American Buddhist in England

Back in the US, back in the US, back in the USSA

2008-03-01T22:18:00.004Z

I can't help but butcher some Beatles lyrics as I 'cross the pond' yet again, moving back to the joyful, peaceful, prosperous, and free, yes free, United States of America. 'Twas a very sad goodbye, leaving the roommates in London:

Left to Right: Gianfranco, Sana, me and Sjors behind me, Jim, Shahnaz, Masachi, and Lenart - I'm not sure who's idea it was to have props, but it seems to have worked out ok.

But I received an equally joyful welcome home by my beautiful fiancée, Kelly, in McLean, VA, where we'll be living for a while.

So the plan now is to settle in a bit, enjoy the lack of sirens, mice, random people urinating at the entrance of my living space, and other 'charms' of London. Soon we'll be apartment hunting for a place for just Kelly and I - something in the DC area. And planning: wedding planning, financial planning, life planning, future planning, family planning, world peace planning (nope, haven't got to that just yet) - but you get the picture.

Oh, and I hope to keep up on my studies. I'm technically withdrawn from the college until September, but in academia as with so much of life, what technically is and reality aren't always the same. I'll be in touch with my advisors and should make sure I have something pretty substantial to present to them before destroying the earth a little bit more, I mean flying, back to the UK (oh, and yes I will check on cross-Atlantic passenger boats, for sure).

I also got the crazy idea to write a book. I've been thinking of writing a book seriously for a few years now and this just might be my chance. A dear friend of mine in Missoula, Raven, has published one book and is finishing a second with an excellent niche publisher, Llewellyn, ("New Worlds of Mind and Spirit" is their motto). He thinks they might like something accessible to their audience on Buddhism. I think it would be fun. We shall see....

'Tis all for now. Oh, and I'm switching back to my other blog - American Buddhist Perspective. More there very soon!

Blogisattvas, Bristol, and more...

2008-02-25T13:20:00.004Z

Last week was another interesting one in my life (for me at least).

HEALTH/STRESS: It began Sunday with wrenching stomach pains and other things a bit on the gross side in Gozo, where I was vacationing. It could have been 'too much sun' from our day out Saturday, or food poisoning as my GP (doctor for y'all in the US) here diagnosed on Thursday. It could also have been just another turn in that Adrenal Fatigue thing I may have. With this I seem to have nearly all of the listed symptoms.

PHD UPDATE: Once back in London I had a meeting with my advisors - a brainstorming session that would hopefully set me on track for the summer to work on my own from the states. It was fantastic. I came away wishing I could somehow smuggle Professors Keown and Caygill in my back pocket back to the states (just pop them out once a week for more brainstorming and pep-talks) :) I'll have to post more on the details, but we came away with a further plan/outline for my thesis, something like:

Methodology
Literature Review
Ethics as a Path

Buddhism (from greed, anger, delusion toward freedom from these)
Kant (from drives, desires and inclinations toward freedom/autonomy)

Case studies: perhaps death and dying, perhaps sex with animals (ha! apparently a bit of an issue for both early Buddhists and Kant - should make for juicy discussion)

I can't wait to be rested enough and have the time to really dig in!

TRAVELS: Now I'm very happily in Bristol, where I did my Buddhist Studies MA. I'm staying with my good friend SJ, who was a housemate of mine back then. I've had the pleasure to meet up with old coursemate Mary and her boyfriend Alex yesterday and today I've just met up with Ken Robinson, a fascinating retired gentleman who has made a home for himself in the Buddhist Studies department here in Bristol. Tomorrow I'll hopefully see my old advisor, Paul Williams, and meet several of the new students before catching a bus back to London.

BLOGISATTVAS: In much more lighthearted good news, I have won a pair of Blogisattva Awards this year. I won a couple in 2006, the inaugural year for them, and was nominated for a few last year. So it was quite a lovely surprise to come up as a winner again this year. I should note that I was on this year's selection committee (but abstained in all cases from voting for myself - of course). The above link will give you the full list of winners - I highly recommend them all! My own awards came in the form of:

Best New Blog, 2007: Progressive Buddhism, a group blog with contributions by Ordinary Extraordinary [Justin Farquar], WH [William Harrison], Nacho Cordova, Buddhist_philosopher [Justin Whitaker], odin [Paul Jahshan], Tom [Tom Armstrong], and Joe in 2007.
Best Achievement Blogging on Matters Philosophical or Psychological [blog, blogger]: American Buddhist [the combination of American Buddhist Perspective (1/1-9/23/07) & American Buddhist in England (9/23-12/31/07)]; Justin Whitaker
Best Opinion or Political Blog Post ["post"; blog; blogger]: "Politics: toward a Buddhist immigration policy"; American Buddhist in England; Justin Whitaker

I'm most surprised by the Political Post award, as it is typically a subject I avoid (half jokingly I'd say I don't talk politics unless I have either lots of energy or lots of alcohol in me). But I do keep up on the news and did see something recently that made me smile. It was when Hilary Clinton said during a debate something to the effect of, "whatever happens next, I am proud to be here on stage with Barack Obama." Now, while everyone and his sister seems to have their own (often cynical) spin on this, I found it to be very beautiful, like a moment of genuine humanity in the otherwise very cruel and ego-driven game of politics. Of course soon enough they were back at it, but that is the nature of samsara, isn't it?

