Organ Mountain Zen



Friday, March 3, 2006

On Being Soft

With palms together,
Good Morning Sangha,

Maintaining a sense of interest in the well-being of your partner may be in your own best interest in the long run. When we speak and (otherwise) behave with our partner with loving kindness, we soften ourselves and our partners, making our union a more joyous and comfortable one. On the other hand, when we speak to our partners with anger and behave in a hostile, controlling manner, we harden ourselves and our partners, making our relationship brittle.

It seems that these truths may be deeper and more concrete than we might expect. Researchers suggest that anger and hostile interactions with our partners contributes to coronary atherosclerosis, hardening of the arteries.

"In a study of 150 couples, mostly in their 60s, researchers found that women who behaved in a hostile manner during marital disputes were more likely to have atherosclerosis, especially if their husbands were also hostile."

"In men, hostility -- their own or their wives -- was not related to atherosclerosis. However, men who behaved in a dominating or controlling manner -- or whose wives behaved in that way -- were more likely to have clogged coronary arteries." says a study from the University of Utah as reported by Reuters Health News.

A gentle way is a healthy way, it would seem.

"The only group of men that had very little atherosclerosis were those where both they and their wives were able to talk about a disagreement without being controlling at all," (Dr. Timothy) Smith said. "So the absence of a power play in the conversation seemed to be heart protective for men," he concluded.

My sense here is that perception plays a major role in this. How we perceive, leads to how we think, feel, and respond behaviorally. Even if there is no outward behavioral response, perceiving ownself as being in the presence of a hostile and contriolling person, may increase our risk. Interesting. So, what are we to do?

My practice tells me that understanding process without becoming caught in process is a key to dealing with this. If we were to clearly see ourselves as simply being there, with no investment one way or the other as to outcome, taking a long view, a hopeful view, of the interaction, we would be much better off. Too often we are caught in the minute points of an arguement. Who said what with what sort of tone, intending what to whom. Or some equal variant on this theme. We wish to be understood, we wish wo be accepted. We wish to be agreed with, heard, validated, something. Yet, our partner keeps hammering away.

Our goal should be to be present in these arguenments without racheting them up. The best way to do this, I think, is to make yourself available in that moment to listen deeply to your partner. Love her/him in their pain or their confusion or their anger. This requires us to be willing to set aside our own agenda and needs.

To do this we must possess and maintain a faith that our needs will eventually be addressed. My experience is that these "needs" are almost always immediate and responsive to our partner's request to have their needs met. In other words, our "needs" are really more about our unwillingness to give up ourselves to our partners than an actual need itself.

Here's the thing: needs come and go. Why be bothered by the tit-for-tat of power and control? Especially now that we have some evidence that it is hazardous to our health.

Be well.

Thursday, March 2, 2006

Who am I?

With palms together,
Good Morning Sangha,

What is the "higher" truth? Does God exist? Is there a Heaven? A Hell? Where do we fit in along the way? Was there a beginning? Will there be an end? Who am I? What ams I? How should I live my life? How should I treat my friends, my family, strangers? Where do we go to get the answers to these questions?

Some would say we should go to Church or Synagogue or Moque or Temple. I would agree. A good religious center would then take us and sit us down and ask us to take a backward step. A good religious center would not give us answers to these questions, instead they would invite us to examine ourselves, deeply examine ourselves. Of course, in the process of this examination they would offer us tools.

Liturgy is such a tool. Means of practice, such as dailty rituals, meditation, chanting, are such tools. Prayer in its many colored and textured varieties are such tools. But these are not the answers themselves. It is a mistake to think that because you bow and light incense you are connecting to anything. It is a mistake to think that because you put on a prayer shawl or a robe that you are getting closer to God, being like Jesus, or becoming a Buddha. These are important practices and they will orient you, but they are not the thing itself.

The thing itself comes from inside out. It is in your heart/mind.

The backward step is, of course a step into stillness. A step into your "still small voice." Not just listening to that voice, but enjoining that voice. You and that voice are one, just as you and your God are one, just as you and Jesus are one or you and Buddha are one. This One, regardless of name, is there whether we feel it or not, see it or not, experience it or not. The questions I asked at the beginning are our invitations to discover this One.

It is now your turn to take this backward step. Be still.

Be well.

Wednesday, March 1, 2006

Extreme?

With palms together,
Good Morning Sangha,

Someone suggested I might be considered an "extremist." I smiled deeply as I read it. I wonder. Perhaps. I don't consider myself an extremist. I see myself as an able mediator, a negotiator who seeks balance and something for everyone. My views are informed by both my experience and my values, intertwined as they always are through time and process.

My views on violence are informed by witnessing violence against my mother, brother, and myself by my father. They are informed by my experience as a combat infantryman in Vietnam who hunted human beings for a living and was wounded in the process. They are informed by thirty years of clinical work with trauma survivors in mental hospitals and outpatient clinics. I see no value in violence. None.

However, I am also informed by the fact that there are violent people in the world who would do harm to me and my family, my community, my nation, my world. This is a fact of life. And so, we are left with a question. How do we protect ourselves from those who would cause us harm without ourselves causing harm?

It is at this juncture that we need to take a breath. Because, we are so bombarded with images of violence, the news casts threats of violence with such a wide net, that we seem to think we are each in immanent danger and should act as if the world were a hostile and violent place. This is simply not true. Yes, there is violence in the world. No, not every person poses a threat of harm. Not every stranger is an enemy lurking in wait to attack us. For every act of violence, even in the Middle East, there are countless acts of selfless heroism, attempts to help and care and nurture those in harm's way. We see the bomb's damage, but fail to see the hundreds of people picking up the pieces and loving those who are injured.

