Happy Thanksgiving Y'all

Dear Readers,

Thank you very much for visiting my blog and taking the time to read my notes.  I am deeply thankful to you as only readers make a writer a writer.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Is Buddhism a Religion?

Good Morning Everyone,




This morning I would like to address the word “religion.” Religion is a word that is like an intersection with many avenues for discussion. What does it mean to be “religious”? Some say they are “spiritual” rather than “religious.” Are “spiritual” and “religious” synonymous? Are they different? In what ways? Is Buddhism (or the Buddha Way) a religion? Is it a spiritual practice?



The Oxford English Dictionary says religion is derived from Latin roots which meant “bond,” “scruple” and “reverence.” So, the first definition of religion from the OED is, “a state of life bound by religious vows, the condition of belonging to a religious order.” The second definition suggests it means “a particular religious order or rule.” The third definition (and the most challenging): “Belief in or sensing of some superhuman controlling power or powers entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship, or a system defining a code of living as a means to achieve spiritual or material improvement; acceptance of such belief as a standard of spiritual and practical life; the expression of this in worship, etc., also action or conduct indicating such belief.” (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 5th edition, emphasis mine.)



So, apparently, according to the OED, the driving definition of “religion” is that a religion is a system of belief or practice that binds us to a way of life through a vow. It also suggests a link between religion and spirituality either through a sense of a higher power or to a systematic way of living aiming at “spiritual or material improvement.”



I am impressed with these definitional terms as I believe they identify many of the avenues for discussion I mentioned above. It is significant to me that the OED has bifurcated the turning point definition. The third definition includes a fork: belief in the superhuman or a systematic code of living. It is this bifurcation that allows Buddhism to be considered a religion, especially when coupled with the first two and the Latin origins of the word.



This definition also suggests a significant point: religion itself should not be entered into lightly and is a serious thing as it involves vows, a code of conduct, and a set of practices which we must hold in high esteem and actually practice. Simple belief in something, even a higher power such as a God, does not itself, apparently, qualify. To be “religion” there must be a vow involved and a practice.



In my next post, “Spirituality.”



Be well.

Enough Already

Good Morning Everyone,




This morning I read a piece by a professor at UC-Davis in response to the savage pepper spraying of peaceful demonstrators on campus. It was heartening to see a voice rise up, as if in the wilderness, to say, “You know what? Enough!” His point was that we are reaping the rewards of a gradual, but escalating militarization of urban police forces. Our language has been one driver of this with phrases like, “War on Drugs,” “War on Terror,” “War on Poverty.” For goodness’ sake, to listen to us, it’s all we know how to do. So when people get fed-up with the 1% getting richer and richer while crying “poor me” at every effort to balance things out a bit, and decide to say “Enough!” using one of the few methods they have, peaceful demonstration, we now see a war on demonstrators.



Here’s the thing, it seems to me that we are on the edge as a civilization, moving ever closer to a collapse. What has made it possible for the 99% to stay satisfied was the existence of stores like Wal-Mart, Sam’s Club, and cheapy gas stations. But a casual look at the prices even in these places reveals a growing inability for everyday people to purchase the basics, to say nothing of their distractions.



For a society being raped by the rich to remain peaceful it needs it’s distractions. The 1% really needs to get this. I am hopeful that it doesn’t appreciate this as, since, as our ability to distract ourselves disappears, the truth rises, and one possible result is a societal refusal to go along anymore.



We have allowed ourselves to be pacified too long. Corporate profits, especially in banking and oil, have gone through the proverbial roof. Meanwhile, we at the middle and lower end of the economic spectrum are barely able to afford to eat, let alone buy a candy bar that once was easily affordable, but now is thought of as a luxury.



Be well, verbalize and actualize your dissatisfaction with your life and find ways to make it better.

On Religion

Good Morning Everyone,




As is sometimes the case, especially on a certain “Buddhist” website, my words create a bit of a irksome response. I posted my note on “Self” sometime ago. It and the follow-up note, “Blog” created a small stir. Some of us coming to Buddhism seem to think that this way will result in a state of peacefulness and serenity undisturbed by discord, words, or thoughts. Not so.

Some Masters have taught that silence is the way, that when we speak we make a big mistake. This is so in some ways, but not in others. The Buddha taught that we are not only wasting our time discussing ideas about something, but that such discussions themselves are an actual hindrance. This is so, but again, I think in a rather narrow context. When Masters say such things I think they are more often than not referring to achieving an aim of realization. When we are in a sociologically homogeneous group this is so. To get to homogeneity, however, we must discuss terms, compare and contrast practices, and work toward coming to an agreement on the foundations of our effort.

When put into structures, our beliefs become a serious challenge for "like-mindedness" to occur. Belief systems and the structures within them are very important to some religions. The Buddha Way, on the other hand, is just that, a way. Ideas about it are often, as we pointed out, a hindrance. Yet, as we can all plainly see, we like to talk about what we know or think we know. To do this, it seems to me, we must hold lots of discussions regarding our definitions of terms. Such discussions can be difficult, but I think necessary for the sake of insuring we are talking about either the same idea or similar experience.



So many ideas branded as "religious" are actually Christian specific, for example, with very specific understanding not shared by other religions which may use the same word. This is my argument with the current batch of atheistic writers who attempt to debunk "religion" but are in fact debunking a rather parochial view of religion instead. If I may be so challenging, I do not think there is a single "religious" word, concept, or idea that is or can be commonly understood amongst those considering themselves to be "religious." Therefore, a dialogue addressing such foundational terms like "self," "heaven," "nirvana," "sin," "salvation" is absolutely essential.