I, for one, will do what I can to see Obama in office next January. But first - the countdown on the right is telling me I have 3 days, 3 hours, and 3 minutes before I touch down in DC - a far more important milestone in my little life for the time being.

Life: Homeward Bound

2008-02-21T12:40:00.003Z

Shortly before my Malta trip we decided I should cut short my stay in London and get me back to the US, so..... Well, the countdown clock on the right might have tipped you off, but I'm headed back now in just a week.

The plan now?

Withdraw (temporarily - until September) from the college.
Continue to work at my own pace, maybe focus on languages (Pali and German) for a bit.
Get back to DC: rest.
Apartment hunt: someplace between central DC and out in the boonies west of there (like Round Hill, VA - population: 500)

Simple enough? After a very tiring few months in London, I think so. Going from a city map that looks like this:To (potentially) this:
certainly has its appeal. So, adios for now, London. I look forward to resting up and spending plenty of QT with my fiancee. But first, a quick trip to Bristol to see old friends over the weekend :)

* For when we do get that apartment: Feng Shui Tips

A Blakey day

2008-02-16T15:38:00.005Z

One of my housemates in London is doing his MRes on Blake and at some point came up with the adjective: Blakey. Today I was sent this quote (below) and stumbled across the image below that somewhere out in the Buddha-blogosphere...

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.
................

There is something humerously ironic about so much of contemporary life; in how true both of these statements from Blake can be (one of simple and profound unity, one of a child's endless desires). Today we had a beautiful picnic, Margaret and Bruce and I, in a protected little cove on the Northwest side of Gozo. There we had just the sound of the sea and the wind, the occasional flower or bit of sand, but mostly we just basked in the sun until the clouds rolled in. It was fantastic, filled with plenty of moments of "eternity in an hour"(the downside being that an eternity in the Mediterranean sun can really knock you out, but anyway).

The irony is in just how much work it took to find this blissful simplicity: a train, a plane, a mini-bus, a ferry, and a car. So maybe I'm a bit like that little child, too - only now waving down with a big grin from the moon.

On a not so Blakey but related theme (Buddhism), I had a chat with one of my housemates before I left last Tuesday: a Korean woman named Soyoung, an artist and Taoist. She observed that people here [London] talk a lot about fixing things in the world, the problems out there. But nobody seems to look at themselves. I agreed.

Our little college seems to be cause-central, but it is all (how to put this kindly?) superficial. One example is the Burma protests last fall. They threw together some people to join the London march, but half bailed out, and those who made it just seemed to be there to take pictures (you can see them all in my photos - ha!). A discussion on the topic I attended wound up being led by a socialist reporter who ranted about the "Western Imperialists' hand" behind all of this. I brought up China (the country most funding the oppressive military junta) and was shot down with the response that we can't really look at the big countries on this one - we must organize the student movement!

Mentioning "the movement" seemed to push a button in many of the students because they began buzzing and nodding in agreement. The idea of blaming "Western Imperialists" but not looking at the big countries pushed some of my logical consistency buttons and I kept quiet for the rest of the rally, or discussion.

Anyway, back to the story. So, Soyoung, the Korean woman, tells me this and I say, "Yes, but for me at least I can empathise. I need quiet and time to really look within - when I do get that, I get very introspective and I become creative and thoughtful and all those wonderful things. But when the world is a cacophony as it is here, the body seems to be on high alert and every sense organ (including the mind, which for us Buddhists is a sense organ) is turned outward."

She thought for a moment, and then said two very profound words:

"lotus flower."

For those who haven't had "Buddhist similes 101" the lotus flower is a symbol of the purity of perfect awakening emerging from the muck (they like to grow in gross muddy ponds) of ordinary life. Sort of like the Western idea of "every rose has its thorn" or something like that.

So, me being "smart" and not wanting to be one-upped spiritually, I came back with, "well, even a lotus needs decent conditions, right? It can't grow in rock." All of which I thought was very clever - yes we need to see ourselves as overcoming the muck of daily life, but we do need proper conditions to do our spiritual work...

She didn't have to think much this time. She just rolled her eyes and said:

"philosophy!" and laughed...

Life: Whirlwinds Strike Again

2008-02-12T13:16:00.000Z

Sometimes life moves fast, sometimes it moves slow.
Grace happens when we move at the speed of life.

Suddenly life around this sentient being is getting awfully fast. I'm just 45 minutes away from my train to Gatwick airport, where I'll depart for a three-hour flight to Malta, then a quick taxi ride to the ferry where my good friends Margaret and Bruce expect to be awaiting me to accompany me to their place on the island of Gozo. Yay!

Then, seven days in Gozo. I'm bringing only my camera and three books: Kant's Metaphysics of Morals, A book on Buddhist Ethics, and -get this- a novel (I haven't read one of those in who knows how long). Oh, and a notebook and a journal.

