Progressive Buddhism

"Now What?"

noreply@blogger.com (Myeong Jin Eunsahn) — Mon, 11 Nov 2024 03:22:00 +0000

(This talk was given November 6, 2024, one day after the election in the US).

The “elephant in the room” is that today, slightly more than half of the populace is gleeful, slightly less than half is sad. Taking either glee or sadness to the extreme is obviously missing the Middle Path, that sense of equanimity, one of the virtues that’s part of our practice. Dae Soensanim Seung Sahn called the balance the Primary Point. The Third Patriarch termed the “Great Way easy for those not attached to preferences.”

Granted, today might be difficult to manifest equanimity. And it might be even more difficult to manifest sympathetic joy (Skt. Mudita) toward that slightly more than half the population. And that portion of the population may not be inclined toward lovingkindness (Skt. Maitri) or compassion (Skt. Karuna). These and wisdom are the Four Perfections, how we avoid picking and choosing. Not exhibiting them certainly makes the Great Way difficult.a way to make it beyond difficult would be to show schadenfreude, taking pleasure to the bad fortune of another, 180 degrees away from Mudita. Wisdom (Skt. Prajna) from either side might be a stretch.

But, as elections, political parties, voting, and so on are subject to causes and conditions, are therefore empty. Fair enough and, gloating and moping are both impermanent, so they’ll pass. But empty or not, there are consequences to these causes and conditions, and that is reality. Our practice is to experience reality directly. Whining or whooping aren’t acknowledging reality. There’s way too much “I, I, I” involved in them. So we have to accept reality, including the outcome of the election, as well as whining and whooping because they’re part of it also. But acceptance doesn’t mean passive acceptance. Zen practice is active. We don’t have to settle.

We acknowledge reality being the result of causes and conditions. And if it happens that there is some harm being done as part of this karmic outcome, passivity is not doing our duty as bodhisattvas. We save all beings, not just the slightly more than half, not just the slightly less than half, or the indifferent; we are part of “all” too. So we need to act wisely, show the wisdom to practice the other three Immeasurables, and take actions that will indeed save ALL beings, including ourselves.

Myeong Jin Eunsahn gave the talk November 6, 2024

"Prayers for Peace"

noreply@blogger.com (Myeong Jin Eunsahn) — Fri, 27 Oct 2023 16:22:00 +0000

A Prayer for Peace

BY Thich Nhat Hanh

In beauty, sitting on a lotus flower,

is Lord Buddha, quiet and solid.

Your humble disciple,

calm and pure of heart,

forms a lotus flower with his hands,

faces you with deep respect,

and offers this heartfelt prayer:

Homage to all Buddhas in the ten directions.

Please have compassion for our suffering.

Our land has been at war for two decades.

Divided, it is a land of tears

and blood and bones of young and old.

Mothers weep till their tears are dry

while sons on distant fields decay.

Its beauty torn apart,

only blood and tears now flow.

Brothers killing brothers

for promises from outsiders.

Homage to all Buddhas in the ten directions.

Because of your love for all people,

have compassion on us.

Help us remember we are just one family,

North and South.

Help us rekindle our compassion and brotherhood,

and transform our separate interests

into loving acceptance for all.

May your compassion help us overcome our hatred.

May Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva’s love

help the flowers bloom again in the soil of our country.

Humbly, we open our hearts to you,

so you may help us transform our karma

and water the flowers of our spirits.

With your deep understanding,

help our hearts grow light.

Homage to Shakyamuni Buddha

whose great vows and compassion inspire us.

I am determined to cultivate only thoughts

that increase trust and love,

to use my hands to perform only deeds

that build community,

to speak only words of harmony and aid.

May the merit of this prayer

be transformed into peace in Vietnam.

May each of us realize this,

our deep aspiration.

the Middle East

A Prayer for World Peace

By Venerable Master Hsing Yun

Oh great, compassionate Buddha!

As your students and followers,

We are sincerely kneeling here before you;

Please listen to these words from our hearts;

The rumbling of wars between nations,

The clamor of discord between people,

The roar of greed in the rapids of craving,

The growl of hatred among races.

These sounds are

Like tidal waves storming against our hearts!

The sound are

Like hurricanes pounding against our hearts!

As we observe all of this,

We realize that all human suffering

Originates from our self-conceit, prejudice, and

delusion.

As we contemplate all of this,

We realize that all worldly turmoil

Is caused by our attachment to things, Dharma

and relationships.

Disagreement between different people

Has caused so many arguments;

Discrimination between different races

Has caused so many disasters;

Intolerance between different religions

Has caused so many misfortunes;

Conflict of interest between different nations

Has caused so much chaos and upheaval.

Living in this kind of world,

Every day we live in fear, with no ease;

Every day we live in senselessness, with no

peace.

Oh great, compassionate Buddha!

Please listen to our sincere prayer:

We sincerely wish that, in this world, there be:

No jealousy, only admiration;

No hatred, only harmony;

No greed, only generosity;

No harm, only achievement.

Oh great, compassionate Buddha!

Let people of different ages

Live in harmony;

Let people of different social stations

have mutual respect;

Let people of different professions

Work in cooperation;

Let people of different religions

Practice with tolerance.

Oh great, compassionate Buddha!

You once said,

"The mind, Buddha, and all sentient beings

Are no different from one another."

"You, I, and others are all equal."

We need to learn from you the wisdom

To close the distance between self and others;

We need to learn from you the selflessness

To eliminate all of our attachments;

We need to learn from you the truth

To resolve the confrontations between races;

We need to learn from you the compassion

To reconcile the conflicts between nations;

We need to learn from you the Buddha light

To illuminate the darkness of the world.

Oh great, compassionate Buddha!

Please hear my sincere and pious prayer!

Please bestow peace upon the world!

Please bless all sentient beings with harmony!

Oh great, compassionate Buddha,

Please accept our sincere prayer!

Oh great, compassionate Buddha,

Please accept our sincere prayer!

Namo Shakyamuni Buddha.

Is Progress Possible? Mindfulness vs Tribalism

noreply@blogger.com (Buddhist_philosopher) — Thu, 10 Dec 2020 22:08:00 +0000

Another title for this blog post and video discussion might be: "driving progress wisely." Or "a mindful approach to progress."

In the video, Robert Wright, author of Why Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment (2018) speaks with Emma Varvaloucas, Executive Director of The Progress Network* about tribalism and politics in today's exceptionally divisive and social media driven world.

A factor that they discuss, and Wright has covered in the past, is the way that we often fall into counter-productive extremism, even when we think we're on "the right side" of history on matters. An example Wright gives is of recent protests when some police were filmed driving their cars into protesters. This is not at all typical behavior, but many on the left commented as if it was.

On the other side of the political divide, he noted, other people saw the isolated cases of rioting and looting and responded as if this was the typical behavior of Black Lives Matter protesters and allies. It wasn't.

So on both sides (and this is not to suggest that the two sides are equal) we can see cases of taking the extremes as if they were the norm.

This might have the power to enrage and rally allies, but it also twists truth.

Many on either extreme don't see this. And if they do, they might argue that twisting the truth is necessary and beneficial.

And yet this itself comes around to harm the cause, as people on the other side can often discuss and see the "lies" being put out. So we can end up scoring an "own goal" in which our over-inflated rhetoric or excessive reaction to wrongs actually causes more harm.

The Solution

A little mindfulness and compassion. Even as we work within our tribe or group, and fight for a world that helps people we identify and empathize with, we need to try to think about the lives and reasons of those on the "other side."

For us as Progressives, that means thinking about and appealing to the ardent further-left activists we know as well as good-hearted centrists and conservatives. In the Buddhist world it means empathizing with those at the cutting edge of new ways of understanding and practicing the Dharma as well as those who place highest value on the oldest teachings and institutions.

And that takes real work. Often we can find our greatest frustration is with those who are closest to us on the political spectrum but who are just either a) twisting things a bit too far, or b) failing to connect with us and see a problem we're pointing at.

Back when I studied the Pali language, I remember noting that the Buddha used a few words that essentially mean "stupid" and "idiot" to describe people around him surprisingly often. It wasn't just the Brahmins or members of other religious groups that he was talking about. It was often his own near and dear monks and nuns (well, mostly just monks that I can remember).

The point is, the Buddha offered criticism to anyone who acted or spoke against the truth, be they a close disciple or a distant teacher. And he offered kind words to those who spoke and acted in manners aligned with truth, be they members of his community or not.

One way I have seen this helpfully manifested in discussions has been in the use of the phrase "both/and." It typically is valuable when a poster or commenter writes that "X is bad, an alternative of X is good." For instance, "our government is bad, anarchy is good." We might say, "what about both a system that preserves helpful things about our government like environmental protections or worker's rights and greater avenues of freedom and self-expression as well as local governance?"

Again, this is by no means easy. And convincing people of things on the internet, people you likely don't know and might never meet is often a lost cause. Nonetheless we are here. Let us make the best of our time in this space.

* Emma also interviewed me way back in my previous life as a famous Buddhist blogger and hers as an editor for Tricycle Magazine.

The Mathematics of Awakening

noreply@blogger.com (Myeong Jin Eunsahn) — Sat, 08 Aug 2020 02:38:00 +0000

We all are aware that in most cases, crawling comes before walking, and walking comes before running. It’s like that with many things in life, you don’t immediately write the magnum opus as soon as you learn how to write. You don’t jump from learning how to count to trigonometry. You don’t learn how to say mama & papa and turn into a great orator. On the surface, that seems entirely natural, and indeed common sense. Once those skills have been learned, it can require continued usage of the skill can slip away. I knew how to speak Spanish and French a lot better before than I do now. You don’t use it, you lose it. You run a marathon, you need to continue running or you won’t make it to 26 yards let alone 26 miles.

In all these cases, you need to be taught by someone how to manifest these capabilities you have the innate capacity to manifest. However, you can’t take a random group of people, some of whom just learned how to count, some of whom learned arithmetic, some algebra, and expect them all to learn trigonometry equally and at the same pace. They may all have the ability to learn it, but some will be at a different pace than the others.

In the Lotus Sutra, Shariputra is confused by the Buddha’s teaching. He freely admits it. He’d been around the Buddha for ages, but was still confused. the following interchange takes place between Shariputra and the Buddha:

Then the Bhagavat spoke to Śāriputra, saying: “You have now persistently asked me three times. How could I possibly not explain it to you?

Therefore listen carefully and pay close attention! I will now illuminate and explain it.”

“When he said this, five thousand monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen in the assembly immediately got up from their seats, bowed to the Buddha, and left. What was the reason for this? Because the roots of error among this group had been deeply planted and they were arrogant, thinking they had attained what they had not attained and had realized what they had not realized. Because of such defects they did not stay. And the Bhagavat remained silent and did not stop them.

Then the Buddha addressed Śāriputra: “My assembly here is free of useless twigs and leaves; only the pure essence remains.

“O Śāriputra! Let the arrogant ones go! Listen carefully and I will explain it to you.”

Then Śāriputra replied: “Indeed, O Bhagavat, I greatly desire to hear it.”

Then the Buddha addressed Śāriputra: “Only very rarely do the Buddha Tathāgatas teach such a True Dharma as this, as rarely as the uḍumbara flower blooms.

Then Śāriputra replied: “Indeed, O Bhagavat, I greatly desire to hear it.”

“O Śāriputra! Trust and accept what the Buddha teaches!”

What the Buddha teaches one, he may not teach another. That teaching may come later, maybe never if it isn’t needed. Just like Shariputra, we should not be embarrassed by not understanding a teaching. Likewise we should not assume that we do have something we don’t, like those who left the assembly before the Buddha could give his teaching.

For me, there are three stages we go through as Buddhist practitioners. For example, regarding the Four Noble Truths, we hear that we struggle, there’s a reason for it, and then, “Yay! there’s a way out! And here’s how you get out.” That’s Buddhism 101, arithmetic. Then as Zen practitioners, we move onto Stage 2–Algebra—“No suffering, no origination, no stopping and no path” Then beyond that: Calculus—“How can I help you?” The foundation of all “advanced” mathematics is still arithmetic.

So is one stage more enlightened than another—more “woker?” It is a rare individual who can learn to count, then immediately leap to calculus. Not impossible, but unlikely. But does arithmetic invalidate calculus, or vice versa? Is arithmetic enough? In some circumstances, yes. In other situations, trigonometry is going to be necessary. But what is necessary at that time is the correct skill at that time.

