -- four of more than a hundred luminaries The Times reports he has been pictured with at Google headquarters.

The article, "Who's With Gwyneth? The Google Guy" says “At Google, Mr. Tan has a reputation as a top-flight engineer. But he is also known for his fondness for one-liners and for being a regular contributor to the company’s online humor groups. The job title on his business card reads: “Jolly Good Fellow (which nobody can deny).”

Yep. That is online Buddhism’s funny Meng. There is a lot of humor in “What Do You Think, My Friend?” including a page called "A lighter side of Buddhism." At his website, Meng doesn't mention his job at Google. It has this to say: "The author of this site is Tan Chade-Meng, a Singapore-born Software Engineer working in California."

In the Times article, there is no mention of Meng being a Founding Father of Buddhism on the Internet or of being Buddhist.

A link on Meng's "lighter side" page is to an article I wrote that Meng graciously served as a panelist/contributor for, "Laughing Your Way to Enlightenment," which appeared in the short-lived online e-mag Hundred Mountain in February 2000.

In my article, lo seven years ago, Meng is quoted many times, including this: “I think that being a Buddhist is very simple,” Meng says. “It's just about cultivating kindness, compassion, mindfulness and calmness. Very simple, but not easy at all.”

A jolly good fellow, he is. And that nobody, famous or not famous, can deny.

Tricycle as The Buddhist Enquirerer OR Why Clark Strand Must Change or Die

2007-08-26T13:02:00.000-07:00

Strand's op piece is in the back of the Fall 2007 issue of Tricycle magazine [page 80], but gets a cover banner nod. Though the article is preposterous, the idea of the demise of Buddhism is titillating and might sell lots of copies at the newsstands.

In yet another one of his overblown, absurd attacks on Buddhism in Tricycle magazine, contributing editor Clark Strand, in the current issue, in an opinion piece titled "Dharma Family Values Or, Why American Buddhism must change or die", explains to us why American Buddhism must become Catholicism Lite or face a downward spiral toward oblivion. There just aren’t enough boring, meaningless rituals in Buddhism to rope the poor kiddies in. By the time they’re fourteen or fifteen, American kids leave our religion to take up the excitement of knitting or to memorize Gilbert and Sullivan show tunes. Yes, teenagers love to be bored and really hate excitement. We must make of Buddhism "that old-time religion," which was good enough for great-grandpa and is exactly what fourteen-year-olds crave.

Strand believes that rituals and tradition and chanting and marriages and burials and birthings, as well as prominent religious holidays, act as family-cohering events within a religion, something the Christians and Jews have in plenitude, while we stinting Buddhists have very little of that group-hug, dress-up bonding crap.

As part of his screed, Strand wrote this, with, from all evidence, a straight face and serious fingers,"In essence, the problem is this: Buddhism swelled its ranks during the post-1960 era to accommodate the spiritual interests of the baby boom generation that is even now beginning to die off, and yet those Boomer Buddhists, although they might finagle a way to get themselves married or buried as Buddhists, in most cases haven't birthed their children or raised them as Buddhists (or not effectively, at least). As a result, Buddhism in America will face a serious crisis over the next few decades, when it will be forced essentially to start over, bringing new Buddhists to the fold instead of making them."

The Fall 2007 issue of Tricycle.

It is curious to me why Strand would even want American Buddhism to survive. Over three years ago, in the Winter 2003-04 issue of Trike, he wrote, “When African Americans step into a Buddhist meditation center, that invisible culture is the first thing they see. They may be strong enough to participate in it without losing heart, or their racial identity, or both. Or they may be so strongly motivated to practice in that particular tradition that it just doesn't matter. In any event, they won't be kicked out for being black, because there are few outright bigots in the white Buddhist world. But the deeper racism, the passive racism committed to all the mannered nuances of its own culture – that is felt right away. No wonder most African Americans never make it through the door. There's no sign saying they can't come it. There doesn't have to be.”

Perhaps in the years between the two of his articles I’ve quoted, Stand has become a fully acclimated member of the racist cult of Buddhism and wants those white American Buddhist babies to be born, to be initiated and to grow up like their parents, put on the white hood and burn wheels (instead of crosses) on black families’ lawns. Yeah, if the white Buddhist population grows and prospers, we can wipe out the negro identity! Soon, all those black folk will be jiving like Britney Spears and singing like K-Fed.