After that, a day or two in London - meeting my advisors - and then on to Bristol for four days to visit SJ and other friends from my MA days. Then just two more days in London, one really, and I fly back to the US - for good (on the 28th). Just in time to see my beautiful fiancée lead a Socrates Café in McLean VA (fitting, as it was at such a Café that we first met!).

So... the whirlwind cometh (again). And, provided I keep up with it, not much should be rattled up and it looks like it will drop me back on earth right where I need to be.

Living: memed

2008-02-11T12:49:00.000Z

I've been memed - Patia has tagged me with the 4 Things meme.

4 Jobs I've Held:

Dish washer, prep cook, cook: Yat Son Chinese Restaurant, Helena, MT
Bookkeeper (the old IGA grocery store in Missoula where the Good Food store is now)
Tutor for first-year medical students in Medical Ethics, Bristol, England
Program Coordinator, the Center for Ethics, Missoula, MT

4 Movies I've Watched Over and Over Again:

Pink Floyd: The Wall
A Beautiful Mind
Ashes and Snow
The Peaceful Warrior

4 Places I've Been:

Aran Islands, Ireland
Honolulu, Hawai'i, USA
La Alhambra, Granada, Spain
Florence, Italy

4 Places I've Lived:

Helena & Missoula, Montana
Cheney, Washington
Bristol, England
London, England

4 TV Shows I (used to) Watch:

Mr. Ed
Gilligan's Island
MacGyver
Discovery Channel (everything)

4 Radio Shows I (used to) Listen To:

G. Gordon Liddy (AM conservative talk radio - I 'monitored' his show when I worked in commercial radio in Helena, MT)
KBGA College Radio 89.9 (everything - undergrad days in Missoula)
BBC News and Commentary (Bristol, UK)
NPR (everything - especially News, Pea Green Boat & Prairie Home Companion)

4 Things I Look Forward To:

Spring (yes! - borrowed from Patia)
Our next president (YES - also borrowed from P.)
Teaching again, and most of all....
Seeing my love, Kelly, sooooon!!!

4 Favourite Foods:

Indian Curry
Salmon
The Cosmopolitan Bohemian meal: artisan bread, Italian cheese, Australian wine
Potato Soup

4 Places I'd Rather Be:

Anywhere with Kelly
Watching the sun set from Mount Sentinel (Missoula)
Admiring the BIG Sky over Helena, MT
see #1 above

4 People I email regularly:

Kelly
My mum
Bristol Friends
Ali in Missoula

4 People to Tag:

Living: return to nature

2008-02-10T00:56:00.001Z

Epping Forest pond reflection

I spent much of today in Epping Forest with friends. Oh, the blessing of nature...

We drank greedily of the blossom-sweet air, breathing in birdsong and the chatter of leaves skipping across the moss-green carpet. Tiny, colorful rocks demanded my attention as if I were a child, and laughter poured out of crevaces long covererd by London soot. We wandered, not lost, but free - free from paths and the pretense of time and destination.

Eventually our empty stomachs reminded us of our mortality and we descended again to earth and to London...

Sometimes we are lucky enough to be given a sign of how life is supposed to be. And we're luckier still if we see it.

A few years ago a friend passed me on a Sunday morning as I sat beneath a tree in front of my Missoula apartment. He called from his car window, "why aren't you at church?"
I just smiled, looked up for a moment, and said, "I am."

~
Justin + sunshine + nature = happiness. (add good friends to flavor)

Living: Insight from the Dalai Lama

2008-02-08T22:04:00.000Z

Today's words from the Dalai Lama calendar from my brother are worth meditating on:

If a person's basic state of mind is serene and calm, then it is possible for this inner peace to overwhelm a painful physical experience. On the other hand, if someone is suffering from depression, anxiety, or any form of emotional distress, then even if he or she happens to be enjoying physical comforts, he will not really be able to experience the happiness that these could bring.

The point here, I take it, is that what is 'out there' around us is not nearly so important as what is 'in here' in our own minds. Dharma teachers are often quick to tell stories of travels in India and Tibet, amongst the poorest people of the world, where they were greeted with kindness and joy - and often gifts - in contrast to the folks in wealthy western countries where people are stingy and cynical.

Yet I think it is equally important to state that we all need good conditions to cultivate the serenity and calm which is naturally inherent within us. Even a Pope or Dalai Lama, in the midst of utter chaos, will find life incredibly difficult. Think of the sixth Dalia Lama, raised in turbulent times, shrouded even from potential teachers for many years, a virtual prisoner well into his teens. Or of Pope Pius XII in the chaotic years of WW II.

We all need the initial conditions for happiness: some degree of peace and quiet, safety and sufficient nourishment. But beyond these, and these are amazingly readily available if we search for them, it is upon us to do the work of cultivating the inner peace which is the mark of the sage, the yogi, the sensai.

In are difficult times, it is always fair to seek greater comfort. This is part of our human nature and the realization that we all have difficult times. Even as hard as it is to seek help, it is equally wonderful to be asked, and to be trusted in another's time of need. This is the beauty of humanity: we care for each other. Even when our reasons escape reason, we care. And we want to help.