You may have heard of the Northern School/Southern School argument about Gradual Enlightenment vs Sudden Enlightenment Great Seon ancestor Jinul spoke of Sudden Enlightenment/Gradual cultivation. Someone once described it as walking through a rain shower as Gradual, taking a cannonball dive as Sudden. For Jinul’s Sudden/Gradual, our guiding teacher here at OMZS Ven Taesan speaks of boiling water—it’s not boiling until it hits 212 Fahrenheit. It hits that, and bang! Boiling Enlightenment. But unless heat is continued to be applied, the temperature will start to drop. Northern/Southern, Sudden/Gradual, Sudden then Gradual, all concepts. Lesser Vehicle/Great Vehicle, Hinayana/Mahayana—concepts. Does one invalidate the other? Is Mahayana right and Hinayana wrong?

Given impermanence as the 0 point, one may be a carnivore one day, then vegetarian, then vegan, then maybe back to carnivore. The egotist of today may be the most humble tomorrow. Just because a personal bar of ethics may be high, others not matching that level doesn’t necessarily make them inferior; they may not have the capacity for more.

The Lotus Sutra speaks of Ekayana—one vehicle. Huangbo speaks of One Mind. The Buddha taught all of it, the ancestors and patriarchs have taught all of it, our teachers today teach all of it. Upaya, teaching geared to what the student needs/has the capacity for, not to the teacher’s self-centered ego. “Trust and accept what the Buddha teaches!” How May I help you?

In These Uncertain Times

noreply@blogger.com (Myeong Jin Eunsahn) — Thu, 28 May 2020 00:42:00 +0000

The first time I heard the phrase “in these uncertain times “ on a television commercial, I thought how sympathetic it was, acknowledging people’s fear and discomfort, across this world, as a result of a disease. Then, after the 80th time and my eyes and ears glazed over and started feeling like sympathy was being commodified so these fearful people would buy more stuff from these supposedly sympathetic merchants that somehow would be comforting, that would restore some sense of predictably, it dawned on me: When are times certain?

Impermanence is one of the Three Dharma Seals—everything is changing, changing, changing. But if everything is changing, is that any different from it being still? Same as still? Everything is perfectly still, perfect as it is, even when that’s uncomfortable. And as it changes from moment to moment, all of this good/bad is just thinking. If everything is in constant motion, then how is that changing? If nothing is ever in the same place twice, doesn’t that become the baseline, the ground from which it all springs? If there were only light, there’d be no reason to bother having the word dark. Dark would only be a mental concept. If everything is always in flux, why do we invent the concept of static? We make our own opposites, we create duality where there is none.

Richard Clarke translated Sencan’s Xinxin Ming:

“Do not remain in the dualistic state;

avoid such pursuits carefully.

If there is even a trace

of this and that, of right and wrong,

the Mind-essence will be lost in confusion.

Although all dualities come from the One,

do not be attached even to this One.”

Shitou Xiqian, great Chan sage wrote something called CAN TONG QI—merging of difference and unity. This is part of it, as translated by JC Cleary:

“Each sense and every field

Interact and do not interact;

When interacting, they also merge -

Otherwise, they remain in their own states.

Forms are basically different in material and appearance,

Sounds are fundamentally different in pleasant or harsh quality….

The four gross elements return to their own natures

Like a baby taking to its mother;

Fire heats, wind moves,

Water wets, earth is solid.

Eye and form, ear and sound;

Nose and smell, tongue and taste -

Thus in all things

The leaves spread from the root;

The whole process must return to the source;”

So of course these times are uncertain, but only because we think times are or can be certain.we think phenomena have a self-nature, even though everything we’ve ever heard is that all conditioned phenomena have no self nature, that they are all characterized by emptiness. But we’re shocked by how that lack of self-nature comes out. Most days just slide one into the next, even when the unexpected comes along, it’s easy enough to ignore. Water is wet, but when the water cooler is out of water and it’s dry, it’s no big deal.

But there are those other times when we feel like we’re hanging by our teeth from a branch dangling over a hungry tiger, and with a swordsman at the base of the tree in front of us. We’re standing on top of a flagpole with nowhere to go. We can hang on for as long as we can, trying to impose order when there really isn’t. But the baseline is still there, that baseline of perpetual change, that baseline of all change being no change, of uncertainty.

We can choose what we like and don’t like, we can say this is good, that is bad. It’s not good and bad, reality doesn’t need our validation to just be. Water is wet, Fire is hot, ice is cold. Uncertainty is uncertainty.

Step off the flagpole, help all beings. Unclench the jaw, “how may I help you?” See reality for what it is, wipe out the self-centered preferences, and take on the selfless act of realizing your True Buddha Nature, return to the source that was never left, and help all beings, even in “these uncertain times.”

Heroes of Progressive Buddhism: Myawaddy Sayadaw of Burma/Myanmar

noreply@blogger.com (Buddhist_philosopher) — Wed, 13 Nov 2019 22:47:00 +0000

Last year I started a series on "Heroes of Progressive Buddhism" as a way to help build a portfolio of sorts of Buddhists around the world doing great, progressive work.

The first in this series was Sebene Selassie, Executive Director of New York Insight. Selassie is a woman of color and as I noted last year, "What comes out in particular is Selassie’s commitment to Inclusion and Diversity outreach."

This time we have an example of inclusion and diversity outreach from Burma/Myanmar.

Myanmar’s Military Seeks to Jail Buddhist Monk over Criticism

As Myanmar has seen a resurgence of Islamophobic, violent fundamentalist monks, it has also seen numerous leaders like Myawaddy seeking to build bridges and end violence. Now he and his work are under threat. From the article:

" ... renowned for his work with peace and interfaith groups,* the abbot has been accused of defamation by Myanmar’s politically powerful military following an interview he gave to the local Yangon Khit Thit news website in June. During the conversation, he questioned the propriety of a more than 30 million kyat (US$20,000) donation by an army commander to the ultra-nationalist Buddhist organization the Buddha-Dhamma Parahita Foundation."

“I will contest whatever lawsuit they use. Suing us shows there are no rights, but it will not stop me from speaking the truth,” said Myawaddy Sayadaw. “I will keep saying what should not be done and what should be avoided. I’m a Buddhist monk and this is my duty to show the right path for everyone.”

Standing up to repressive ideas (as the Buddha did with aspects of the caste system and entrenched gender inequality) and governments is central to a decidedly progressive Buddhism, as it follows the right understanding of our social and political context and puts it into right action. Not all Buddhists will do this, and that's okay.

For some, Buddhism will be primarily a path of devotion or merit accumulation, chanting, prostrating, reading texts, etc. But this active, engaged, progressive stance is every bit a part of Buddhism today as any other path.

This is the ~~first~~ second in a planned series on the topic of “Progressive Buddhism.” That term is admittedly vague, despite a blog being devoted to the topic since 2007 and a facebook group since 2015 (both administered by yours truly at present). I hope in the coming months to develop a set of principles and ideals to guide thinking around and discussion of Progressive Buddhism, and to point out “heroes,” or people who embody some of those principles and ideals in their life and work. Sometimes these will be in depth, sometimes brief vignettes.

Do You Have to be Leftist (to be a Progressive Buddhist)?

noreply@blogger.com (Myeong Jin Eunsahn) — Sat, 31 Aug 2019 04:46:00 +0000

One of the teachings of the Dharma is that our tendency to attach names to forms, and with those names, meanings. That’s very handy—we’d all be walking in front of busses, and not even knowing what hit us without that habit. The problem arises when we start to think the bus has some “bus-ness” to it, and that the name “bus” and the “bus-ness” actual means something more than that thing with four wheels and people inside it is a mode of transportation.

“Mass transit is Good!” “Those people in that bus must have lost their drivers licenses, they must all be drunks...or poor.” Neither of these statements is true or false. Taking a bus instead of a car may be a responsible choice environmentally, or it may be the only choice if you happen to be an unlicensed poor drunk. Making these value judgments and assigning good and bad qualities only mires us further into this Sahā World that we must endure.

And so it is with “IdPol,” Identity Politics. Both “Progressive” and “Buddhism” can be (and often are), loaded with stereotypes, and heavily-dosed with “meaning” and expectations. “Progressive” at its most literal is defined as growing, developing, moving forward. “Buddhism” is simply a follower of the Buddha and one who lives according to these teachings. We’re not all vegans or vegetarians, we’re not all members of the Comintern. “Conservative” Buddhists May be those who want to stay close to the Buddha’s teachings, eschewing the new-agey aspects some have pinned on by or about Buddhists.

In all likelihood, there are combinations of identifications we or others attach to us. It is said that when asked about “Engaged” Buddhism, Thich Nhat Hann replied, “Is there any other kind?” And that’s a telling statement. Being engaged is just seeing the interdependence of all dharmas. In realizing this “interbeing,” as TNH would call it, we embody compassion by our involvement in the world, Sahā world though it may be. Embodying compassion is being progressive. We want to move forward toward a world where compassion is the norm. We move this along by being compassionate ourselves. For those of us who have taken the Bodhisattva Vows, we try to “save all beings” through our compassion.

“IdPol” may as well be eliminated from being a progressive Buddhist, because we do our best for everyone and everything, in order to enable them to realize their innate Buddha. Hating does nothing to liberate either ourselves or others. Isn’t that reason we all practice?

Growing Deeper, Engaging Further: a future for Progressive Buddhism

noreply@blogger.com (Buddhist_philosopher) — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 05:54:00 +0000

As this blog enters its 10th year, I find myself wondering: what next?

The blog has had its ebbs and flows, as has Buddhist blogging in general (and all blogging perhaps?). Perhaps it has been replaced by facebook groups? (such as our own, founded in 2015) Maybe it has been replaced by a few 'big name' thinkers?

In any case, what next? I imagine we all have requests and ideas, and I'd love to hear them - here in the comments section of the blog.

As for myself, an idea has been percolating for a while to clarify and develop the ideas of "Progressive Buddhism." The hope is to make Progressive Buddhism clearer both to us (this very loosely knit band of writers and readers) and to the greater world. Think of the development of Secular Buddhism in recent years, or if you're a historian you can think of the ways that Buddhism developed unique and new schools in places like Tibet, China, and Japan. Existing schools will remain, but in a new land, new needs and new contexts present new challenges, and we can respond creatively or ossify and either cut ourselves off, or as often happens, find that [our narrow version of] Buddhism doesn't work for us.

The idea would be to develop on the progressive side a "platform" of sorts: a set of ever-changing ideas and principles to adhere to, movements and developments we tend to support, prejudices and "regressive" tendencies we hope to move humanity away from, etc.

On the Buddhism side, a set of characteristics and practices we might affirm, not as a creed or dogma, but perhaps more in line with the Unitarian Universalist tradition, adopting general principles and sources.

A start:

Progressive - (dedicated to, in no particular order)

Tackling climate change
Fighting racism and structural racial injustice
Reducing wealth and income inequality
Increasing understanding, tolerance, and kinship among all peoples
Ensuring access to healthcare, education, clean air and water and food and shelter for all

For example, we can pool ideas, seek out experts, and work together for small and large-scale solutions to these issues. Some of us can enact them. Others can help existing schools of Buddhism sign on and help. This is not about establishing and us-vs-them mentality, but about bringing all of humanity together through our ideals and practices.

Buddhism

Welcoming and affirming all Buddhisms
Establishing a broad curriculum in Buddhist history, philosophy, and practice
Supporting and engaging with practices that bring ancient tradition into the current world

Lively discussions can bring out our understandings of Buddhism as individuals and as a community. Essays could be collected, books written, etc. The Buddhist canon is ever-evolving and grew in Tibet and grew in China, and so on. Some people consider Gary Snyder's 1969 "Smokey the Bear Sutra" to be part of the Buddhist canon. Why not? As long as it delivers the wisdom or practical instruction of the tradition in ways appropriate to the age, it should at least be considered.