Based on his record, here are some future articles mean-green Clark Strand can write for Tricycle:

"American Buddhists Chew the Heads off Baby Ducks because They Go Great with White Tea and Cheese Whiz."

"American Buddhists Stockpile Machetes for Genocide in Samoa"

"Michael Vick is Elected Head of the American Buddhist Conference because Buddhists Figure if He’s not Afraid to Gut Live Pit Bulls, Surely He can Stand Being Around Us”

and

“Buddhist Monks Must Poke Many Women to Spread the Buddhist Gene!”

Update: Recently, James Ure in the venerable The Buddhist Blog wrote a wonderful, thoughtful, kindly post, "Buddhism and Children," that is also critical of Strand's Trike article. Well worth reading, y'all. Too, it has a very interesting comment thread.

A Politics of Properly Balanced Tensions, Part II

2007-08-24T12:55:00.000-07:00

This is the second in my three-part series where I pontificate on various political issues. [See Part I, here.]

5) Foreign Policy. The next president is going to have a lot to fix with respect to our nation’s foreign policy. Probably never in our history has America been so ill thought of around the world.

For a good while, America is going to need to “back off” -- because we are overextended militarily and because of the “ugly America” problem. I would like to see the US withdrawing from bases it has around the world. We would never allow any foreign countries to have installations in the US; we should have bases only where we are welcomed and it serves a clear mission of enhancing peace and NOT to prop up American trade or dictators who are friendly towards us.

Americans had for a long time thought of their country as the leader in what is right and good. We are much less well thought of, now, in the world and domestically. The world doesn’t want a Daddy country, and we have become an abusive Bully Daddy.

While our foreign policy should protect American interests, it should not be an effort to give America an unfair advantage, or to interfere in the politics of other countries, or to generally extend our might and influence around he globe.

America should focus its effort on world peace and security. We should lead in ridding the planet of nuclear weapons. What window of opportunity there is to save the planet from a nuclear war or nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists may soon be closing. We should certainly try to move an agreement in the Middle East to clear that volatile area of nuclear weapons, now and forever. This will mean Israel will relinquish its nuclear arsenal, but America can guarantee Israel’s survival.

Our country’s best “weapon” against the international terrorist movement is to stop participating in the support and maintenance of oppressive regimes anywhere. We should certainly not be selling weaponry to the Saudi government or to any other government that has officials that are engaged in enriching themselves or are otherwise corrupt or failing to work on behalf of the populous of their country.

6) Ethics in Politics. Politics in America has always been down and dirty: antagonistic, partisan and mean-spirited. Still, there are relatively halcyon days of yore we can hope to recapture when the Elephant and the Donkey worked together to better meet the needs of the citizenry.

The question is How to we get from where we are to a political climate where the politicians do what is best to promote fairness and the general well-being of the American people today and in the future?

I am hopeful that if the Democrats win the presidency in 2008, and big majorities in the House and Senate, the tide will turn and a more-ambient politics might take hold in D.C. This is not just because the Democrats are a more-compassionate bunch of folks (which they surely are, by a wide margin), but also because, if the Republicans get pasted in another election, they are sure to reform themselves in order to survive as a party. That party needs to evaluate what it wants for America’s future and abandon its present-day Politics of Greed and truth-twisting ways. I think the American people and the media are determined not to be fooled again after eight terrible years of the Bush Administration. The politics of Rove and Cheney just won’t cut it anymore with the majority of folks.

But the Democrats, too, even in victory, need to evaluate what they are for. They cannot merely be all about re-gaining power and keeping it. They must do the important work of securing peace for the long haul, and dealing with global warming and the economic challenges that come from an aging population and cheap labor overseas. They must promote ‘fairness’ such that ‘war’ is not a situation where the rich get deep tax cuts to buy ever-bigger yachts while young soldiers die, or that the social-security system is left to continue as a Ponzi Scheme that will leave today‘s young people in the lurch when they are seventy.

Another thing that needs to change is the childish irrationality of voters. In 1993, the Clinton Administration was able to push through a tax hike that resulted in the GOP gaining power for the next twelve years. That tax hike was extraordinarily responsible, resulting in a long, fair economic boom. Who says so? Greenspan. But voters don't like tax hikes while at the same time they love government services. Voters want their cake and to eat it, too. Somehow, voters need to learn to appreciate the power of restraint. Only through restraint can we pass a healthy country on to our children and their children.