Living: Sunseeking

2008-02-07T11:57:00.000Z

For about six months now, I've been a subscriber to Dr. Mercola's twice weekly newsletter, thanks to a recommendation by Kelly's friend, Liz, on their blog. I would very strongly recommend it myself; his no-nonsense advice and copious research, not to mention headlines like Soft Drinks: Disease in a Can have won me over.

One of Dr. Mercola's commonly discussed topics is the fact that most of us in the developed world do not get enough sunshine. That's right, not enough. I don't know about you, but I grew up with the message that 'too much sun can give you cancer' but nobody told me that 'too little sun can give you cancer too' - until now (another article, and another). And for the cancer we do get, the most common cause is our poor diet (too much processed food, filled with too many - sometimes carcinogenic - additives).

But, beyond cancer, too little sunshine obviously puts many of us (myself included) into quite a funk. As for dealing with these winter blues, Dr. Mercola has some great suggestions:

Get sun! A light-box or full-spectrum light bulbs will also help. Two years ago I flew to Hawai'i for a week and felt like I was walking on clouds for about three weeks even back in Missoula. In six days I'll be visiting friends on the tiny island of Gozo, Malta, where the forecast is for plenty of sunshine and highs in the 60s. And I've just ordered a six-pack of the above bulbs for Kelly in DC.
Exercise more - and keep it fun. Even when I don't feel like it, I still manage to get to the gym four or five days a week. Sometimes I'm there for as little as 20minutes, but even then I feel good that I went. Often enough, though, I manage 40minutes to an hour and walk out feeling really great.
Avoid comfort foods! Starchy/sugary foods actually stimulate quick bursts of serotonin (the 'good mood' hormone) in our brains, so we do feel good when we eat them. But it's a short-lived high, followed by a blood-sugar crash and (often enough) feelings of guilt for our indulgences. Eat more fresh veggies - green stuff especially.
Sleep! Our bodies follow the rhythms of the day pretty darned well, producing the 'sleep hormone' melatonin earlier as the days grow shorter. Unfortunately, most of us have lives and schedules that don't allow us to listen to our bodies and sleep more in winter months. Change this! Cut back activities in the darkest winter months as much as possible - your body, moods, and friends will thank you for it.
Get more Omega 3s. These are fats (that's right, you're supposed to eat more fat!) found most commonly in fatty fish like wild salmon (but NOT farmed salmon), and also in some vegetable products such as flax seed and rapeseed oils and walnuts (a good webpage).
Change your routines: pamper yourself; journal/reflect on your day and life; get out to the country - or out of the country if you can; clean (especially if this is new to you); listen to good music, etc. I've been LOVING my new noise-canceling headphones, listening to uplifting pop music and to the gayatri mantra (see below) - a wonderfully soothing and uplifting Sanskrit chant.

Beatles: Here Comes the Sun

Nina Simone: Here Comes the Sun

Richie Havens: Here Comes the Sun

I hope you like this song as much as I do! :) I grew up with lots of Richie Havens, too, so it brings me a smile just to hear his voice.

The Gayatri Mantra
--

May all beings be well,
may all beings be happy,
may all beings be free from suffering.

Living: Reflecting

2008-02-06T12:53:00.000Z

I received this as an email today. Somehow it just seems perfect (more to follow):

SMITHS REFLECTS/GOES HOME

SUBMISSION DEADLINE 12th February

Hello everybody, we are starting on a new issue of Smiths, the themes are Reflections/Home (working title.) We are asking you to reflect back on your lives, and give us submissions of the contemplative kind, in any form: stories, articles, objects, postcards. Etc.

Often going home, away from the whirlwind of uni life, is a good time for this kind of reflection, and with the majority of us not coming from central London, going back to our home towns for a stint with our parents can be quite a sobering experience. We want you to tell us about your other lives, what you get up to away from Goldsmiths. With the media often being London–centric, this issue of Smiths is the definitive non-London issue.

Some examples of articles we would like submissions about..

- Photos of ‘home’.
- Reviews/interviews with people you knew who are now in bands (whether they are famous or still local).
- Interesting traditions from your hometowns.
- Fashion photography (perhaps examining the ‘makeover’ process some people undergo when coming to a new city/uni).
- Postcards from your hometowns, perhaps with stories etc on the back.
- Any experiences which are very much nostalgic to you now.

We would also like you to submit photos which could be on the front of a postcard for New Cross, the photos would need to encapsulate how you feel about New Cross (and surrounding areas), a postcard you could send to someone who doesn’t live here. 4 winning photos will be chosen and published as pull-outs in the magazine.

Please note- We would like submissions of the above things, but this is in no way a final list. PLEASE BE CREATIVE with your ideas around this theme, remember you can write about ANYTHING as long as you feel it links to the theme in some way, and as stated before, submissions can be in any form.

'home'

Living - moving?

2008-02-05T11:51:00.000Z

Today I visited another hall of residence for a potential move, Raymont Hall. It has some pros and cons I'll need to mull over for a day or so; feel free to chime in with advice.