Photo by Samuel Austin on Unsplash

One might look to the Unitarian Universalist "Seven Principles" and "Six Sources" for further inspiration. The principles, for instance, might go virtually unchanged as borrowed into Progressive Buddhism:

UU Seven Principles

We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote:

The inherent worth and dignity of every person;

Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;

Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;

A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;

The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;

The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;

Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

(replacing congregations with either sanghas or communities)

And the six sources can likewise be borrowed, though with greater emphasis on Buddhist traditions as primary, but not exclusive, sources of the new tradition.

UU Six Sources, repurposed slightly

Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;

Words and deeds of reformers and philosophers which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;

Wisdom from Western religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;

The many Buddhist traditions' in all of their manifestations

Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.

Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

Establishing this community of ideals, we might argue less about specifics of faith (a favorite pastime it seems of many convert Buddhists) and focus more on growth and development, both as individuals and as a community.

Given this, I must recognize that I'm mostly just an 'ideas person' - I'm not a natural organizer or leader or any number of key roles that will need to be filled for the launch of a New Progressive Buddhism. What would you like to see here? What role can you play?

Some guidelines:

If you're not interested, that's fine. Perhaps some aspect of the Buddhist status quo is 100% just fine with you. Good. Join them, practice, learn, etc.

We're not interested just now in debate (there has been plenty of that). The affirmed aim of Progressive Buddhism is already to bring the tradition anew into contemporary life. This implicitly critiques existing traditions, but not wholesale and not lightly. In fact, we would argue that this critique (and change and growth) is part of living traditions already and is essential for their continued existence.

Progressive Buddhism as a (more) Secular Approach

noreply@blogger.com (Buddhist_philosopher) — Tue, 12 Jun 2018 17:23:00 +0000

When you study the history of Buddhism(s), you see that it has always shifted as it entered different cultures to be appropriate to the place and time. Tibetan Buddhism is clearly distinct from the Indian Buddhism before it; Chinese Buddhism is very distinct from Indian forms, and Japanese Buddhism yet again different from the Korean and Chinese traditions that preceded it.

Even the scripturally conservative Theravadin schools of Sri Lanka, Burma, and Thailand inherit large amounts of their thought and practice from Buddhaghosa, a 5th century commentator on the Pali Canon.

And this is, I think, both the intention of the Buddha based on his way of teaching and a very good trait of Buddhism. The Buddha taught in different ways depending on who he was speaking with. With learned Brahmins, he often showed the error of specific beliefs. Sometimes they'd become Buddhists, sometimes they'd just walk away (leaving the reader/listener to understand the errors of Brahmanism). With kings and princes he spoke of good governance and altruism. With laypeople he offered basic sets of values and teachings on generosity. With his monks he laid down rules of conduct and expounded on his full path of ethics, meditation, and wisdom.

This great variety of teachings allowed the Buddha to appeal to a wide variety of listeners. Some, of course, would grasp at particular teachings and 'get stuck' - loudly proclaiming that they had the way and everyone else was wrong. In the Buddha's own lifetime, the schismatic attempts of his cousin Devadata show that the propensity to cling to one's own way is nothing new.

Buddhist teacher and regular contributor to our Progressive Buddhism facebook group, Ken Leong, has a provocative piece there now titled, "Religious education versus secular education." In part he writes:

Great progress has been made in the way we teach. First, modern education is student-centered. Every effort is made to promote student learning and student well-being. Traditional religious education, on the other hand, is teacher-centered and doctrine-centered. The focus of traditional religious education is the propagation of the religion and its doctrines. Second, the modern educator does not believe that he has all the truth and wisdom. Rather, modern pedagogy assumes that students are creative and capable of coming up with new ideas and discoveries.... Traditional religious education, on the other hand, assumes that the teacher—the master, the guru, Buddha or Jesus--has all the truth and there will not be any major new discoveries by the students. The students are treated as passive and inconsequential in such traditional setting. Third, modern education is democratic. The teacher is more a facilitator of learning than a boss. Traditional religious education, on the other hand, is authoritarian in nature—there is much imbalance of power between student and teacher, which often leads to abuses.

He goes on to point out the 'magical thinking' of some today (presumably many Buddhist teachers and practitioners) who deify teachers who are, like the Buddha, only human. Noting the Kalama Sutta, he suggests we see the Buddha as a great teacher, but one who still needs to be challenged as we take on new ideas. We are not to take them on blindly.

The ethos of the Buddha: to explore, to challenge, to work foremost on oneself can easily be lost - both by those new to Buddhism who just want (easy) answers and by old 'masters' who might know the teachings well but don't know the world around them. Old teachers and expounders thus militate against feminism, social equality, and other new developments in teaching and understanding the Dharma.

This, of course, is not all old teachers. Many I've known have turned out to be the most open, flexible, fun-loving and yet serious in practice, human beings. But we continue on with this cautionary tale. Titles, age, years of practice are no balm to dogmatism and regressive views.

Our current age is one of growing secularism. Buddhists have thrived in this age not by brutishly asserting their 'truths', but in working to understand people's needs for practice, community, and inquiry. This edge of Buddhism is and will continue to be the Progressive Buddhism we promote and discuss here.

The Sutra to the Kalamericans

noreply@blogger.com (Myeong Jin Eunsahn) — Sun, 27 May 2018 03:59:00 +0000

The Kalamericans Go to See the Teacher

Thus have I seen on YouTube:

A great speaker, a great wise Teacher was to give a TED talk from the city of the many universities. Word spread of this, and tickets to the event were very difficult to obtain, such was the excitement generated by his appearance. He was known as a great Teacher of all from young to old, to all genders, able to heal political wounds, crosser of chasms beings had self-imposed. His wisdom was said to be all pervasive, his teachings good from start to finish, and able to be understood by all. With skillful means he could explain his teachings to all, regardless of his or her capacity, each able to understand as if it were only they who were being taught.

Many who came to see him waited outside the stage door, some taking selfies, some asking for autographs, some calling out their names, some silent with awe. They then all proceeded single-file through the metal detectors at the main entrance to the theater.

The Kalamericans ask for guidance from the Teacher

Before the formal talk was to begin, the audience members spoke of others who had come to offer talks, what they’d seen on other TED talks, either in person or on the internet, things that had been attributed to the Teacher others posted on social media, some genuine teachings, some not, and virtually all stripped of context, short sound bites shown on the various news sources the people had come to rely upon for their information, and what had been written about the Teacher on blogs of many types. Some felt compelled to explain their own beliefs and doctrines or the opinions of what they believed to be the doctrine of the Teacher, some thought it appropriate to complain about other Teachers, or about the doctrines that others followed, including those of their fellow audience members. Being unable to reach any consensus whatsoever, they asked the Teacher to give his answers as to what the correct teachings were, who the reliable sources of true teachings were, where to learn about the truth, and what sources to avoid, those sources they reviled as “fake.”

Before the audience descended into pure chaos, with each attempting to prove the validity of their own beliefs by speaking louder and louder, the Teacher quieted the crowd by offering calming gestures and with his seemingly irrepressible smile. He then spoke to the assembled listeners:

"It is proper for you to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what you find dubious. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; repeating something enough times does not make it true. Do not rely solely upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon soundbite; nor upon an axiom; nor upon conventional wisdom; nor upon a bias towards a notion that someone else has, nor upon another's apparent fame or talmt; not on what you read on Twitter, not on Facebook, not on Politico, not from Fox News, not from MSNBC or CNN, proclaiming, ‘This guy tells it like it is,’ because someone told you how to think it is, or that it validates what you’ve come to think from your exposure to all the media and from other who share your point of view, avoiding those who do not, eschewing the company of those with whom you presuppose you don’t agree. But yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are troubling; these things are censured by the wise, these things lead to harm and ill.’ So, abandon them. Abandon them!”

Greed, hate, and delusion

“What do you think,my friends? Does greed appear in a man for his benefit or harm?"

The audience was divided on this point. The Teacher continued, somewhat perplexed, but not entirely surprised due to his talent to read a crowd as if he possessed an omniscient eye.

“Overtaken by his greediness, he may kill, may steal even from those who have less, tell lies, and commit adultery. Then he tries to get others to do the same. How do you think this will work out, to his benefit or not?”

“Well, maybe,” from one side of the room, and “Of course! You’d have to be stupid to think that isn’t true,” were the most unified responses the Teacher received. It seemed to the Teacher that the audience had separated, migrating to one side of the room or the other, depending on whom those opinions they agreed with most.

“And what do you think, mis amigos? Does hate appear in a man for his benefit or harm? "My friends, by hating, he may kill, steal, lie, and commit adultery. How is this going to work out for him?

“Harm, unless he’s right about who he hates.” The audience was more united than previously, but still not totally in agreement.

“What do you think,friends? Does delusion appear in a man for his benefit or harm?"

"For his harm."

“Yeah, delusions are bad.”

“If a person is under the spell of his delusion, he may do all the things you’ve said are harmful, and what may be even worse, he believes his own lies, and doesn’t even see that anything he does is harmful. Is delusion going to help or harm?”

“Harm.”

The assembled seemed to agree on this.

Kalamericans, you yourselves know: "These things are bad; these things are harmful, and lead to problems,"Abandon them!”

The criterion for acceptance

“Kalamericans, do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon guesswork; nor upon an axiom; nor upon conventional wisdom; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been that’s been over by someone else; nor upon another's apparent fame or talent, nor on what you read on Twitter, nor Facebook, nor Politico, nor from Fox News, not from MSNBC or CNN or saying this politician is our Teacher. “Kalamericans when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not troubling; these things are praised by the wise; these things will not lead to arrest and prison, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' abide in them. Abide in them!

Absence of greed, hate, and delusion

“What do you think, my friends? Does absence of greed appear in a man for his benefit or harm?"

There was disagreement amongst the audience again.

"Kalamericans, not being greedy, and not killing, not stealing, not cheating on his wife, not telling lies; he prompts another to do likewise. Will that be for his benefit and happiness?"

"Yes, I guess benefit” came from one section of the audience.

“Of course” from the other.

The Teacher raised one eyebrow quizzically and looked over at his assistant Andy, who could only reply with a shrug.

“What do you think, comrades? Does absence of hate appear in a man for his benefit or harm?"
One member of the audience coughed uncomfortably.

"Kalamaericans, being not given to hate, and not doing hateful things, is this beneficial?”

Once more, the Teacher was met with silence.

“What do you think, Kalamericans? Does absence of delusion appear in a man for his benefit or harm?"

"For his benefit!,” coming from all quarters.

The Teacher considered that he may have gotten the crowd back on the path.

“What do you think, Kalamericans? Are these things good or bad?"

“Good, great Teacher."

"Problematic or not problematic?"

"Not problematic,."

"Vilified or praised by the wise?"

"Praised, of course."

"When you think about it, do these things lead to benefit and happiness, or not? what do you think?"

"They lead to benefits and happiness. That's how we see it. In most circumstances.”

“Therefore, what was said is this, 'Come my fellow Kalamericans. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon assumption; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been said by someone else; nor upon another's apparent fame or talent; nor on what you read on Twitter, nor Facebook, from Politico, nor from Fox News, not from MSNBC or CNN or saying this politician is our Teacher.

“Let’s have a brief recap. Greed, good or bad?”asked the Teacher.

“Can we get back to you on that?”

“Hate, good or bad?”

In unison, the crowd roared back, “Bad. Except in certain circumstances!”

“Delusion, good or bad?”

“We’re confused, can you use it in a sentence.”

“Killing?”

Again in unison, “Depends!”

“Stealing?”

The crowd caucused amongst themselves, finally coming to the conclusion, “Bad!

The Teacher smiled again.

“Lying?”

"Bad. Mostly. Depends on whether you can get arrested for it?”

The smiled dropped from the Teacher’s lips.

“Okay, how about committing adultery?”

“Bad...but only if you get caught, and if you do, deny it, and then you can pay someone off to keep quiet about it, and if that doesn’t work, deny it again.”

The Teacher glanced at Andy again, and again Andy just shrugged.

“Kalamericans, when you yourselves know: "These things are bad; these things lead to prison; and upon careful consideration in your heart of hearts, these things lead down a dangerous road, you will abandon them!”

The Four Exalted Dwellings

“The righteous, who in this way is devoid of greediness and ill will, seeing the truth clearly, clearly comprehending and mindfully, dwells with the thought of friendship, with the great, exalted, boundless thought that is free of hate or malice for all of humanity throughout the world.”