7) A Department of Peace. While I love the noble idea of Peace and hope for the promotion of a more harmonious planet, I am spooked by labels that have a Communist of Orwellian feel about them. If America were to add a Department of Peace to the administration, what would it really be like? Would it truly live up to its name? or would it almost immediately crumble in the face of realpolitik? Remember: We have a Defense Department in the current administration which has initiated a policy of pre-emptive military strikes against enemies.

It would be my hope that future State Departments, with no change to that bland name, would function as a Department of Peace.

As for the Kucinich proposal for a Department of Peace and Non-Violence, specifically -- which includes efforts to promote peace domestically -- I support his ideals, but believe by better funding existing programs, rather than creating a new overarching bureaucracy, we can best address Kucinich’s goals.

Bill of Integral Options Café wrote this in support of a Department of Peace with international scope: “Since the United Nations has not worked, we need to be actively involved -- as world leaders -- in trying to create peace on this planet. This includes being an example for other nations to live up to.”

I agree with Bill’s sentiments. The United Nations is a mostly failed institution, but I would hate to chuck it, or work around it, if it is at all possible for it to be reformed. Our best hope in the near future, I think, is to elect a peace-seeking Democrat as president in 2008. I think that the brilliant and conciliatory Barack Obama has enormous potential to do amazing things in America and around the world if he is elected.

Perhaps I am resistant to the idea of a Department of Peace in part because of a Firesign Theatre (comedy) Album, Waiting for the Electrician, which first came out in 1968, that included a segment where a counter-culture administration, led by an ersatz Bobby Kennedy, had a cabinet that included a Department of Inner Peace. The cabinet played together in a jazz band while the last rebel stronghold on the planet was bombed with hardbound copies of William Burroughs’s Naked Lunch. Ooooo, what a grizzly way for a conservative to die, from either getting bonked by or being forced to read Burroughs‘s book.

8) The Environment. Call me a whacko, if you like, but I am keen on the idea of saving the creatures on our planet from extinction. I would like to leave it up to a consensus of scientists to determine what damage there is, what dangers are acoming, and what needs to be done to avert disaster re climate change and other human-created mess-ups.

I recognize that many people, including a paltry group of semi-serious scientists and a sci-fi writer or two, believe that humans aren’t really doing much damage to the planet OR that whatever challenges in the way of great heat, rising oceans and terrible storms await us, technological advances will save us.

I will trust in REAL science, but I have to admit that I think it would be fun -- just plain old FUN -- if everybody got off the fat-cushion personal-comfort kick and just for the pure thrill of it became very, very efficient with energy use and just enjoyed being recycling and bicycling nuts. Raise the tax on gas one dollar! Let’s have stringent café standards! Forget the forget-me-nots, and raise vegetables in the backyard! Green, ho!

Pedophilia and the Law

2007-08-16T11:39:00.000-07:00

Jack McClellan is one of the most notorious people in the land, and he's certainly done more than his share to make himself so by maintaining well-publicized websites extolling his sexual and emotional obsession with prepubescent girls and by openly appearing before the media for interviews that have turned him into a household name and virtually burned his visage into the memory cells of every concerned parent in America if not beyond. But there's one not-so-little catch. He's never been so much as suspected, much less convicted, of molesting any children. He is a self-admitted pedophile, to be sure, but there's not a scintilla of evidence that he's ever acted out his aberrant desire, and, indeed, he maintains that his openness about his desires is "the best therapeutic thing" for him to do in order to avoid molesting children.

Yet, Jack McClellan now sits in a Los Angeles County jail for violating a temporary restraining order forbidding him from coming within ten yards of any child. Police deemed him to have committed this violation when he showed up on the UCLA campus for a TV interview after being cited hours earlier and warned not to return for appearing near the campus' Infant Development Program building with a camera in his possession. McClellan contends that he didn't believe that he was violating his restraining order by stepping foot on a college campus for a public interview where few if any children would likely be present.

I think he's right. Furthermore, I think that those legal scholars are right who say that the restraining order against McClellan unconstitutionally violates his right to free expression, and I hope that a court quickly makes this determination and sets him free.

Yet, there's more to consider here than just the extraordinary case of Jack McClellan. I believe that applying this "ten-yard" law even to those convicted of molesting children is wrong and should be found unconstitutional because of how impossible it is for virtually anyone except a hermit in the woods to obey it and how severely it curtails one's right to survive much less pursue ANY kind of happiness. How can one buy food at the grocery store, eat out at a restaurant, shop for clothes or other necessities, go to a movie, browse or acquire books at a bookstore or library, attend school, use public transportation to get to work, or be hired for any job that places one in contact with the public under this law?