Pros:

It's on a quiet road in a residential neighborhood, I now live on a major highway in a busy neighborhood.
The room would be a bit bigger with a nice desk, my own toilet and shower, and a larger window, overlooking either a quiet internal garden/courtyard or facing out where it would get several hours of direct sunlight.
Laundry services are on-site; right now I have to walk a couple blocks to do laundry.

Cons:

It's 15 minutes' walk from college, I'm about 5 minutes now (a small thing).
The kitchens there are filthy; the kitchens here, despite the mice, are immaculate in comparison.
No internet in the rooms (this may be a pro though if it means I get more work done).
It is $30/week more in rent.

The people there (and thus potential noise from them) are a bit of a mystery. I know a couple people living in the hall, but none near where I would be (A2 or A18). I really, really like the people in my hall, so I would be leaving them and the daily kindness and support that they give me.

There is also the fact that I'll only be in London for about six more weeks (my ticket to DC and, more importantly, Kelly, is purchased for March 25). Of that six weeks, I already have a week booked in Gozo (many many thanks to Margaret and Bruce!), and will spend about eight days in Bristol this month and next (many many thanks to SJ!). So that only leaves about four weeks, twenty-eight or so days. Is it worth it to move for so short a time? I know I'll survive here at Batavia Mews; but I also know I won't thrive. At Raymont I might thrive, or then it could worse somehow...

Anywho... something I'll mull over for a day or so. Please feel free to give thoughts or things for me to think about. Thanks.

Living - Goodies from Home

2008-02-04T13:27:00.000Z

Today a bit of joy came in the form of a package from my folks in Montana. Enclosed were three things: a Christmas card from our jeweler with nice photos of Kel's ring, a daily Dalai Lama calendar from my brother, and noise canceling headphones I ordered.

Mo Anam Cara, Gaelic for My Spiritual Friend (or soulmate). Kelly recognized this spiritual bond between us from our very first evening together.

Claddagh: Heart, hands, and crown. "Let love and friendship reign." With an emerald in the heart for our soul-home, Ireland, the Emerald Isle.

Wow, silence! Or at least very close.

Dalai Lama wisdom to come - soon! I also took a walk today to some other potential flats to live in but they weren't so great. Tomorrow I'll see another one where I hear they have authentic sunshine, a garden, rooms with balconies and they serve you Piña Coladas at sunset. Ok, I made up the Piña Coladas part but the rest is true I swear.

Quote of the Day:

2008-02-02T21:07:00.001Z

Primum vivere, deinde philosophari

First live - then philosophize.

(from my daytrip to Cambridge with housemates)

Reflecting on Aristotle, (1 of 4)

2008-02-01T13:55:00.000Z

I've just read the chapter on Aristotle in "Ethics in the History of Western Philosophy" and found his thought to be incredibly close to that of Buddhism. A major part of my thesis, it seems, will be in showing some of the key differences and why Kant may provide coverage of those differences. I also found Aristotle to be incredibly close to Kant...

Some notes (those in black are roughly exegesis, in red are my thoughts/interpretations):

First, while in Plato we find a "radical and sound alternative" to Athenian democracy (the same democracy that exhausted itself in a 30 year war with Sparta and executed its greatest thinker, Socrates), in Aristotle we instead find a detached and conservative ethics. Aristotle's work is less a critique of his society and more an attempt to raise up and clarify its highest attributes. Aristotle's three works on ethics: the Eudemian Ethics, Nicomachean Ethics, and the Magna Moralia are all closely related to politics rather than strictly individual ethics.

Happiness, or flourishing (eudemonia) for Aristotle is to be accomplished by building a rich inner life as opposed to the (perhaps later Stoic) ideal of simplifying one's needs and expectations. Aristotle asserts that man is by nature a social/political creature, and that one cannot flourish in isolation.

To distinguish which goods lead to happiness and which do not, Aristotle asks what is the particular nature of humanity, apart from all other creatures. The oft cited analogy is that of asking what is the nature of a knife apart from other kitchen utensils: it cuts. A good (or virtuous, Aristotle uses the same term, areté) knife cuts well. Humanity's special nature, that which sets us apart from other creatures is our employment of reason, our ability to act either rationally or irrationally.

'Ok,' you might think, 'it is our best nature to act rationally, so we ought to do that, right?' Well, strictly speaking, no. This is a case of the philosophical problem known by the fancy term: the naturalistic fallacy, aka. the is/ought problem. The problem is the reasoning that just because something is that it therefore should be that way. A simple example to illustrate this is to say, 'ethnic cleansing and perhaps soon genocide are again happening in Africa. We can say this 'is' a fact but certainly we would not say it 'ought to be' that way.' Some things that are, are wrong.

Aristotle gets around this by positing the virtues as the principles by which to judge whether something is good or bad. Reason is on the is side (of the is/ought divide). So reason itself cannot be employed to determine the rightness or wrongness of an action: you could have a very reasonable war criminal and a fairly irrational (but otherwise harmless) store clerk. What is needed as an logically external standard, and that is the virtues. They are external because they flow not from human nature per se, but from the practical nature of society and thus may vary from one society to the next.