"He lives with the thought of compassion; he dwells in the world of compassion because it is good for all humanity, everywhere, the entire world, with the great, boundless thought of compassion that is free of hate or malice.”

“I don’t know about this ‘whole world’ stuff" someone yelled from the back of the room. “We come first!” Another chimed in with, “OK, I’ll be compassionate, but I’m not sharing any of my money to do it. And I don’t want anything going to a bunch of bums too lazy to work.”

The other side of the room tried to raise a rousing chorus of “Kumbaya,” but was unable to do so, having both the voices and the nature of a herd cats with a crying shepherd running in many directions.

The Teacher took on the delivery of an old-time country preacher.

“He lives with the thought of love for all people, everywhere, the entire world, with the great, exalted, boundless thought of gladness that is free of hate or malice. He lives with equanimity towards all living beings, everywhere, the entire world, with the great, exalted, boundless thought that is free of hate or malice.”

It was as if the entire audience rolled its collective eye.

The Four comforts

“The Great Student, Kalamericans, the Great Student who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom comforts are found right here and now.

"'Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds done well or ill, a heaven or hell. Then it is possible that at the moment of death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is possessed of the state of bliss.”

He continued, “Suppose there is no heaven of hell, and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and happy, can say, “At least I’m good in the here and now.’.

From the crowd came, “I swear to God there’s a heaven, and there’s sure as Hell a hell!”

"'Suppose evil befalls an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing evil to no one. Then, how can it affect me who doesn't do anything evil?' Suppose evil outcomes do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself purified in any case.'

“It’s win-win-win-win, no downside, so long as you are hate-free, don’t act with malice and do harmful things to one another. Heaven or hell, no-heaven, no-hell, no matter, you experience the knowledge of a great life right here & now.”

“Hmmmm. Yeah? Really?” murmured the audience. The Teacher with his his omniscient eye regarded them as coming around, albeit slowly. He saw that their desire for freedom from their day-to-day lives hadn’t provided them any freedom, let alone peace.

"The followers of the Great Ones, my Kalamerican friends, who have a generous mind, a hate-free mind, an undefiled mind, and a purified mind, is one who experiences a wonderful life!” The Teacher saw that their desire for comfort, even from a place of greed and clinging could have a positive result. The crowd pondered momentarily, being presented with ideas that deep-down they knew were right, but were also seemed so far from what their day to day lives were like.

Then they responded surprisingly but with some reservation, “Okay!”

A spokesperson rose from the crowd. “What you say makes sense. A person who has a hate-free mind, an undeluded mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom, here and now, can have a good life. But it’s not easy, Great Teacher. If we do it, and we’re back in with everyone else, who doesn’t live like this, we’re screwed!” The crowd now muttered in agreement to this statement.

The spokesperson continued, “But we’ll try it. We’ll try to pay attention to your teachings, and we will look to others who also follow them who can give us support when it looks as if we might backslide. Is that good enough? We’re just regular Joes, Joe the Plumber-types, not great spiritual beings, you know? But, what the hell, what have we got to lose? If it works out, that’s great. I think I can speak for all of us, and much to our surprise, your teachings do make sense. It’s like you point the way to someone who is lost or to carry a lamp in the darkness, thinking, 'Those who have eyes will see what there is that’s visible,'

The Teacher replied, “Excellent, excellent, my good friends. Well said, well said. But this teaching, as well as the others you may encounter from repeated hearing; tradition; rumor; what is in a scripture; guesswork; an axiom; conventional wisdom; a bias towards a notion that has been that’s been over by someone else; another's apparent fame or talent, on what you read on Twitter, Facebook, Politico, nor, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN or following politician who ‘tells it like it is, all these things, even what I’ve told you today can only be proven by putting them into action. Don’t take my word for it...but you’ll see it’s correct.”

The crowd gave the Great Teacher a rousing round of applause, even whistling their approval and yelling “Woot, woot.” The Teacher saw as if with an omniscient eye that some would follow the teachings faithfully, others would for a period of time, others would say they’re followers of the Way but their actions would prove otherwise, still others who will disregard the teachings altogether, even disparaging the Teachings. But the Teacher was also aware that these thoughts of the members of the crowd are as subject to change as much as everything else. One who agrees wholeheartedly today may backslide tomorrow, the denier of today may eventually lead a virtuous life. Even with the outcome of his teaching being any of these scenarios, he was still satisfied.

The Teacher and Andy packed their few belongings and prepared to leave the building through the stage door. As they did, they both heard a member of his audience say, “Now if only the other half of this crowd weren’t so stupid and agreed with this great teaching!”

The Teacher smiled at Andy, Andy smiled quizzically back. Andy said, “Teacher, they still don’t seem to get it.” The Teacher replied, “We’ll see how their actions speak, either because of or in spite of their words. They are Kalamericans, and their minds are changing, changing, changing.”

Andy nodded in agreement, despite his desire to smack some of the audience in the head. As a faithful follower of the Teacher, the Teachings, and who found support in followers of the Teachings, he refrained from shaking any of the audience members.

Thus have I seen on YouTube.

Fears Exist

noreply@blogger.com (Myeong Jin Eunsahn) — Sun, 01 Apr 2018 04:07:00 +0000

The Heart Sutra contains the lines, “...The Bodhisattva depends on Prajnaparamita and the mind is no hindrance. Without any hindrance no fears exist…” Rather than as some intellectual concept that is to be learned, does that have any real application to real life as we live it? Obviously, there is fear. People are afraid because of some imminent threat or a projection of a threat that is in the future, and therefore hasn’t happened, isn’t happening at this moment, and possibly won’t happen. It’s one thing when there’s a hungry-looking tiger in front of you, and you’re wearing a suit made out of steak. It’s a different type of fear to think, “Maybe this isn’t a good day to wear a suit made of steak, because it might attract hungry tigers.” Both of those are good sense, based in the reality of the moment, because you’ve heard of other people’s experience that tigers do attack and eat people, tigers like steak, ergo, this may not be a good combination and backing away from said tiger would probably be a good way not to be eaten. The second type is based on others’ experience much like the first, but while a projection, it’s not unreasonable to think that learning from others’ mistakes might be a good way not to make the same mistake.

Sometimes “learning from others’ mistakes” is classified as ‘wisdom,” but I think that stretches that definition far beyond what I’d say is just common sense. Perhaps “wisdom” might be earned by looking at Lady Gaga’s meat dress idea, and saying to yourself that tigers or no tigers, that wearing a suit made of steak was just a plain old garden variety bad idea, never was a good idea, and in a very small number of cases will never be a good idea, unless attracting hungry tigers is your aim. I can’t imagine where that would be a reasonable aim, but I’m not so bold as to think it’s beyond the realm of possibility. Likewise, it wouldn’t have crossed my mind to wear a meat dress to an awards show, and not just because I don’t have the legs for it. If people were looking at my legs when I was wearing a meat dress, I would be reasonable to think that a parallel universe had been entered where meat-based clothing was the norm. But then there’s that other kind of fear, the fear that is a hindrance. In this case, it might be that you’re convinced that wearing a meat dress even with your legs is a good idea, but the start second-guessing it as soon as you are ready to go on stage.

This type of fear could also be called worry. If the fear is based in how others might perceive you, and what in turn they’ll think of you, and how they’ll treat you, and what they’ll say behind your back, then that is worry. While the “imminent threat” type of fear may only rarely come up, and the notion that if you do A, then B might be a reasonable result, while that may be fortune-telling, it’s not fact-based, if not in this particular moment factual. If you think that not drinking to excess might lead to drunk driving, which in turn might lead to a ticket, arrest, loss of driving privilege, and worse yet, getting involved in a accident and getting injured, even worse than that, that someone else might be who gets injured, then the foresight that not drinking and driving would lead to a better outcome than the possibilities that drinking and driving might lead to is a pretty good analysis of potential future situations. I’m not sure that it’s anything that I’d spend much time meditating on, because one would hope that I’m not contemplating going on a bender after I leave the cushion. But that may be a viable focus point to others, so I won’t discount it.

I've live with someone who is spending a lot of time crossing from legitimate “this could kill me fear” to “what if” worry a lot lately. It's a situation that deserves as much concern as can be applied to it, in fact. To briefly recap my partner’s health issues over the last 18 months or so, first was the breast cancer, followed by radiation, which may have contributed to her pneumonia during the fall and winter of that year. Not just pneumonia, but COP: cryptogenic organizing pneumonia. The key word there is “cryptogenic,” as in, “Well, it's not bacterial, because antibiotics aren't doing anything. And it's not a virus either. We don't know what it is, but we do know it's pneumonia, so we'll give it an important-sounding disease name that sounds a lot more important than ‘we don't know what in hell it is.” That was treated with over a year of Prednisone.

A follow-up X-ray revealed a neuroendocrine tumor or her pancreas, which was successfully removed, but with about half her pancreas being removed with the tumor. Somewhere between that and the year of meds, we ended up in the ER one day to find out that not only did she have diabetes, but she also had a small stroke. There was an old MRI which when compared to a new one, corfirmed the stroke. Another week or two go by, trying to figure out the lancets, test strips, and the glucometer, and something was not quite right again. Back to the ER, admitted again, another MRI, and there was evidence of a second stroke. Her vision was affected by the strokes, but none of her motor skills. The dizziness seems to have abated. She's on a slew of medications now, dealing with everything from the breast cancer to the diabetes to the stroke.

And here's the rub--there is copious worrying about a recurrence of pneumonia, whether the Prednisone had anything to do with that and/or the diabetes, and what she'd be treated with if she had another bout of pneumonia. To me, two strokes in a month was the lurking hungry tiger, the specter of pneumonia and the meds were in the back of the bus. Her daughter’s well-meaning but potentially misplaced concern about hiring a cook for the diabetes, finding a new pulmonologist for the pneumonia recurrence which hasn't happened, to needing to find a different doctor to deal with the brain-based vision issues, has only fed my partner’s feelings of concern. We've got a tiger right here in the kitchen, and as much energy is spent worrying about the potential other tiger that isn't here yet and she's not wearing a meat dress.

One of the hindrances to Awakening is what I translate as “worry.” Sometimes it's said to be “doubt,” but I think that is a miss. I'd even throw “second-guessing” as an alternate. It's that type of fear that's not only based in projection, but a paralyzing racing-thought type of fear. The challenge is to help keep her from getting too stressed out by just talking to her daughter and others. My middle-type fear is that her getting too wound up is probably not a good thing for someone who has had two strokes. I can't say for sure that will lead to another stroke, but not poking that tiger seems reasonable. Where it gets tricky, requiring real observation, analyzing situations as they arise, and not compounding what's already tenuous, is how to do this with compassion. Inside my head there's a little voice saying, “Enough with the pneumonia! You've had two strokes!” What comes out my mouth has to have a touch more finesse than that.

But how about this “no fears exist” part? The part where the Bodhisattva relies on what creates no hindrance, and with no hindrance, comes no fear. The practice of Zen is to accept what reality is. The reality is that as of today, she has diabetes, but pays attention to her diet and takes her meds, and so far as we’re aware it’s under control. Acknowledging that there is a history of health issues, and that they may return or that others may yet come, that’s also reality. A sense of mortality for her is probably very different for her than it is for me, and regardless of how accurate either of our thoughts about it are, that’s reality. Reality also includes that sometimes there will be worry about it, and fear.

Being able to face all these facets of reality, just facing them, acknowledging them, just dealing with feeling them when they’re there, letting them change into the next feeling, letting the next element of reality come along, acknowledging that it’s here and going to go, even when that means it might be even more unpleasant when this reality moves into the next unfolding reality, and facing that head on, that’s fearless. That’s looking the tiger in the eye without hindrance. For this moment, no fears exist, and when we next feel fear, we’re not afraid of fear.

You’re Soaking in It

noreply@blogger.com (Myeong Jin Eunsahn) — Sat, 17 Mar 2018 03:58:00 +0000

Something we hear, see, even taste, touch, or a thought pops into our heads generates some interest. And, that interest piques our curiosity, and then we want to find out all we can about it.mAccumulating information about the Patriarchs and Sages, the Ancestors, their quotes their teachings, nothing wrong in it. And then...