The way I see it, if we need laws against convicted child molesters being around children, these laws should forbid deliberately associating or interacting with children or being alone with them; they should NOT prohibit simply being in the vicinity of children in a public place. And if there are firm grounds for believing that this level of restraint isn't enough to protect our children, then we need to PERMANENTLY incarcerate those convicted of child molestation.

Actually, I believe that "quarantine" is a better term for it, because I believe that pedophilia is a sickness of the mind and not a moral choice deserving hatred and vindictive punishment. Thus, if we find it necessary to isolate all convicted child molesters from the public in order to protect our children or, in some cases, to protect the convicted from vigilante "justice," then I believe that these individuals should be confined to humane institutions or areas of institutions set aside only for convicted child molesters so that their lives won't be imperiled by exposure to general prison populations.

As for the case of Jack McClellan, the supreme irony is that his extreme notoriety probably renders him one of the safest of ALL adults to be in the company of a child in public. For how could he, OF ALL PEOPLE, dare to approach a child in a public place for purposes of having sex with her?

A Politics of Properly Balanced Tensions, Part I

2007-08-07T13:31:00.000-07:00

A week ago, Bill of Integral Options Café, somewhat in response to policy-position posts by Joe Perez of Until [“Beyond Liberal, Left, and Progressive: An Inclusive and Revolutionary Politics for Tomorrow”] and Matthew Dallman of The Daily Goose [“A standard we ought insist upon”], laid out his own positions on ten vital political issues. Bill called his positions' overarching POV “A Politics of Compassion” --which I found to be quite excellent; I agree with all of Bill’s points, except that I want to move more slowly with respect to decriminalizing drugs and doings away with the Electoral College than he. This post, and its two follow-ups, will tackle the issues that Bill brought up but with my mini-analyses and with comments on what Joe, Matthew and Bill have said about it all. I hope that others of you will join the chain with your own capsulated thoughts on important issues of the day, and will speak to what overriding elements -- Compassion? Integral theory? Responsibility? Egalitarianism? -- you figure are the most germane overriding principles to guide legislating, politics or governance.

Why do I give the governance I seek the tedious (and perhaps ridiculous) name “A Politics of Properly Balanced Tensions?” Because I believe law, properly crafted, is in the realm of wholly unselfishly-viewed interests that compete or conflict. Selfishly-made law, that creates bridges to nowhere and special exemptions for well-connected corporations or industries, are beyond the pale and won’t be dealt with here. Properly-made legislation is not totally guided by reason (due to the limitations of reason). It should be divorced from the chaos of emotional tangles, and allow for a wide field of diversity, thus rather objectively trying to meet a wide range of people's legitimate needs. And because I think that understanding any important political issue involves looking at things from all aspects and different vantages; appreciating the concerns of those who differ from you in how they think and what they believe; making compromises; respecting the human condition with all its insanity and mess; getting the incentives right; and always looking toward what will work best in the long run.

Let us look at the ten issues Bill of IOC examined, in order, plus two additional issues, Immigration and Terrorism. I will look at four today, and four matters in each of the next two days in this planned three-part series.

1) Universal Health Care. Having worked for a TPA -- a third-party administration company -- admin’ing health-care trusts, I have a well-informed and somewhat different vantage in looking at the matter. A prime issue to me is the rather nonsensical situation where individuals become dependent on the business they work for to provide them health benefits.

Though most companies are in large insurance pools of various sorts that share the risks associated with employee illnesses, many are not. And those that are not allow perceptions based on the supposed health care costs of job applicants to weigh in on their hiring decisions. This can greatly disadvantage people will health challenges competing in the job market. People who have movement difficulty or vision or hearing impairment are less likely to get employment in our current system. As well, overweight people; women, especially young women; senior men; and African Americans will be less likely to be offered jobs than they otherwise would be due to subtle discrimination against perceived big users of health-care benefits. All of society suffers when the best person for a job doesn’t get the position for reasons that are not directly related to the tasks of the job.

It is also inappropriate for a person who has health challenges that are readily apparent on the jobsite to be at risk for termination directly because of the cost to the employer for health maintenance.