In the next post I hope to finish the exegesis on Aristotle, covering his discussion on the relationship between moral and intellectual virtues as well as his determination of what makes an act right.

Third, I will point out some of the continuity and difference in Kant's though. And finally I hope to finish with a comparison of some of these ideas in Aristotle to Buddhist ethics.

Quote of the Day:

2008-01-31T17:06:00.000Z

From my friend Kristy back in MT:

It's too bad that London isn't more fun for you. I envisioned you wearing your long black coat walking up the steps of a museum but I've changed that mental picture to you living in a ghetto and cooking noodles in a small dirty kitchen with a bunch of dirty people all waiting to take a shower.

That pretty much sums it up!

N.B. Tips for overcoming adrenal fatigue: Laugh as often as possible since this increases the parasympathetic supply to the adrenals.

Back on and in search of Buddhist Ethics

2008-01-31T10:15:00.000Z

I am happy to say that I feel like I am recovering from my recent stress overload and I'm getting back to work. I may have been (and still am to some point) suffering from adrenal fatigue syndrome, which I take to be a fancy name for stressed out (with no break). According to some, this is the most under-diagnosed illness of the 21st century. From the link above:

You may have Adrenal Fatigue Syndrome if you are experiencing any of these symptoms:
Fatigue, lethargy
Lack of energy in the mornings, and also in the afternoon between 3 and 5 pm
Often feel tired between 9 and 10 pm, but resist going to bed
Lightheadedness (including dizziness and fainting) when rising from a sitting or laying-down position
Lowered blood pressure and blood sugar
Difficulty concentrating or remembering (brain fog)
Consistently feeling unwell or difficulty recovering from infections
Craving either salty or sugary foods to keep going
Unexplained hair loss
Nausea
Alternating constipation and diarrhea
Mild depression
Decreased sex drive
Sleep difficulties
Unexplained pain in the upper back or neck
Increased symptoms of PMS for women – periods are heavy and then stop (or almost stop) on the 4th day, only to start flow again on the 5th or 6th day
Tendency to gain weight and inability to lose it – especially around the waist
High frequency of getting the flu and other respiratory diseases – plus a tendency for them to last longer than usual

The bold ones are symptoms I've definitely had. If you find yourself nodding as you go through the list, check out the above link for tips on lifestyle and diet changes that can help out.

Current Studies:

Right now I am clarifying my reasons for choosing Kantian ethics to help shed light on Buddhist ethics. Part of that involves working with Howard Caygill here, a Kant specialist, to formulate a very rich and subtle understanding of Buddhist ethics. This means getting beyond "Kant the formalist" where the Categorical Imperative is seen as the basis of his ethical system.

Kant is usually presented as giving only these abstract formulations: act so as to treat all rational beings as ends and not merely as means, act upon maxims such that you could will that these maxims be universal, etc. These sound nice, but also seem hopelessly detached from our daily lives, and thus pretty useless as ethical guidance. However, statements like this make up only one tiny corner of Kant's ethical world. It has been the error of countless thinkers after Kant to single these out as the essence of Kant's ethical thought and to ignore the rest.

At the same time, Buddhist ethics seem to have some similarly hopelessly detached notions such as non-self (anattā) and dhamma, a term that can be variously translated as: law, eternal law, the liberating law, the underlying law of reality, duty, morality, thing, the teaching, the Buddha's teaching, and so on. And just like Kant's Categorical Imperative, these are not terms that are helpful to everyone on the Buddhist path (a householder, for instance, is often simply taught to follow the five precepts and cultivate generosity).

However, for the philosophically minded, which in the Buddha's day included himself, many learned Brahmins, and his own monks and nuns, a fuller understanding of the nature of reality is needed. This philosophy was not for its own sake, but because the Buddhist goal of nibbāna is equated with seeing things as they truly are (yathā-bhūtaṃ). This seeing certainly needs to be accompanied by active moral cultivation of the precepts and pāramitās or virtues. Yet it may be said that one who is swift along the path without seeing quickly goes astray.

So my thesis will posit that such notions as no-self and dhamma form a sort of conceptual light at the end of the tunnel for those traversing the Buddhist path. This is how Kant saw the moral law and his Categorical Imperatives, as ideals to be sought after rather than formulas to be calculated. And so with dhamma. While at first it may seem like a hopelessly vague or abstract term, perhaps a relic of Brahmanism that modern Buddhists can be rid of, it turns out to have deep soteriological value as a goal toward which to strive.

Tuesday's Lessons

2008-01-29T20:14:00.000Z

Well I'm happy to report that most of the angst underlying Sunday's post seems to have gone away. It's hard to say exactly how or why it left, or what brought it on in the first place. But some things I've learned that might help for the future:

Kelly and I have lots of wonderful, amazing people in our lives that both want us to be happy and have great advice and helpful solutions.
I need a regular meditation practice; I've had one here twice a week for a few weeks, but more would be good.
When I'm stressed my inclination is to withdraw. This can be okay, even good, at times. But at this time, me withdrawing is the exact opposite of what Kelly needs. I need to keep her informed with what's going on here (even when it's not pretty).
I'll be much, much better when I'm out of London!