Zen. One of the Great Teachings of Zen is there is no teacher, no teaching to be done, and no one to be taught. That's not just Zen teaching; it's in any number of Sutras. But even the Sutras say there's no teaching. And even though the word “teach” is used, that's not quite the gist of any of the Noble Truths, or Absolute Truth, or Relative Truth. It wasn't like the Buddha was inventing something new, nor did he ever say he was. All these things were already “Truths,” not theories. One could say that the “Four Noble Theories” would be an interesting twist, but the existence, cause, end, and means to end struggle and dissatisfaction are givens; they're there even if we don't notice it, even if we deny it. Believe the earth is flat all you want, but there's this evidence to the contrary, and then….

Ironically, “Teaching” is referred to all the time, sometimes within a Sutra or Kong’s-an that states there is no teaching. Rather than teaching, the Buddha and the Sages revealed, uncovered, clarified, reduced, and explained a methodology. Sometimes with all the lovingkindness, and sometimes less so, at least on the surface. The Shurangama Sutra could have been retitled “The Tathagata Reads Amanda the Riot Act Sutra.” The overall feel of it is, “Were you paying attention?!? After all these years, right by my side, and you think what?” Perhaps I'm projecting too much of myself into that, but there's a lot of refuting and clarifying in that Sutra. The Sutras tend to go along those lines--ask one of the bhikksus a “What do you think…” question, followed by a “Well said, well said,” and then a little more explanation. Somewhere between, “What do you think,” and “Well said,” the student answers with the Truth that had been there all along. That's all any of the Sutras are: Skillful explanations of Truth.

Likewise, Zen teachings are no more than explanations. For some, the explanation lit that Great Cosmic Lightbulb over the listener’s head, sometimes it may have taken a touch more work on the part of both student and teacher. Sometimes that work involved a shout, the obligatory stick hit, maybe even some grandmotherly kindness, sometimes cutting a cat in half. In all cases these were a means to get to something: Truth. Be it Noble, or True Nature, just Truth. And what is Truth? It is reality, nothing more, nothing less. No exaggerations, no back stories, no embellishments, no falsehoods, no deception or denial, just reality as it is. Philosophers may debate whether Truth exists, or if it’s purely subjective, but what they’re debating isn’t Truth. It’s not not-Truth, the debating is Truth, the answer isn’t necessarily. Call it Truth, Facts, Reality, Bob, or “Just this,” Truth is. Or maybe more accurately, Truth is…”....”

Delusion, denial, destitution, dereliction, birth, no-birth, rebirth, no-rebirth, karma, no-karma, self, no-self, peace, war, and anything else that can be imagined is Truth too. The fact that we do, think, or say all kinds of really wacky things is Truth. It happens, we do it. Facts is facts, but fighting against facts is facts too, along with fighting ourselves over having fought the fact. All that may be less than noble, but it’s Truth. “True Nature,” at its heart wouldn’t include greed, anger, and delusion, but Truth does. Realization of One Mind is Truth, but so is clinging to a stubborn self-centered Self.

How do we get to the Truth? There’s no getting away from Truth. We needn't move anywhere, we needn't amass more information, and most of all, needn't have the false notion that we are lacking something. Does that mean we give up study, reading, and listening just because they use words? Using reasoning and reading won’t do it, even though we read and reason, and therefore that in itself is Truth. Rather than trying to accumulate more information and knowledge for anything other than to know more things, thinking that will deliver some ultimate Truth, maybe trying just to notice what’s right here, right now, right in front of, around, and behind us, all ten directions.

Rather than going on some eternal search, a quest to attain some Great Spiritual State only to arrive where we never left. It’s not thinking more, it’s not thinking less, it’s not not-thinking, it’s just paying attention. What was your original face before your parents were born? Don’t give it a second thought, or even a first thought. If you think thought is bad, think again, or not-think again, just pay attention. That’s all Truth, but it’s not a big deal. Just doing something that is helpful to someone else is True Nature, it’s Truth.

I’m soaking in Truth. We’re all soaking in Truth. Don’t bother with the towel, it won’t dry you off. Truth? You’re soaking in it.

Killer and Killed, Right Now

noreply@blogger.com (Myeong Jin Eunsahn) — Tue, 06 Mar 2018 03:30:00 +0000

Ahimsa is the Sanskrit word that is typically translated as not-harm. It’s the ethos, a principle as reflected in the First Precept: Honor life, do not kill. That’s pretty straightforward. Complications from corollaries and conditions come into play, and then there’s confusion about what is fairly simple. Honor life, do not kill. Don’t harm. I must admit, there are causes and conditions that all Precepts are subject to, but for me, those causes and conditions have never arisen. Much to my consternation, those causes and conditions may turn out to be as impermanent as everything, but maybe cause and condition won’t cross, and cause a condition I’d rather not encounter.

Right now, at this very moment, I have no intention to do any harm. I’m not doing any harm. I’m assuming that is the case for you as well, that as you are reading this, you are simultaneously not doing any harm. I’ll go out on a limb here, and say that even the most evil, vile, and violent person you can think of (I’ll wait, it’s a long list), that even they were not doing harm twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. They may have incited violent behavior in others, they may even bear responsibility for creating a climate where violence is encouraged and acceptable. But at least while they were asleep, on a micro level, they weren’t intentionally personally doing any harm or acting in a violent manner.

We can see things conceptually, abstractly, macroscopically, even jingoistically, and say that humans, or omnivores, or North Koreans, or Muslims, or Israelis, or Americans, or Evil Empires, are by nature violent. And we can also pontificate about banning guns, deporting immigrants, quarantining the “others” from the rest of us “good” people, but really, that’s nonsense. Even at our collective worst, not everyone is participating in violent actions constantly, no matter what we’ve been told. And past violent acts don’t necessarily mean future acts. Even Angulimala was converted from his serial-killing ways by the Buddha.

Regarding ahimsa, there’s a subtle difference between not doing harm, and not being violent. Violence is a subset of harm. Standing by and watching harm being done is de jure participation in the perpetuation of harm, if not de facto harming. The intention is to stand back, look the other way, talk about the weather a bit, and come up with some excuse cloaked in the costume of reason not to step in. In this case, Inaction is not-Right Action.

You’ve probably all seen some image of a Buddhist monk or layman self-immolating. Some say it’s a totally selfless act, a self-less act, a sacrifice for the greater good. I have to wonder how effective those acts are. Is it the act of a Bodhisattva, or an act of despair? We can’t really ask what the intention was after the fact, the only evaluation is its effectiveness in changing the situation that caused the immolation. Did the monk on fire do anything to change the Vietnam War of the Chinese occupation of Tibet? As of this moment, no...and yes. No, in that those situations are how they are as of this moment, and they can’t be another way than how they are. And yes, because the effects of the immolation have not necessarily be fully borne out, so change may yet come.

Ahimsa doesn’t just apply to those we like, or those close to home, or those with whom we feel some commonality. “Like,” “home,” and “commonality” are nothing more than empty concepts (as if a concept couldn’t be). As Buddhists, we may think we like other Buddhists, because of that commonality. We may at least feel some affinity toward our Buddhist brothers and sisters. Then again, maybe that affinity only applies to those whom we see as “good” Buddhists...not like those 969 guys in Burma who are massacring the Rohynga. For them, we have contempt, feel the righteous indignation that entitles us to criticize those other Buddhists, who must not be actual Buddhists anyway, because they sure aren’t practicing the First Precept particularly well, and besides that, haven’t they even heard of ahimsa? Were they absent that day in Buddhism 101?

And yes, what’s going on in Burma certainly seems horrific, although we’re really only seeing part of whatever story the media would like us to see, as the shock value of a violent Buddhist defies the stereotype. There are somewhere in the vicinity of twenty armed conflicts involving death at this moment. Odds are, someone is dying at the hands of another in armed struggle right now. Throw in acts of violence in non-war situations, the numbers climb. Odds are you’re probably only aware of two or three of these conflicts if that, maybe none of the other violent acts if they didn’t happen nearby, or involve multiple casualties in a school or a parking . Someone is killing someone else right now. Not as an abstract statistical concept, someone is killing someone right at this moment, and at least in twenty geographical instances, because of a nationalistic, jingoistic sense of threat and perceived superiority or perceived weakness. Mao said that one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. Right now, tragedy. Now. And now. All deaths are one death.

A Bodhisattva doesn’t check what flag someone waving before s/he decides whether the save that particular being. To lean into the Absolute if I may, nations, religions, weakness, strength, and all the rest are just empty stories we convince ourselves to believe. “All beings” doesn’t discriminate between one being and another. There are no Kurds and Turks, or Kurds and Iraqis, or Kurds and any number of Syrian combatants. There are no “sides” in Syria, or Burma, or Burundi. There is a person with a weapon killing another person (who may also have a weapon) right now. One on one, one on many, face to face or anonymously, somebody is seeing the “other,” and thinking that it is correct action to kill them.

I can’t decide what correct action is for anyone other than myself. I practice ahimsa as best I can, from moment to moment. I can only hope that you as an individual will also see the wisdom the Buddha pointed to in his teachings of not doing harm. Perhaps if enough people start practicing ahimsa individually, then the stories about self/other, same/different, will be seen as nothing more than stories, as empty as everything else. Compassion fatigue may set in because of the sheer number of violent situations. But only if you look at concepts like flags and countries and religions and everything else that creates the story that separates one from another. But right now, someone believes the story, and is pulling the trigger. Right now...

Thunderous Silence

noreply@blogger.com (Myeong Jin Eunsahn) — Fri, 16 Feb 2018 05:08:00 +0000

In the Vimalakirti Sutra, Manjushri asks the assembled Bodhisattvas to define non-duality. They all come up with answers, but none of them really nail it. Their explanations speak of entering into non-duality, but all of the 31 explanations descend into duality. Manjushri then poses the question to the layman Vimalakirti, who is silent. Then more silence. And then a little bit more. Manjushri then praises Vimalakirti, as having been the only one who correctly answered.

Sometimes silence is appropriate, sometimes not. Not-silence can often turn into polemics, proselytizing, and preaching. The thoughts behind the words may themselves be as accurate as Vimalakirti silence, but their delivery is less than skillful. The listener’s (or reader’s) ears may glaze over, or maybe they elicit praise, maybe they elicit anger. Same words, different responses, how so, great a Bodhisattva? The listener or reader determines how they feel about what the other person said. I could say to someone, “You’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny,” and similar feelings can result. Friends who know me and my tongue firmly implanted in cheek delivery might laugh, ones that don’t might just look at me a little funny and back slowly out of the room, and the remaining may become extremely hurt by my evaluation of their physical characteristics and fashion sense, the others may get very angry to the point of thinking about being violent, and the last few might actually scream and throw a punch. All from seven little words strung together in a particular order. (Or are you too stupid to see that?) What just happened then?

I teach a class that involves the Eightfold Path, and that’s one of my questions for the students regarding Right Speech—can your words make someone feel a certain way. Almost always their answers involve negatives, how words can hurt someone. I use the above answer about their responses being made by thinking. What’s really at the heart is the state of the speaker or writer’s mind. What are my intentions behind the words? Do I intend harm, do I hope to bring laughter, am I just blathering on to hear myself talk? Both of speaker’s and reader’s sides both involve a large amount of “I.” To use Zen grammar-speak, subject and object. Mighty dualistic, wouldn’t you say? (What just happened there.)

In the state of Florida, there was just another mass shooting at a school, with 17 fatalities. There are plenty of people who’ll pontificate about banning guns, others that contend that if there were a “good guy with a gun” that lives would have been saved. Others will offer “thoughts and prayers.” What do all these words exhibit? So far as I can tell, there’s a large amount of “I.” “I know better, the Second Amendment must be preserved at all costs,” or, “I know more better, the Right to Bear Arms be damned!” These statements will result in any of the possible reactions I showed above, maybe some I hadn’t even considered.

All this subject/object is just duality, opening the door to potentially vehement agreement or disagreement. It could be that how the words are expressed more skillfully than they had been, and the result might have resulted in something more than involving at least one of the Three Poisons of “Greed, Anger, and Delusion.” I can’t really tell you how you should feel, let alone what you should do. Maybe at best I’ll give you something to think about you hadn’t considered before, but most likely that depends on how skillfully I present it. I can consider my intentions, and how much I consider your potential response.