While there are laws and programs meant to protect ill or injured employees, in the real world employers allow what they know to affect their decisions and rather easily get around the law. And to the degree employers have to pay employee health costs, health-challenged employees are at an unfair disadvantage in the workplace and job market.

Consider, as well, all the added cost companies have for any employee vis-à-vis alternatives like buying machine replacements for staff or having work done outside the US in developing countries. Since the burden of health care is borne by companies instead of the state here in America, companies are incentivized to seek means to do their business in ways other than hiring expensive human labor to perform tasks. If the state was wholly responsible for people’s health, employees would be more valuable “commodities” in the marketplace of "doers of tasks." Because of our long string of huge trade deficits, we need to find means to level the playing field to ship fewer jobs and more goods overseas. Otherwise, America has a future of decline.

In order to make things more fair and because it helps those most in need of good health and makes hiring people less directly expensive to employers, state-run Universal Health Care makes much better sense than our current system. There are “incentive” challenges to implementing such a system. Hypochondriacs or just generally fearful people with plenty of time to kill can be set loose to clog hospitals with their gripes of very minor or non-existent ailments. Co-payment policies -- such that state hospitals are run like HMOs -- might be just the thing to deter people with no real need of care from getting in the way of those with ailments that would benefit from the services of a doctor.

In a comment to his post, Bill of the IOC says he would want a non-governmental organization [NGO] of some sort running a vast American Universal Health Care system. I don't see that this would be a good idea. Medicare and Medicaid have good records as government-run programs. The government is the institution that is responsible, so they must run it, in my opinion. The Canadian system should be our model.

2) Gay Rights. Bill Harryman makes the point that civil unions (and not marriage, which he views as outside the purview of the state and being, for both homosexual and heterosexual couples, in the province of religion) should be made available to all adult citizens as a matter of equity. I fully agree; this is the route to end discrimination against homosexual couples. But I would add that government should also not be in the business of discriminating against single people. Society has an interest in seeing to the education and happiness of children, and should exceptionally direct resources to that end, but should not have a preference in the makeup of families -- allowing single people, couples, sets of adults, all with or without children, to exist in households without some groups/configurations receiving special tax or legal benefits that come from the state.

3) Limited Capitalism. I believe that capitalism is very necessary -- due to its efficiency -- but needs to be regulated and tamed to protect consumers and correct for wildly unjust income disparities. Today in America, the system is rigged, giving special treatment to insiders who have influence with politicians. Ours is a politics of Social Darwinism rather than one that seeks fairness and a carefully-crafted matrix of incentives to keep capitalism in check to be a proper force for economic activity. I think it truly is the case that today soldiers are sent to die in Iraq to profit Halliburton and oil company executives. It is an insane old world.

We should also allow some laws that correlate effort with income. This is not “income redistribution,” but a correction to income misdistribution. Just as there are minimum-wage laws that guarantee that the poor among us are not de facto slaves, there should be laws that cap or heavily tax income of those with huge salaries who, necessarily, come by their wealth from networks of influence. I have to ask: What effort could any individual possibly make that could justify an income of $10 million per year? Show me anyone who could sweat enough to justify extracting that much wealth from our collective economy in one year. We should end the grotesque theft from the common weal that is today allowed.

4) Decriminalizing Drugs. I think that society has to come to the right balance in dealing with drugs. People, especially young adults, will experiment and society should have a proper understanding of that and allow some latitude for people’s strange behavior, desires and mistakes. At the same time, society should deter behavior and use of substances that endangers the overall peace, security and happiness of the population. Plus, we must be sensitive to the destruction American use of drugs causes overseas, in nations like Afganistan [heroin] and Columbia [cocaine] that are corrupted due to American demand.

I would like to see a study of where we are with suppressing drug trafficking in the US nowadays, with an effort to quantify the pain/good that can be done by various protocols in allowing/suppressing trafficking.

Tomorrow, Part II: Foreign Policy; Ethics in Politics; A Department of Peace; The Environment.

Religious Belief and Political Office

2007-08-05T08:38:00.000-07:00

Mitt Romney was not happy Thursday morning when a conservative radio host in Iowa grilled him about the tenets of his faith and insinuated that he was not faithful to some of them when he was governor of Massachusetts. The host also argued that Romney was making a mistake distancing himself from his Mormon beliefs in order to woo conservative Christian voters in Iowa and elsewhere, because what mattered more to them than his Mormon beliefs was whether he had the integrity to embrace and live those beliefs regardless of whether or not it was politically expedient. A visibly irritated Romney replied that his views and actions as governor and as a presidential candidate were consistent with his Mormon faith, and that he was getting tired of being questioned about his Church and faith when he was not campaigning as a representative of the Mormon Church but as a man who has the right stuff to be a good president.