Right now I'm on the fence regarding moving out. I was leaning toward it but then my housemates all told me how sad they'd be if I left (some making reference to things I have fixed, others not). (to them - Thanks) One even offered to call Kelly and tell her they'd be sad, and how it's pretty horrible here, but that it's only two more months. To those who have offered me places to stay for a visit outside of London, YES and YES. So no move, but some travels. And some more meditation. Now back to our previously scheduled programing of Buddhist ethics and Kantian drivelings.... :)

Oh, but one last note. One of my great professors back in Montana, Albert Borgmann, offered his students a sort of 'key' to or formula for happiness:

Think about the things that you do that make you most happy
Think about the people that you are with when you are most happy
Think about the place where you are most happy, &
Remember these three.

I've got great people here (and many more that aren't here), and I am blessed to be able to study the subject that I love, but the place here.... well.

Sunday Night Ramblings

2008-01-28T02:28:00.000Z

It's noisy in (my part of) London. I hear sirens day and night, going right by my flat about every 10-15 minutes. I am told that the next neighborhood (Peckham) has the highest gun crime rate in England. We (four blocks away) are close behind.

It's noisy too in my flat. The walls are thin. I can hear/take part in conversations in the next room over or the hallway, or with the people a floor below me. What's worse is that my room is next to the kitchen. I'm growing to associate food with noise. I know exactly when half of my flatmates eat. I'm growing to dislike people who eat late.

Our sink clogged this week. My flatmates wait for it to fix itself (like it did before). And it will, again, after I scoop out the water, plunge it a bit with my hands, and eventually buy drain cleaner to pour down two or three times. (this time even that isn't working)

A couple times this week I've made precious progress on my ph.d. thesis and upcoming (March) panel presentation. But at this rate neither will be ready in time.
And, worst of all, Kelly and I are quarreling. Some of it is small stuff like dessert selections for our wedding. Sometimes it's bigger though, like how we handle and what we need under stress. We have only known each other for seven months, so these changes can be frightening. When we first met she was, to use a label commonly placed on her, a superwoman. She had grace and confidence and inquisitiveness that I found… intoxicating. I couldn’t wait each day just to see her again (thinking about it reminds me of how much I love her and how grateful I am to call her my fiancée). I was apparently not so bad off myself: meditating, living close to nature, grounded.

Today, however, we are far apart from one another. Both of us are in spiritually toxic environments, her in DC and me in S.E. London. The other night I was disturbed around 2am by some young students returning to a neighboring flat when one of them screamed at our security guard, “Wake up! I’ll git you sacked! I’ll git you sacked!" and to his friends, "Eeeez sleeeepin’!” All of that (and things not appropriate to post here) was repeated several times as his friends apparently corralled the young man into this flat.

Deep down I know this is all a lesson. And that life is flux, and that we mustn’t cling.

But I still get frustrated. I didn’t come here for lessons. I didn’t come to learn about contemporary issues in British immigration and gun crime. I didn’t come to learn about navigating relationships in difficult times. I came to get a (bloody!) university education. I came, and paid – oh so much money – to be free to be immersed in the ambrosia-like waters of Buddhist Ethics; to eat, sleep, and breath Buddhism and philosophy.

Ha!

Gosh oh golly, I guess life had its own plans for me.

The important thing, according to my Kantian-Buddhism, is not how well I do here or the particulars of my relationship with Kelly at any given time. The important thing is staying connected with my core - grounded, acting instead of reacting, observing and smiling. It is when we are connected that we succeed. It was being grounded that (I believe) helped me get here in the first place, and made me so handsome and irresistible to Kelly not so long ago.

Breathing, listening... at about 2:30 each night the sounds of the city are replaced by song-birds outside my window. They make me laugh. They remind me of home. At the same time they bring me here, they teach me to let go of how I want it to be and to love how it is.

A compass in stormy seas

2008-01-26T23:29:00.000Z

Taken from Charles Muller’s Resources for East Asian Language and Thought
Translated during the summer of 1991 by Charles Muller
Revised, July 1997

1.The Tao that can be followed is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the origin of heaven and earth
While naming is the origin of the myriad things.
Therefore, always desireless, you see the mystery
Ever desiring, you see the manifestations.
These two are the same–
When they appear they are named differently.

Their sameness is the mystery,
Mystery within mystery;

The door to all marvels.

(The above is borrowed from Zen Frog
Read more)

Sigh. I take solace in eternal wisdom like this when the seas around me grow stormy. I just watched the movie, V for Vendetta, in which one of the quotes is:

"...artists use lies to tell the truth, while politicians use them to cover the truth up."

I might add to that something like:

"philosophers hold to truth for dear life, while Buddhists accept all truth - and move on."

In those terms, when life gets a bit hairy, I become much more of a philosopher and less of a Buddhist. But, my love of wisdom, my philo sophia, comes when, through philosophizing I come to the realization that I must move on.