My action of responding to the shooting at the Florida High School is that I took a personal vow to be nonviolent. Ahimsa, it’s called, to do no harm. I may not always exhibit metta, or lovingkindness; hopefully I’ll at least avoid doing harm. I haven’t been in the situation that the students and teachers were, so I can’t even say for sure how I’d really react. I only can hope that as I develop everyday my wish for doing no harm, that it becomes more habitual think and act that way than a knee-jerk hard left/right, right/wrong descent into duality. At times like this, my own thoughts, intentions, and speech are all I can control. At times like this, I’d hope that even Vimalakirti wouldn’t be thunderously silent.

May all beings be happy, safe, and secure, and have the causes of happiness, safety, and security.

How Can We Build Coalitions in This Critical Moment of History?

noreply@blogger.com (Buddhist_philosopher) — Tue, 13 Feb 2018 18:22:00 +0000

A guest post by Robertson Work

Shared vision and shared values are the keys to collaboration and coalition building. It is natural for each individual, organization, and movement to have different priorities and strategies, but they can still share a common vision and common values to guide their work and cooperation. The environmental movement obviously is passionate about mitigating and adapting to climate chaos, promoting renewable energy, and protecting the natural and built environment. But it can share a common vision with other movements to create a compassionate civilization or some other vision. It can also share common values with other movements, such as equality, justice, participation, tolerance, peace, and obviously, sustainability. Likewise, individuals, and organizations within each movement will have their own focus and priorities but can and indeed need to share common visions and values.

In my new book, A Compassionate Civilization: The Urgency of Sustainable Development and Mindful Activism, I put it this way:

“What is collaboration? Collaboration involves team work, the promotion of synergy and creating collective intelligence, mutual respect, trust and learning. It involves honoring diverse perspectives and gifts, moving beyond one's own ego, achieving common vision and values and self-organization. One of my favorite examples of this is within the private sector. To invent the Visa card, Dee Hock had a group of diverse individuals work together with only two things in common – a shared vision and shared values. Out of their collaboration emerged the design of the Visa card based on the collaboration of competing businesses who were committed to using the Visa card for business transactions.

“And as for us, I believe our common vision is sustainable human development or what I have identified as an emerging civilization of compassion. And I believe that our common values include not only sustainability but equality, justice, participation, tolerance, and peace. But we must invite everyone to participate in this brainstorming on vision and values.” pg 132-133 ACC

And further: “What then is collaborative leadership? Collaborative leadership is a dynamic, creative, self-organizing team of orchestrated, diverse perspectives and gifts driven by common vision and values. To launch a rocket into space many technicians must collaborate intimately. The entire enterprise of science requires careful collaboration among many scientists around the globe. A choreographer must collaborate with individual dancers to produce a great work of art. Architects of communal spaces must collaborate with the public to design workable solutions. Within whole-of-government, collaborative leadership is the commitment to honoring every individual and every agency’s insights and knowledge in the creation of open, transparent and accountable governance systems responsive to the voices and priorities of every citizen, especially the most vulnerable.”pg. 134 ACC

And continuing: “This critical moment of history requires everyone’s participation and collaboration. . . . What are some of the most effective methods and applications of collaborative leadership? The most effective methods of collaborative leadership that I am aware of include group facilitation (such as the Technology of Participation, Appreciative Inquiry and Open Space), use of integral frameworks addressing individual mindsets and behaviors and collective cultures and institutions, social artistry processes that enhance sensory, psychological, symbolic and unitive experience; as well as systems thinking, strategic planning, effective team building and peer learning-by-doing.

“Collaboration is not only worth the effort; it has become a necessity if we humans are to enjoy sustainable human development on a healthy planet.” pg. 134 - 135

Robertson Work is NYU Wagner Graduate School of Public Service adjunct professor of innovative leadership, founder and facilitator of the Collaborative for Compassionate Civilization, and as a facilitator and trainer for the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UN-Habitat, and the East-West Center, among others. Additionally, Work is a Fulbright Senior Specialist assisting universities overseas and a Fellow of the NYU Wagner Research Center for Leadership in Action and author of A Compassionate Civilization: The Urgency of Sustainable Development and Mindful Activism—Reflections and Recommendations, now available at Amazon and major book retailers. His blog is “A Compassionate Civilization.” You can read more from an interview of Robertson at Buddhisdoor Global on Creating a Compassionate Civilization.

Accept, Not Settle

noreply@blogger.com (Myeong Jin Eunsahn) — Thu, 25 Jan 2018 05:00:00 +0000

One of the virtues for followers of the Great Way is to be in a state of equanimity. This is expressed in a number of ways, the Buddha’s teaching to Rahula, “Make your mind like the earth. Make your mind like water. Make your mind like fire. Make your mind like wind.” Others have said, “Don’t make good and bad,”and “It’s OK.” They all say the same thing. Equanimity, along with lovingkindness, compassion, and sympathetic joy are called the Four Immeasurable Minds, and one of the Ten Perfections (in some schools) is equanimity also. Important thing, this equanimity!

Equanimity is sometimes thought of as aloofness, but in the sense of Buddhist practice, that isn’t a particularly accurate understanding. Just looking at the other three Immeasurables shows this not to be the case—can one really be compassionate or exhibit lovingkindness and simultaneously be aloof? The subject and object are dispensed with, and rather than being disconnected from everything, it’s all connection. The Middle Path of imperturbability isn’t one of compromise of principles, it’s seeing things as they truly are.

Perfections and Profligacy, Vices and Virtues, are all elements of reality. Where does the nose end and the face begin? A philosopher might say something about good/bad, evil/righteous being subjective judgments, and not without reason. In this vast grey area exists one person’s vice being another’s virtue. There can be a sense of imperturbability even in the midst of the chaos that has others wringing hands and rending garments on both sides of any argument.

Between what appear to be polar opposites, for the Buddhist practitioner there’s non-attachment to either end, and no attachment to the midpoint between them. The Middle Path could be mistaken as compromise, the result of which might be a take on the Precept to refrain from killing as, “OK, from now on, I’ll only maim and not kill,” and refraining from intoxicants by saying “I won’t shoot as much heroin.” So if the approach isn’t disconnection from situations or ignoring them under the guise of non-attachment or compromising, what is there to do?

Accept reality. It’s reality, and denying it is only to descend more deeply into the morass. Rather than pondering the philosophical concepts of right and wrong, we can resond correctly to the situation. If there is a child about to run into traffic, no thought is required to perform the correct action and grab her before the car comes. If someone is hungry, talking about recipes won’t feed them. If harm is being done, then do no additional harm. There is hunger, there is injustice, there is harm. It’s reality. You can’t think your way out of it. Accept it. It’s not only accepting what we like, it’s accepting all of it.

But accepting that there are like/dislike, harm/no-harm doesn’t mean passive acceptance. I accept that there is injustice. Stopping there is only being complicit in the injustice by choosing to perpetuate it by inaction under the rubric of equanimity. Unjust war isn’t ended by acquiescence, it requires action, maybe activism. Correct action is that before-thought state of seeing harm, accepting the reality that there is harm, then acting skillfully to end the harm. At the very least, we don’t contribute to more harm. Living in denial and despair of reality doesn’t change it.

To the barricades!, But with lovingkindness, with equanimity, with compassion, and joy. Our minds can be like water; we can accept without settling,

Loving Life and Lovingkindness

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 24 Jan 2018 03:04:00 +0000

Prajna arises from unexpected places - sometimes even trolls. Some of you may remember a troll who stopped by the Progressive Buddhism Facebook page a few weeks ago. She left this insightful pearl of wisdom: “I’m sorry, but this is all just New Age nonsense.” (I paraphrase, since I can’t find the original post) Most days I ignore trolls. This time something prompted me to click on her name to investigate her public-facing information.

Not much was there. I understand. I also keep public posts to a minimum, but one visible item did intrigue me. It was a YouTube link to a portion of a talk by anti-theist Christopher Hitchens answering the following question from a member of his audience:

“If there is no God, why do you spend your whole life trying to convince people that there isn’t? Why don’t you just stay home?”

Hitchens’ response perfectly verbalized my frustration with organized religion. I’ll leave his words intact here:

“what I find repulsive about especially monotheistic, messianic religion, with a large part of itself it quite clearly wants us all to die. It wants this world to come to an end. You can tell the yearning for things to be over whenever you read any of its real texts or listen to any of its real, authentic spokesmen.”

Yes! Nailed it! On balance religion pulls us away from the present moment, replacing it with fantastical images of a glorious unearthly future. In doing so, the good that can be done in the present moment, the compassion and care that could be shared in the present moment is marginalized. Being oriented toward piety in exchange for some final reward, there is little incentive to make the most of the present moment.

Buddhists are equally as guilty when they bow to mirages of perfect inner peace. Obsessing over reincarnation, enlightenment, and nirvana, many practitioners become tightly attached to defeating samsara. Focusing on ontological endpoints prevents the practitioner from fully engaging in the present moment. In Hitchens’ words:

“so the painful business of living as humans and studying civilization and trying to acquire learning and knowledge and health and medicine and to push that far can all be scrapped and the cult of death can take over.”

In Pema Chödrön’s teachings, there is a parallel lesson. We have to “learn to stay” with our uncomfortable thoughts, feelings and physical difficulties.

It would seem that most religions actually discourage staying in the present moment. Similarly to those who have detailed plans for what they will do when they win the lottery or when they retire, religion encourages practitioners to imagine a world in which they don’t have to work and where there is no frustration or pain.

I remember a former patient who was a busy well-respected surgeon. He and his wife had been looking forward to his retirement when they were finally going to relax and travel. Unfortunately, the surgeon developed an inoperable brain tumor six months after retiring. This couple reached their endpoint, but without their expected reward.

One antidote to craving a final reward is to embody “don’t know mind” in terms of our assumptions about existence after death. Maybe there is a heaven where we are reunited with our family and other loved ones. Maybe there isn’t. Maybe we reincarnate repeatedly until we reach enlightenment. Maybe not. Maybe there is nothing but annihilation of the consciousness and it’s over.

I return to Pema:

“Given that death is certain and the time of death is uncertain, what is the most important thing?”

My answer: Live now. Love now. Be kind and generous now. Be awake and engaged now. Make this time and this place the best that is can be. The afterlife will come when it comes. Only then will we understand.

Watch the referenced video here.

Bringing Progressive Scholarship to Contemporary Buddhism: an exercise

noreply@blogger.com (Buddhist_philosopher) — Tue, 16 Jan 2018 21:43:00 +0000

A guest post by Scott Newhall

Why, for instance, should those interested in progressive Buddhism be looking at the work of Alperovitz?

Why, indeed! The moment I started formulating an answer I was immediately confronted by my own assumptions about what progressive Buddhism represents, and to keep this exercise manageable, I hold that these two traditions both share a concern for the welfare of all people, the common good, including the living ecosystems we depend on. While Buddhism recognizes the ecological interdependence and inherent value of all phenomena, progressivism, as it is being currently reimagined, concerns itself with social justice and reducing suffering. I would even say that progressivism reflects in some measure the core of the Four Noble Truths, inasmuch as progressivism seeks a political alignment with basic ecological realities and constraints, i.e., living within ones means, while Buddhist insight into the nature of uncontrolled greed and desire is a global problem in search of pragmatic political solutions. I would also suggest that in their highest expressions, the moral and ethical values of both traditions become less distinct, as they both respond to the challenges of the day.

Gar Alperovitz has been a progressive activist and scholar for most of his adult life and his insights are extremely valuable for a citizenry that is trying to come to grips with the era of Trump. His contention is that the ravages of corporate power and rising inequality are inevitable consequences because organized labor is no longer powerful enough to perform their historical role of keeping corporate power in check.

It is this raw power equation that Alperovitz emphasizes. The battle for a dignified life for people and planet is not so much about finding solutions to modern problems as it is about reclaiming sufficient political power to hold unaccountable corporate power in check. Here is where the author’s work shines, detailing the enormous potential of alternative relationships that can empower a progressive agenda. We needn’t reinvent the wheel; practical alternatives have already been imagined, and the author’s book, “What Then Must We Do?: Straight Talk about the Next American Revolution” is the playbook. Obviously, this next revolution will be played out on many fronts, whether it’s agitating for health care, ecological sustainability, or social justice issues, but working in concert we can build a unified front.