You see, as I see it, most commentators only go so far as to justify violence with the fact that violence exists. But if we are value driven, and our value is sanctify of life, and the nurturance and protection of life, then (it seems to me) we must go farther. It is in this "going father" that most of us get hopelessly lost or confused. We seem unwilling to step outside the cultural, conventional wisdom box and see with unfettered eyes.

So, how do we protect ourselves without causing harm?

An extreme position would be to run away. Flee the situation. A less extreme position would be to offer assistance to those wishing to cause harm. We might consider listening to them, deeply listening. Most anger is caused by perceived injury or threat. What is the injury? What is the threat? Is there something we can do to help? Is the anger caused by an unbalanced mind? Are there therapies or medications that can help? Do people have enough food? Care? Housing? Do they have hope? Are they being treated fairly?

We take Four Great Vows daily: However innumerable all beings are, I vow to save them all; however inexhaustible my delusions are, I vow to extinguish them all; however immeasurable the Dharma teachings are, I vow to master them all; and however endless the Buddha's Way is,m I vow to follow it completely.

These vows do not exclude a single being, not one from here to eternity. It does not matter whether they are ugly, fat, skinny, kind, or killers.These vows do not exclude delusions that keep us smug and healthy, they include all delusions including ones that suggest some people are just plain not like us and therefore unworthy of our care and love. These vows do not exclude Dharma teachings that are impractical or uncomfortable or opposed to conventional wisdom. Lastly, these vows are not for just this moment, they are for all moments in every context and in every location.

Extreme? Perhaps. Our vows ask us to follow a middle path through the maze life presents us, leaning not too far this way or that. Still, values must drive our choices, rather than what we knee jerk think should be done. We must use our intelligence, our compassion, our resources, and our wisdom to make a better world. It is our work. Its what we do as human beings.

Be well.

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Being Peace

With palms together,
Good Morning Sangha,

This past Sunday I talked about the Four Noble Truths during my Dharma Talk at the Zen Center. Every once in awhile I think it is good to be reminded of these truths, especially the Fourth Truth, that of the Eightfold Noble Path.

The thing is, these truths speak to us about the virtue of moderation. The truth is rarely, if ever, in extremes, suggesting that there is great truth in the maxim, "too much of a good thing is a bad thing."

When we talk about "right" in the Eightfold Noble Path, we are actually talking about "correct." In this case, correct means balanced, moderate, middle: leaning to neither extreme. So, "Right Speech": is speech that is moderate, not extreme, not inflammatory. Also, it would be speech that is intended to heal people, to nurture them, rather than assault them or diminish them.

Moderation and balance are often difficult to attain and maintain. We live in a world with extremes challenging us on a daily, often moment-to-moment basis. Our practice is to establish and maintain a certain balance in the midst of it. Difficult indeed.

Yet, when the storm comes (and we know that it will) where is our heart/mind? It should be in calm abiding. When the storm comes, practice. Place your attention on the thing, take it in, let it be. It will resolve of its own accord. This is our faith. Feelings and thoughts and behaviors are all temporary. Everything comes anf goes. Even the worst of things. However, if we maintain our Middle Way in the midst of it all, we can be a model of peace and compassion to those being tossed about in the process.

Being a model in this sense is offering hope to others. Not bad for a ordinary person.

Be well.

Monday, February 27, 2006

A letter to the President

Dear Mr. President:

In the news this evening I read a story about the proposed budget cuts to the Department of Veterans Affairs. I know it is important to cut the tremendous deficit your administration has run up, but do you have to cut it at veteran's expense?

I have an idea, if you want to cut the deficit, how about eliminating our nuclear weapons, stop sending people to war in the first place, and reduce the military's size and role in the world? This war you started is costing us far too much money and lives, say nothing of our esteem and credibility in the world. I grew up in a country I thought was peace loving. I never thought we would ever start a war. And now that we have a war you started, and you are sending hundreds of thousands of people into harm's way, you have decided to cut the benefits of those who are serving you? This is shameful.

I urge you to reconsider your position on this war, end it as soon as possible, eliminate nuclear weapons, reduce military spending, and make sure our soldiers get the best possible care for their service to our country.

Be well.

One

With palms together,
Good Morning Sangha,

My wife just asked me what I was doing. My head was bowed as was gently stroking my less than functional left elbow sitting at the computer. Nothing but the soft whirring of the motor cooling the machine and the bright light of the morning sun. I said I was preparing to type my morning message. She asked, "Oh, you don't have a book of them?"

In truth, I do not. I try to settle myself a little, visit that interior world with the morning light at my window, and wait. When interior and exterior come together, I begin to type and the message takes shape, form, if you will, and there it is. It is a process I have trusted for several decades now.

Spirituality, though the term is often confusing and confused, is like that. Interior meets exterior, exterior meets interior, through the breath. At some point, the two are seen for what they truly are: expressions of the oneness of process. The stages are artificial, imposed by Small Mind as it attempts to discrimiante in order to understand. In this process, Big Mind is not seen, just as we sometimes cannot see the forest for the trees. Spiritual practice uses the breath to bring these two Minds together, or rather, enable us to see them as they actually are.

Breathe easy, allow the Universe and You to resolve your true nature. We are One.

Be well.

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Repeating Bullets

With palms together,
Good Morning Sangha,

Some things we believe are like bullets fired from repeating rifles that eventually kill our hearts. One such thing is that people should "pay" for their crimes. Should they? What does "pay" mean? Think about it. When we say this, what are we really saying? What is the value driving the statement, undergirding the belief? It is a punitive belief, not a healing one. It suggests smacking someone will make them stop smacking someone else. Right. Very useful.

Yet the belief is nearly reified by repetition within the culture, thus blocking any real dialogue about the nature of criminal activity or the effectiveness of our response to it.

What are some other repeating bullets that kill our compassion?

Be well.