I will begin such a dialogue over the next few weeks as we approach a season considered by many to be “religious” and by some, a pain in the ass.



Be well.

The Self, part two

Good Morning Everyone,




The Self, part two,



Discussions of “the self” lead us too often in the wrong direction, the direction of the individual, as if the individual actually exists. When we practice deeply we can see that individuals are actually not individuals, but are rather aggregates of a deeply interconnected and interdependent whole. Care must be taken here, however, as even this is misleading: when we reside in the “whole” or “Universal,” the “Universal” itself is rendered meaningless.



One aim of practice, then, is to penetrate this. This is the place of “mind and body fall away.” With no mind and no body, there is no individual, but no universal either. Relative and absolute depend on each other, just as black needs white to render meaning to itself.



So, when we address “self” we should look outward from our individualistic view and attempt to see the vast, living web of complete existence. This is the true self, the self without a name, the self that existed before our fathers and mothers were born, the self that never is born and never dies. This is everything that is, was, and will be. This is also everything that is nothing. This is no-self, no thingness manifest.



The self makes itself in relation to all other things. It is interactive, seamless and completely dynamic. Without other, there is no self. Without self, there is no other. This is to say, I am the manifestation of all there is, was, and will be. As are you.



So here we are, arising out of nothingness. We are not complete, however, until we make ourselves manifestations of the whole.



Be well.

Blog

Good Morning Everyone,




So, I have decided to use my blog as a true “blog” (web log), an electronic journaling device of sorts. My teaching as a priest will be offered at the Temple and online through Blogger.com and our Order’s Yahoogroup, “ClearMindZen.” This raises interesting questions as I will, if it is at all really possible, take off my priest’s hat as I both write entries and reply to comments. One such question is how to address morally and ethically ambiguous thoughts and feelings? Another is how much to reveal of my actual life? Still another is what to do with obnoxious, insulting, or attacking comments?

As a priest, I have an obligation to use myself as a teacher or advisor. I should try to understand and contextualize the thoughts and feelings of those addressing me no matter how crude, rude, or abrasive. I have to one degree or another been successful at this, but always have felt inauthentic in the process. It’s as if I have thought priests should not be angry or hurt, and most certainly not respond in-kind. What would people say, after all? Sometimes an asswipe is just an asswipe and needs to be dismissed as just the toilet paper they present themselves to be. As Vonnegut used to say, “So it goes.”



We seem to dislike moral ambiguity. People like clear cut solutions to clear cut problems. The trouble is, most of the most interesting aspects of our lives reside in ambiguity. Yet, for me, this ambiguity has been a lifelong associate. Sometimes an antagonist, but more often than not, a true friend. I once wrote a chapter in a social work textbook about working with moral anguish. Life’s moral problems form the backdrop tapestry of rich and fulfilling life, it seems to me.



Sidney M. Jourard once wrote a compelling little book called, “The Transparent Self.” In it he argued that most of psychology was flawed because it was based on skewed data. The data, he argued, came from people who were trying to out think, out smart, or otherwise influence researchers because we are, as a rule, people pleasers. To get truthful answers, he stressed, we need to do some degree of self disclosure. In my clinical experience I saw this was a profound truth. If I shared a little bit of my wartime trauma story, people let the “Dr.” part of me slip away as they began to see me as a real person. Yet, it is important also to maintain boundaries. The question is where and how to set them.



So, my writing will take a turn. I hope for the best, but I will say right here, I have no clue how this will work its way out. As my late friend, Bernie Schmidt used to say, “Hilbert, it’s a bag of shells.”





Be happy.

Self, part one

Good Morning Everyone,


Lately in dokusan and other venues, people are asking me about “the self.” What is “the self”? From my point of view, self is an incredibly complex tapestry in constant millisecond to millisecond development. If we were to freeze it, which we cannot, we would see billions of interactions processed from birth to the present moment from billions of sources all intersecting in the mind, which frames the whole as “self.” All perception from every sense organ in every moment throughout every contact with every object of the senses builds this “frame” we call “self.” Since we cannot “freeze” it, it is, itself, in constant transformation with both the interior environment of our mind, and the exterior environment of our perception of the universe.



This construction is so complex we cannot predict human behavior with any real degree of certainty. The most sophisticated regression analyses with thousands of variables, may yield a few degrees of explanation, leaving the rest to who knows what. So, what we need to know is that all of the construct of “self,” every bit of it, is a mental work in progress. When we die, the whole thing disintegrates.



When we practice, Master Dogen suggests, mind and body falls away. We begin to see the true nature of this fabrication we call a “self.” We see that the “self” is an elaborate work in progress, and as Uchiyama says, the self is making the self, which is to say, the architect is doing the drawing with all the myriad data being received.



We learn that as we grasp this constantly transforming self we suffer. We do not want to be sick, be injured, or die. We want pleasure, we do not want pain. We want to look like this. We do not want to look like that. We think this or that will make us happy. We think this or that will make us sad. All attempts to hold on to something impossible to hold on to because it never ever actually existed. When everything is in constant transformation, no “thing” can exist.



Our task as practitioners along the Way is to first discover this basic truth and then surrender to it, allowing the body and mind to fall away. In this way we are truly free as the Buddha himself said, we see “the jailer” clearly.



Be well.