The sobering news is that this next revolution will require an enormous amount of work and may extend years into the future. The good news is that Alperovitz’ message predated the electoral successes of 2017, and the electoral forecast for 2018 is looking pretty good for progressives.

Join the discussion here or at our facebook group, Progressive Buddhism.

Progressive Buddhism, a reflective evaluation

noreply@blogger.com (Buddhist_philosopher) — Fri, 29 Dec 2017 22:43:00 +0000

Recently I was asked, roughly, "what exactly is Progressive Buddhism."

I had to think a bit. First, our sidebar says:

About Progressive Buddhism
This is a group-blog on the topic of progressive, modern Buddhism - looking at Buddhism in the light of modern knowledge, free from excessive dependence on ancient dogmas; looking at the best ways to integrate Buddhism into modern life and modern societies; discussing and encouraging an empirical or scientific approach; seeing insight and awakening as a living tradition not just a historical one
If you'd like to contribute please get in touch.

How does that differentiate us from other forms of Buddhism? Focusing in on these two terms, 'progressive' and 'Buddhism', how does each inform the other in our lives?

Inner development / outer development

In initial response is two-fold. On the one side I hope to continue to explore how the dharma finds use and meaning in my life. And on the other side I think about dharmic responses to political issues that are shaping my life. This allows me to be open both to new teachings and interpretations of them and to the changing world around me.

Concerning "Progressive Buddhism" specifically, here is a portion of an email I sent out to fellow contributors today:

I'd like to think that we represent a particular flavor or tendancy within all forms of modern Buddhism: a tendency to engage, to listen to people who are different from us (refugees, the homeless, the LGBTQ community, non-Buddhists of all stripes, people from near and far), and to seek connection and to alleviate suffering for all, recognizing that Buddhist practices and ideals of old might not apply and serve today or tomorrow - following the Advice to the Kalamas to test for ourselves and see. We also recognize that systems matter: capitalism, authoritarianism, white privilege, patriarchy, etc all shape the suffering in ourselves and those around us. How can we expect those most oppressed by these systems to see the benefits of Buddhism if Buddhism replicates and enforces the systems too?

This means that we do not leave or look down upon other Theravadins, Zen, or Tibetan practitioners (or the many others out there); but that we do seek to balance our practice and learning with progressive engagement in the world.

Some areas where I'd like to see us work in the year to come include:

'Buddhist' economics (e.g. this interview/book)
Climate Change
Promoting Openness in Sangha hierarchies
Developing Democracy, decentralized decision-making
Promoting women and people of color
Advocating generosity and non-violent responses at home and around the world
Showing the benefits of simple life (renunciation of consumerist greed)

Those are all in the more 'progressive engaged' category. What about the 'progressive dharma' side?

Key teachings of the Buddha
Wisdom from later Indian, Tibetan, Chinese, etc developments
The 'dharma' of science and Western wisdom sources

What is 'progressive engagement'?

Engaged Buddhism is a category created by Thich Nhat Hanh, specifically in reference to the need for Buddhists to 'engage' with the crisis of his home country, Vietnam, during the war there. Non-engaged Buddhism, in this instance and after, is that which seeks to avoid politics, avoid worldly affairs, avoid rocking the boat of the powers that be.

The addition of 'progressive' to the already widespread movement of engaged Buddhism points to specific ideals of inclusiveness and equality.

This point invites further development and reflection, which I will leave to a later post. This is different from other forms of engaged Buddhism that might focus on developing meditation centers and translating sutras anew. These are great and are no-doubt part of our own lives and worlds, but they are not necessarily our focus.

The politics of progressive Buddhism

As we are a global movement, no particular affiliation need be sought. In the U.S., where I live, I think our values align more with the Democrats than with Republicans, though we needn't close our eyes and ears to Republican ideas. We also might align more with the Green or Democratic Socialist parties on many or most issues.

As suggested above, not every 'progressive Buddhist' will want to be directly or heavily involved in politics. Perhaps for some, new and relevant understandings of dharma in modern life is just what is desired. That is fine. For others, a pretty solid engagement with politics, especially where issues of inclusiveness and equality are at hand, will feel like a natural extension of Buddhist practice.

There is no need to affiliate; though discussions of affiliation are welcome. In the U.S., I know we will be facing major elections in 2018 and I hope we can discuss issues and candidates (and parties) that we feel will best embody the values we hold.

The dharma of progressive Buddhism

For those less interested in politics, please contribute if you can to our understanding of the dharma in your life. What suttas/sutras appeal to you? What wisdom of Buddhism has found its way into your life?

Mentioned explicitly here already is the Sutta to the Kalamas. But other teachings, and practices, will have meaning to us at different times. Let's share those and help one another connect deeply with the dharma in these often trying times.

With loving-kindness and deep bows to all. Wishing you a warm new year and a peaceful and richly connected 2018.

“Buddhist” Violence

noreply@blogger.com (Myeong Jin Eunsahn) — Sun, 24 Sep 2017 00:17:00 +0000

I don't pretend to understand all the nuances of whatever the circumstances regarding Myanmar, Rakhine state, or the Rohingya. My bet is that among the many people who have an opinion about this don't know anything more than what they've read on the internet. I'm curious about how many could find Myanmar on a map or could give its former name. This piece in fact, only tangentially involves that situation.

What this does involve is the drum beating about “Buddhist Violence” and “Buddhist Terrorism,” and the assumptions behind that. Western Buddhists (at least the most visible ones) seem to think that these “other” Buddhists should “know better.” We seem to have an odd attitude about our quaint little fellow Buddhists on the other side of the world, as if we have a better handle on the Buddha’s teachings than they do. To be charitable, let's call it the “zeal of the convert.” To be less charitable, it's another example of Western Superiority, of neo-colonialism.

I'll make a few broad statements here: countries tend to have armies. Armies tend to be armed with weapons. Weapons used by armies by definition are implements designed to inflict harm upon another person. Even “majority Buddhist” countries have armies, and they're armed with weapons. And their having weapons implies that their intent is that they will be used either defensively or offensively, to inflict harm on other people.

Without going too deeply into history, Buddhists have used weapons against other Buddhists and non-Buddhists. I tried looking up some facts about South and East Asian wars just since 1900, and the list was lengthy to say the least. Overall, a good number of these countries have at one point or another been ruled by “military dictatorships,” which is a euphemistic way of saying, “Fellow countrymen, agree, submit, or die.” In some cases, this was extended to “Conquered countrymen…” sometimes to “Invader…”

In no particular order, there were wars between the Japanese and Russians, Chinese against other Chinese, Koreans against Koreans, Koreans against Japanese, Chinese against Japanese, indochinese against Japanese, Vietnamese against Vietnamese, Cambodian against Cambodian, Laotian against Laotian, Burmese against Burmese, Sri Lankan against Sri Lankan, Thai on Thai, Chinese against Tibetan, Nepalese against Nepalese, Bhutanese against Bhutanese, and any number of the above against ethnic minorities and/or separatists within their own borders, and seemingly everyone against the French, British, and/or Americans.

That long sentence should point out that the “peaceful Buddhist” is an illusion. To return to Myanmar/Burma for a moment, think back to how “brutal” the military dictatorship was, as seen in the film Beyond Rangoon, pretty ruthless. It shouldn't be too much of a stretch to think that they're not “over it,” or more or less Buddhist than they ever were. Admittedly, I'm curious about what Suttas Ashin Wirathu and the 969 Movement read that said that inciting violence was a good idea, but I also look at them as representative of the Monastic Order as the Westboro Baptist Church is of Christian churches.

“Buddhism” as teaching is Lovingkindness, Joy, Equanimity, and Compassion. “Buddhists” as humans, are as liable to hate, become violent, become enraged, and commit acts of violence as the rest of humanity. That doesn't mean when we see atrocities that we don't protest them or call the perpetrators on their deeds. But let's not do it out of some sense of superiority or stereotype. Let's do it not because we're Buddhists, but because that is a reflection of ALL beings’ True Nature, not just a “Peaceful Buddhist,” as if there was a monolithic, uniform “Peaceful Buddhist.”

“....Subhuti, when I talk about the practice of transcendent patience, I do not hold onto any arbitrary conceptions about the phenomena of patience, I merely refer to it as the practice of transcendent patience. And why is that? Because when, thousands of lifetimes ago, the Prince of Kalinga severed the flesh from my limbs and my body I had no perception of a self, a being, a soul, or a universal self. If I had cherished any of these arbitrary notions at the time my limbs were being torn away, I would have fallen into anger and hatred.”
Diamond Sutra, Chapter 14 (excerpt) Diamond Sutra.com

There was, however, a peaceful Buddha.

Mindfulness in Waiting

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 08 Sep 2017 18:14:00 +0000

I’m waiting for something to happen. Beyond the existential concept that says we’re all waiting for something, I am waiting right now for information about something very specific. The details of what I’m waiting for aren’t important. The experience of it is what I’m here to discuss.

Most of us can tolerate a certain amount of waiting without too much trouble. We wait in line. We wait in traffic. We wait for our loved ones to come home from a trip. Some kinds of waiting feel benign and others become suffering. This is the suffering kind of waiting. It’s the kind of waiting where I’ve done everything I possibly can to distract myself from obsessing over when I’m going to learn the outcome and all that’s left is hyperawareness of not knowing.

After becoming bored with developing some killer skills in the game 2048, it finally occurred to me that this is exactly the kind of situation Buddhist practice is designed to address (light dawns on marble head, right?). Mindfulness is the answer! Yes, mindfulness. Be in the present moment.

Unfortunately my present moment is fused with uncertainty. There is music playing in the coffee shop I’m sitting in right now. I can hear the sounds of the barista wiping the counters and her sneakers squeaking on the floor. I feel the smoothness of my laptop under the palms of my hands as I type. I’ve just eaten. So I feel well-sated. There is a lingering taste of chocolate on my tongue, since I decided to get a mocha today instead of a plain latte. And…there is an underlying discomfort in the background of not knowing this important information.

It’s a common misunderstanding that the point of mindfulness is to make us feel better, to remove us from our discomfort. Turning back to Pema Chödrön I am reminded that the real instruction is simply to stay. Part of the point of mindfulness is to inoculate ourselves against suffering by practicing staying with the discomfort when it is present, to not distract ourselves or run away from it. Mindfulness in this case is to learn to be with what is, as it is. In learning this lesson, that is how the suffering is released, not by blissing out and just pretending everything feels okay.

Because I am a plan-ahead kind of person, this particular brand of waiting looks like it was special-ordered for me. In order to be relieved from my suffering, I need to stay with the feelings of insecurity and threat I get from not being able to make plans and from not having any kind of control over when or how I will finally get the information I need. I need to examine this suffering so I can become more informed about the result of being strongly attached to a particular outcome.

Having reoriented the purpose of my mindfulness exercise in this case, I bow to this teacher and hope to learn all I can from it before resolution comes.

Namasté.

Unintentionally Consequential

noreply@blogger.com (Myeong Jin Eunsahn) — Sun, 23 Apr 2017 04:45:00 +0000

There's a line between “what we are,” and “what we do.” It's sometimes very blurry, sometimes may even overlap, and sometimes diametrically opposites. It's all based on self-identification. Depending on work, we may conduct myself as an engineer, or banker. If we're in a political mode, the identification might be as Democrat or Republican, Labor or Tory, Trotskyite or Stalinis, Liberal or Conservative. Vegan, vegetarian, omnivore, male, female, gay, bi, lesbian, transsexual, transgender, Buddhist, Zen Buddhist, Forest monk, Shin, Christian, Muslim, Sunni, Shiite, Jew, Orthodox Jew, Hasidic, Reform, etc., and that's a lot of round holes we square pegs might be forcing ourselves into!

These demarcations often have behaviors we associate with them, and quite often, we make ourselves into cookie-cutter images of what we imagine those labels demand. Likewise the label we pick may even determine what hole we think we should dive into. It's one thing to be environmentally conscious and then become a member of the Greens, it's another to look at them and start acting like we think a Green should act. Neither is particularly good or bad, after all, we haven't necessarily thought of every way to be environmentally conservative and may have something to learn from what appear to be like-minded individuals.