For instance, Romney argued, the fact that his church forbids him to drink alcohol does not mean that he, as a public official, should seek to deny other people the right to drink alcohol. He, like any good public official of faith, is able to separate his faith from the duties of his office without being untrue to either. Furthermore, he argued, the fact that his church forbids its members to encourage or participate in abortion does not mean that he, early in his term as governor, violated his church's prohibition by vowing to uphold existing law allowing abortion.

I do not like the underhanded way that much of this exchange was recorded during commercial breaks in the radio program and then subsequently released, presumably without Mr. Romney's permission, to the media when Mr. Romney apparently did not know that he was being taped. However, I think Romney--despite the fact that I do not want someone with his views on abortion, gay rights, universal health care, the Iraqi war, and other matters to be president--handled himself rather well, and it was interesting to get a behind the scenes glimpse of what he is like when he is upset and thinks the camera is off. The fact that he can disagree with someone without becoming irrationally and unpleasantly disagreeable speaks positively for his character and, I think, his capacity to exercise judicious self-control under the pressures of the presidency.

Nevertheless, I question Mr. Romney's view that the teachings of the Mormon Church, which he claims to embrace, are irrelevant to his suitability to be president, and I further wonder whether we should not give more consideration to the religious beliefs of ALL political candidates before we support or vote for them.

If someone, no matter how accomplished he might be, were running for president who claimed to believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or Zeus, we would surely consider him much more of a candidate for the mental ward than for the presidency of the most powerful nation on Earth. There is no way he could get elected, and, I would think, rightfully so. For who but a fool or a nut could, as an adult, believe in such ridiculous fiction?

But then, how much less ridiculous is it to believe, among other things, that in 1830 a man was guided by an angel to a book composed of golden plates buried in the ground near his home in upstate New York, that this book chronicled the history of pre-Columbian Israelites who settled in the Midwest and became the principal ancestors of the American Indian peoples, and that Jackson County, Missouri was the Garden of Eden? Well, the Mormon Church teaches this, and Mitt Romney, as a self-professed devout Mormon, presumably believes this and many other equally if not more dubious teachings. Should such beliefs disqualify him from high (and, for that matter, low) political office? Why would the believer in the Tooth Fairy be disqualified by his belief and not Mitt Romney by his?

And why wouldn't a fundamentalist Christian who believes, among other things, that Satan, disguised as a snake, tempted Eve to eat the Forbidden Fruit which led to the corruption of humankind and all of nature; that God drowned the whole world except for the contents of Noah's Ark; and that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, never did anything wrong in his whole life, walked on water, materialized food out of nowhere, raised the dead and performed other genuine miracles, died on the Cross to atone for our sins, and bodily rose from his tomb to visit his disciples and then ascend to heaven; and that a domain of unimaginably excruciating eternal agony awaiting those who disobey divine commands is compatible with a Supreme Being of perfect love, justice, and mercy be disqualified for the presidency or any public office by his or her beliefs?

Clearly we do not disqualify fundamentalist Christians from elective office on account of their incredible beliefs, and it is remotely possible that Romney could be the Republican nominee and eventual president of the United States despite his equally if not more incredible Mormon beliefs. But is this how it should be? I really do not see an essential difference between belief in a literal Tooth Fairy and belief in the literal God of the Bible or Book of Mormon. Yet we, the public, draw a huge, if poorly articulated, distinction between the two. Even those of us who think the Bible and Book of Mormon are literal nonsense accept this distinction. But on what basis? And is it, perhaps, time that we stop doing so? And if we do, what then? Do we refuse to vote for any candidate who claims to believe in the literal teachings of any mainstream religion? If so, would the candidates who remain be any better qualified for political office?

Buddhism is different than becoming a good person

2007-06-30T14:19:00.000-07:00

Jakusho Kwong-roshi

Buddhism or the Buddhadharma is different than becoming a good person. Because when you want to become a good person, when you want to do good, you become a purpose, you have a purpose of being good, of what you think is good. So we even have to transcend that.