To one extent or another, we also try to force others into round holes, and they may have a totally different hole picked out for themselves. It may come as a real shocker to find out that Hitler was a vegetarian and that he was kind to dogs. Animal rights activists might also be vegetarian dog lovers, but that doesn't mean they also have to be Nazis any more than Hitler was a tree-hugging liberal. “Fascists are evil!” we might say, and then to find out that they aren't evil 100% of the time can shake up some of our deeply held preconceptions. And lest we forget, Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency, no tree-hugger was he, at least according to conventional wisdom. These examples of “other-identifications” are as mistaken as our own “self-identifications.”

Following the Buddhist path is to lead to liberation. Following the Zen path leads to seeing things as they truly are, to experience it fully, to see our True Nature, to help others, and thus become liberated. One could even say that we're already liberated, if we looked for something that held us in chains, we'd see that there really isn't anything. And not just in an “emptiness” nothing, but in reality “nothing” except our own thinking. To be liberated from our thinking is to stop thinking “I'm this,” “You're that,” and because of this and that, it means I must do something and you do something else. Dropping this thinking includes even the notion of unity and differentiation, the notion that there's a fallback position when things get difficult. We make difficult for ourselves, and we really don't need a fallback position. That doesn't really exist either.

The bottom line is that there is no more a reason than an excuse for doing what we do. Negotiating the line I mentioned above can be tricky. Do I not eat meat because I'm a “vegetarian” or am I feeling compassion for all beings and therefore don't eat meat, so I look for the vegetarian section of a menu? Anything I do because I'm a “Zennist” is a poor excuse for doing it. Do I do things because I think it's correct action, and that just so happens to be what the Buddha would have done? Better reason for action. When I go the grocery store, do I put the cart in the little cart hut because that's what a Zennie “should” do? Do I see that someone's livelihood depends on people not putting carts back so he can gather them back up--which is what puts food on his family table? Honestly, sometimes I'll do either, largely dependent upon a whim.

To use the grocery store example further, when they ask “Paper or plastic?” which do I choose and why? Do I immediately say “paper” because I think of myself as environmentally conscious Buddhist, and the Buddha wouldn't have used paper, so ergo I must use paper?. Making the choice isn't that straightforward if I really look at it. Paper requires trees to be cut down. These trees help the atmosphere, provide habitats for animals, help stop soil erosion and so forth. The power saws used to cut them down requires power, obviously. That power is most likely a fossil fuel, the trucks that transport the timber to the sawmill likewise uses gasoline, the saws at the mill use electricity, which may have been produced by coal, nuclear, or maybe by wind, solar, or water power. The rest of the paper-making process likewise requires power, and on it goes. As it turns out, I bring my own bags, because Northampton Mass has banned plastic shopping bags, so it's a moot point here. Previously I went with paper because for all the shortcomings manufacturing entails, plastic ends up not decomposing for the most part, so the long term result is probably the worse choice. Neither choice is pristine.

Until we stop creating karma, our actions will by and large not be pristine. Some may be wholesome and positive, some negative, and some neutral. The priest at an old Zen sangha I attended once said that meditation is one of the few karmically neutral actions we can make. Virtually any action we take--writing, grocery shopping, driving, being with loved ones, working--all involve other people, and therefore will have consequences. In my estimation, the same action will be perceived differently by others involved in the ripple effect of the action. The same person may have radically different reactions to the same phenomena, depending on the flexibility of perceptions. The reaction is dependent on any number of other factors in addition to the action I have taken. It would be very naive and self-important to think my actions happen in a vacuum, that they're the only stimulus that elicits a response. Even when I'm “just writing” this, the thoughts that come to me, the mood I'm in, my physical environment all figure into creating that “just.” In reality, what is it even possible to “just” do?

As Bodhisattvas, the job of “saving all beings” may be as simple as trying not to do harm. Maybe the next notch up is to try to be helpful. We can't worry about how this help will necessarily be received, we can't be paralyzed by the possibility that an action may be taken to be other than in the spirit we intended. We do what we can, as skillfully as we can, to be of benefit to not only the one person we're interacting with, but with the realization that the ripples of our action will flow out like Indra’s Net. This is how we save “all” beings--by respecting and taking care of ourselves so we can help the next being with whom we come into contact,

If we aren't paying attention, acting mindfully if you like, then our blind wandering throughout our environment may indeed result in our actions being “Unintentionally Consequential.”

Other Eunsahn Citta blogs can be found here:

http://nobodhiknows.blogspot.com/2017/04/unintentionally-consequential.html

Zen and the Art of Tube Feeding

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 03 Jan 2017 04:04:00 +0000

Overall my family and I have been pretty lucky with pets. My parents had two cats when I was growing up. The “baby” had a heart condition and I guess my mom had to give it medicine. That usually translated into my sister giving the cat the medicine, as she was destined to eventually work at a vet’s office.

When my husband and I had cats in the ’90’s through the early 2000’s, both passed after relatively short illnesses at 15 and 17 years of age. Until then, the most exciting veterinary experience we had with them was giving thyroid medication to our calico cat, Sheila. She also needed percutaneous fluids near the very end, but that was only a week or so and only once a day.

Nothing could have prepared us for…tube feeding a cat.

The cats we have now, Ichigo and Angel are total sweethearts. At least when Ichigo is not beating up his brother, they are sweethearts. They’re six years old. We were told at their last veterinary appointment in the summer that they were a little pudgy. So, we tried a few things changing their food around. We tried to exercise them more, but discovered that we really have no idea what is amusing to a cat. Most of our attempts resulted in us getting far more exercise than our fuzzy friends. So, when Ichigo looked like he’d lost a little weight, we weren’t that concerned. For some reason, Angel was spending a lot of time sitting next to him and we thought that was so cute!

Cats are small animals though. So when things start going downhill (we discovered), they go downhill fast. Next thing you know, Ichigo was lethargic and not engaging in any of his normal activities. We were getting concerned, but it wasn’t until one of our friends commented on how terrible he looked that I called my sister. Rather than waiting until the next day, she advised us to take him to an emergency vet right away.

Resorptive lesions on his teeth - six extractions
Pancreatitis - pain meds
Hepatic lipidosis (fat stuck in the liver from all the weight loss)
Three days in the animal hospital AND

…wait for it…

the feeding tube

Those of you who have had infants will laugh at my adventure, I’m sure. Certainly, the idea of chasing down a cat, plunging 48 ml of “slurry” into it’s esophagus…one…milliliter…a…time…six…times…a…day seems like nothing to you. Cleaning the splattered slurry off of the walls after he’s shaken his head vigorously with the tube cap off? Piece of cake. Making the slurry…smelling the slurry…crushing medications and mixing into the slurry? Eh - that’s nothing.

Dreaming about slurry...

In those moments at 2:30 am, after finally figuring out the sequestering the cat in the bathroom for tube feeding is best for everyone involved, there is time to ponder.

I started thinking about mortality and expectations. Pena Chodron once said (quoting someone I believe) “since death is certain and the time of death is uncertain, what is the most important thing?” This is a phrase I consider frequently when I’m faced with difficult situations. In this flurry of activity taking care of the cat, however, I was reminded that I actually do take each day for granted. That “the time of death is uncertain” has translated to my subconscious as “some time in the very distant future that I don’t have to worry about now.” I expect everything to keep clicking along just fine.

I’ve been fortunate in life. I’ve mentioned elsewhere that I had the opportunity to have relationships with three of my great grandparents and that three of my grandparents lived well into their 80’s and 90’s. My father recovered completely from his cardiac arrest - which rarely happens in real life. My parents’s cats lived to be well over 10 years old - even the one with the heart condition. Our last cats lived into their teens. In my good fortune, I lost perspective on the precariousness with which we greet each day. It simply never occurred to me that Ichigo could die, but he almost did.

I’m trying to hold this thought in my head for a while, think about and manipulate it a little, let it sink in. The tube came out last week and my husband, daughter and I are currently obsessed with his gustatory rhythms. It would be easy to forget now and just go on as I did before. At some point, this lesson too will fade. For now though, I bring my palms together and bow to it’s wisdom. Katz!

New Year, New Opportunities

noreply@blogger.com (Myeong Jin Eunsahn) — Sat, 31 Dec 2016 06:06:00 +0000

"When they go low, we go high," Michelle Obama said during the recent campaign. If you're left-leaning, does this "high" mean we satisfy ourselves with a sense of moral superiority and passivity, at best preaching to the choir, to our like-minded FB followers? I hope not. Does it mean we'll take to the streets, but only when the weather is nice? Likewise, I hope not. Does it mean that we wait, giving the new administration a chance? Maybe to an extent on some issues, but not on others. What doesn't seem to bode well--LGBT rights, rights of minorities, respect for the Constitution, the Environment, Education, Foreign Affairs, Energy, Social Security--they are a few that come to mind without pondering too much. On war, I have no clue what the next few years hold. There have been both uber-hawkish AND isolationist messages, although there are an awful lot of generals running about, and about whom the next administration's "leader" says he knows more than in general. Generals who have seen war are sometimes hesitant to send another generation into the horrors they've known, sometimes they look to prop up the military-industrial behemoth.

The time for the Left's triumphalism transpired and has expired. The torch has been passed and in new hands, hopefully won't torch everything with it. these people with whom I so fervently disagree, probably felt the same way over the last eight years. Maybe they were inclined to light it up more then than now. There does seem to be a possibility that the Reagan era "Government isn't the solution, it's the problem" thought may be in evidence. Clear-cutting a forest is one thing when it's literal, and it becomes something entirely different when it's metaphorical. The metaphorical may lead to the literal, or vice versa. Nothing like destroying the environment by first destroying the Environmental Protection Agency. Those of us who see these issues as potential train-wrecks, we need to make our views clear.

What I need to remember is that my "views" are only that--views. They aren't necessarily a reflection of reality, and even if they are, they're not necessarily perceived correctly by me. We can say "Correct View is no view" all we like, until that means relinquishing our firmly held opinions and what we cling to as Truth. Then it starts to require some efort and there are times when self-pity is just easier. Pointing the finger of blame at "these people" takes the onus of responsibility off our backs; creating a demonized "other" relieves us of any responsibility to do anything about this perceived "suffering" we're undergoing. And that can be quite the relief, albeit a short-lived one, in a really perverse way.

I also need to remember that "these people" have experienced struggles (Dukkha) the same as I have, and not just in a socio-political context. They and I and all others have created our current situations through our actions, words, and thoughts. We've created the karma that has ripened into the fruits or weeds of today. We can create karma which will add to the current situation or create karma that sets a new course. Our actions as a society have created our societal situation. We have allowed mass incarceration, a violence culture, a consumer culture, all to be the norm. If you like all of those things, keep doing what you're doing. If not, try something different. We are where we are because we we created it, as unpleasant a thought as that may be. If it is unpleasant, what do we do, think, say that will change that course?

A bodhisattva adapts to ever-changing causes and conditions. "Saving all beings" is not one-size-fits-all. If nothing else, our baseline needs to be not to do harm. And we have to realize that what seems like it will not do harm may have unintended consequences. We can't possibly predict them all, but when we get a surprise, we have to pay attention and act accordingly at that moment. As ZM Seung Sahn would point out, there is correct situation/relationship/function. "Saving all beings" means just that--ALL. We need to function correctly depending on the relationship in a situation. Even people we don't like experience suffering and deserve compassion for that reason alone, if nothing else. Pay attention! Respond correctly, do no harm! If the action does cause harm, pay attention! Try another tack. But keep trying until all beings are saved. In that context, we'll have ample new opportunities.

Why a Buddhist Would Dig Ani Difranco

noreply@blogger.com (SFlanigan) — Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:17:00 +0000

Distracted by technology and propaganda, unable to relate to the human condition and nature, who are we today? Ask feminist icon and activist Ani DiFrancno. In an upcoming album release, we look forward to the rest of the songs that share good company with “Binary”. This Buddhist is digging the message.

Her description of consciousness as “binary” and “spinning” reminds me of electrons and the Buddhist idea that nothing is truly separate from anything else. I only relate this because the Tao of Physics is what got me interested in Buddhism in the first place.

This song encourages to “complete the circuit”. This also involves progressive and engaged Buddhism by getting up the face of those who propagate the mythology of separateness by oppression and greed.

Here is her video of the song from the 30A Songwriter's Festival. Thanks, Linda Fahey, for introducing us to this on NPR. *explicit lyrics