Studying Zen is not becoming a good person, but becoming a human being. When you become a human being then you are naturally ... you realize your basic goodness. Even ourselves are basic goodness. Then you realize the basic goodness of others. That's goodness.

So, It's not doing good things for people. Becoming the selflessness in serving people is one of the greatest rewards.
-- Jakusho Kwong-roshi

The above is taken from a interview clip that appears in a video set called "Religions of the World." The fifty-minute film on Buddhism is wholly unimpressive -- lots of film scans of murals and small statues spinning in front of a black screen. But interview clips of Kwong-roshi, the founder, with his wife, and Zen Teacher at Sonoma Mountain Zen Center in Santa Rosa, California; Prof. Lewis Lancaster, PhD, UC Berkeley; and Dr. Rina Sircar of CIIS are very worthwhile.

I love what Kwong-roshi says about goodness in the quote above that I snatched from the film, and not because [or solely because] it justifies me being a jerk from time to time. I think that many people who are new to Buddhism [and even some who have been at it for a long time] approach our religion with the idea that by being gooder than good and holier than thou they win in the competition of being Best Buddhist.

But that's not so -- at least from a Zen approach. The way I look at it, Zen is fundamentally a search for authenticity.

And, by the way, Kwong-roshi is curiously the most ordinary yet appealing individual you are likely to ever encounter. Much like the Dalai Lama, you are given to immediately believe anything this gentle man says.

Letter to Dennis Prager

2007-06-22T10:36:00.000-07:00

Yesterday Dennis Prager made some observations on his radio program that I responded to by e-mail, and he was gracious enough to reply to the points I made. Here is what I wrote to him:

Dear Dennis:

I am what you would probably consider to be politically "liberal." But I enjoy your program nevertheless because of your consistently intelligent and respectful discussion of so many substantive issues. I am also increasingly convinced that philosopher Ken Wilber is correct when he claims that there are valuable insights stemming from both "right" and "left" political perspectives and that it is wise to seek to integrate these perspectives and their insights. I have found you to be an outstanding spokesperson for a political perspective and for corresponding insights that I have largely shunned until recently but am now giving much more consideration and am struggling to incorporate into my own worldview. That is, as a result of listening to programs such as yours and Hugh Hewitt's and of reading "conservative" writings such as one finds on clinical psychologist-philosopher Robert Godwin's remarkable One Cosmos blog (by the way, one could say that his frequent mention and praise of you persuaded me to give you a serious listen), I have found myself developing a political and more general perspective that is less dogmatically "liberal" and, I would like to think, more reflective of a reality whose complexities transcend staunchly liberal and conservative understandings. I thank you sincerely for the significant role you are playing in this ongoing transformation.

However, I would like to take respectful issue with some of your comments during your opening hour of today's program. First, you said that Karen Armstrong is wrong to assert that all religious fundamentalisms are essentially equivalent in theory and practice. If I understood you correctly, you maintained that there is no moral equivalence whatsoever between Christian fundamentalism that will tolerate criticism and even outright mockery of its teachings and Islamic fundamentalism that will murder people for any perceived disparagement of the faith. I do not necessarily disagree with you here, but I would ask whether you think that hardcore Christian fundamentalists would be much more tolerant than hardcore Muslim fundamentalists if they lived in a society where they had the power to impose their views on everyone. I am inclined, rightly or wrongly, to believe that if Christian fundamentalists held unchecked power in this country, they would not necessarily be all that much more tolerant of mockery, criticism, or even substantive dissent than are Muslim fundamentalists. And if this were true, would fundamentalist Christianity REALLY be that morally superior to fundamentalist Islam, or is it now simply prevented by legal force from doing what it would otherwise do? It would be fascinating for you to discuss this on your program sometime, and especially if you could have Karen Armstrong on and discuss all of this with her. I, for one, would love to hear her explanation and defense of her claim that most religious fundamentalisms are equivalent.

Second, you argued that Robin Williams has shown no moral courage in mocking Christianity but not Islam after 9-11. A caller disputed your claim by stating that Robin Williams has done extensive routines mocking Islam and Islamic terrorists, and I suspect that he is correct. For instance, in just a cursory YouTube search, I found this.

Third, you asserted that the entertainment industry has displayed no moral courage in its failure to offer post 9-11 entertainment that realistically depicts the immoral savagery of Islamic terrorists. The same caller who disputed your claim about Robin Williams countered that "Hollywood" has in fact produced many movies that disparage Islamic terrorists. You replied that even if this is true, it has done so more in terms of comic book scenarios and caricatures than realistic depictions, and it has not been true at all since 9-11. Well, I do not watch a lot of TV or see many movies, but I am aware of several films and TV programs produced since 9-11 that have provided reasonably realistic and unflattering portrayals of Islamic terrorists. Among them are the acclaimed movie United 93, the Showtime two-season miniseries Sleeper Cell, and several seasons of the very popular Fox drama 24.

Furthermore, even if it were true that comics and the entertainment industry in general readily criticize and mock Christianity but not Islam in the wake of 9-11 out of fear for their safety, I wonder if YOU would dare to criticize Islam on your radio show or in your writings if you truly believed that doing so placed you and your family in serious jeopardy from Islamic terrorists. And if you did not speak out against Islam under these circumstances, would you be any less of a "moral coward" than others in the entertainment industry who criticize what they feel safe in criticizing and refrain from criticizing when they think it could lead to deadly violence?

Dennis, I am grateful for your radio program and for the time you have taken to read this overly long letter, and I wish you peace, prosperity, and happiness.

This is how Dennis responded:

Dear steve:

Thank you for the very thoughtful letter. It's an honor having listeners like you.

Some quick responses:

1. Christian fundamentalists often ha control in America and never imposed anything like an Islamic intolerant regime here.

2. Robin Williams did indeed make fund of suicide bombers. That's relatively easy and not comparable to making fun of RC priests in general.

3. United 93 was a documentary-film of one flight. And a great service it was. And it was a rare exception.

4. I have been very critical in both writing and radio of the Islamists, and frequently think of the danger it can put me in.

All the best,

Dennis Prager

I appreciate the fact that Mr. Prager took the time and trouble to respond, especially given the fact that he must be swamped with e-mail every day. However, I still wonder if Christian fundamentalists would not be far more repressive if they had unchecked power, if Robin Williams and other comics have not made much fun of Islam and Islamic terrorists since 9-11, if there have not been numerous "Hollywood" films and TV programs since 9-11 that paint Islam and Islamic terrorists in an unflattering light, and whether Dennis Prager truly feels endangered (say, the way Salman Rushdie undoubtedly feels endangered) for expressing the views he does about Islam and Islamic terrorists.

Hospital Nightmare

2007-06-15T11:10:00.000-07:00

It could be you. It could be your mom, your baby, your sister…. Unfortunately, it was my sister.
--Marcela Sanchez

It has become a big story. As well it should be. On May 9, 43-year-old mother of three Edith Isabel Rodriguez died on the waiting room floor of the Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital ER in Los Angeles. She died after lying there for 45 minutes writhing in pain and vomiting blood from a perforated bowel. Nobody helped her. In fact, the only attention she received was from a janitor who periodically mopped up the blood, and from her boyfriend and another patient who called 911 to have Rodriguez transported to another hospital that would help her. Their urgent pleas were rejected and rebuked.

MLK-Harbor is a county hospital for mostly indigent patients. It has a sad history of negligent practice and patient neglect. It tried to pass off Rodriguez' death as that of a "quasi-transient" with a history of drug abuse. That may have been true enough, but it told only a small, whitewashed part of the story. The ER surveillance camera told a larger, much uglier part. Those who have been allowed to see the video say that it revealed Rodriguez' entire ordeal in harrowing detail. It showed her agonizing on the floor. It showed her vomiting blood. It showed the janitor making his rounds to mop up the blood. And it showed the shocking indifference of the ER staff to her plight.

"Here's a person crying for help. Will no one help?" asked noted bioethicist Arthur Caplan. "What kind of a society are we when we can't even render aid to someone who's in their own blood and vomit on the floor and you're mopping around them? It's a kind of morality tale of a society gone cold."

Indeed, what kind of society are we? And what do we do about it?

I believe that incidents like these are not the result of any one cause. They result from many interrelated psychological, social, and cultural causes. Consequently there is no simple solution to the problem. I believe that part of the solution may be deterrence. That is, the hospital personnel who callously let this tragedy happen should be exposed to the public, prosecuted to the fullest extent possible, sued to the limits of their personal responsibility, and permanently barred from the healthcare field.

But beyond that, I believe that we need to see that video, learn everything we can about this awful story and others like it, make ourselves more sensitive to the pain, suffering, and needs of others, and realize that what happened to Edith Rodriguez could happen to us or to someone we love someday if we let it.