I read today in Howard Caygill's book, The Art of Judgement, on Kant's 3rd Critique, that Kant envisioned philosophical critique as the activity of self-orientation.

I think about what that means: the activity of self-orientation. I think its essence demands that I say nothing more here; perhaps it's like a koan - not meant to be answered, but used to smash through old truths and allow the new ones. Ah, but I've said too much. Shhhh...

Life: Global Warming, Polution, and Interconnectedness

2008-01-24T11:46:00.000Z

Last summer I helped organize the 2nd annual Environmental Ethics Institute in Missoula, MT. Above is Don Brown, former counsel to President Bill Clinton, speaking about the moral implications of consumption in wealthy nations. Brown, who I found out also considers himself to be a "Buddhist-Kantian" (that's two of us so far), spoke passionately about the duty and responsibility of the rich and powerful. I was saddened that, even there, many in the audience responded with phrases like, "not my fault," and "not my problem."

It seems that evidence of human-caused global warming and environmental destruction are everywhere these days. We again saw record breaking heat this summer in Montana and now I guess we have a record-hot January in London, causing premature blooming of trees and flowers. It's difficult, with all the news and statistics and conflicting diagnoses and prescriptions, to know just what to do. For me it was helpful to take the ecological footprint test again. I took it last June and, living in beautiful Montana, discovered that I consumed enough to require 3.8 planets. This time around I guess I'm doing a bit better, down to 2.7 planets. What I make up for in compacted living and not driving anywhere, I seem to lose in having my food imported from all over the world: bananas from Costa Rica (I think I'll give up on these again), apples from Italy (not so far I suppose), fish from Indonesia and Siberia! Speaking of fish, I've been trying to eat more of it to boost my energy levels - mentally and physically - with good success. The downside is that, along with the global warming problem, humans are dumping tons of toxins into the environment, toxins that eventually make their way back - to us.

The other night, some of my flatmates went to a dance performance nearby, in which the choreographer was commissioned by the government to make a statement on the environment. The result, Glacier, brings to the audience the painful struggle and death of animals caught in oil and the gradual melting of glaciers, signifying the steady death of society.

Glacier will paint a glistening and sometimes disturbing picture of society reflected on an icy surface which is gradually thawing away, beautifully distorting the mirrored image. (from their website)

It ends, I am told, with one of the performers frozen in ice with lines of oil being injected into her with intravenous needles.

But, on a more optimistic note, recently my friend Margaret invited me to take part in Earth Hour 2008, which I definitely would love to participate in (sound good, Kelly?).

Speaking of the 2007 Earth Hour in Sidney, Australian actress Cate Blanchett stated, "it's very rare in the pace of modern life that we stop and think about how much we consume and the way we live our lives... so, I think it's a beginning."

A beginning indeed, and a momentous one. The video is, to me, amazingly moving and inspiring. March 29, 8pm. It puts a smile on my face to think about.

Kant and Buddha on Happiness

2008-01-22T21:09:00.000Z

In my (slow but sure) continued reading of Harvey's article on Free Will [view] [print] I have found another in-road into Kantian analysis and thought.

~ Kant ~

For Kant, happiness is something we make ourselves worthy of by following the moral law. That moral law, importantly (and oft misunderstood) is not something 'out there' - as in religious or political laws or rules. The moral law comes from us. But it is also not subjective, it is objective (and universal) because it is based in what we all share as humans: reason. Reason for Kant is a term of art. It isn't used as we use it today, in the instrumental sense: 'he reasoned his way through the situation,' or 'accountants are very reason-based people.' There, reason can be replaced by 'calculate'.

In Kant, reason is the faculty which takes us beyond ourselves as subjective, limited beings. It is what compels us to do the right thing even when we cannot explain this to others. It is the faculty by which people saw that slavery was wrong even when religion and politics sanctioned it. It is the faculty through which we see the dignity and irreducible value of every other human being (and, some would say that it eventually reaches to non-human animals as well).

You can see why Kant is so easily and often misunderstood. It is easy to read him without understanding his use of terms.

In any case, that is Kant on Reason (in a nutshell). By employing our reason we learn to see things from others' perspectives, we learn to see the good and dignity in others, in short, we quit being so selfish. For Kant it is our selfishness, and our selfish use of reason (here as mere calculation) that is the main cause of suffering in the world. The second cause of suffering is merely following the dictates of others.

The 'good Christian' for Kant was the one who, using his reason, determined that there must be a God and that one really ought to act for the benefit of all people as much as possible, utterly regardless of whether this will bring you benefit or not. A good Christian was not for Kant one who worked to please or impress the priests or parishioners or to master the dogma. Similarly, the good citizen realizes, through reason, the importance of a flourishing and stable society and the danger of revolution. The good citizen is not the one who carefully or mindlessly follows rules. Sure, impressing people and following rules have their place, but for Kant, doing the right thing (morality) would always trump either of these - and morality is the proper aim of all of us.

~ Buddha ~

It is in this fathom-long carcass, (which is) cognitive (sanynyimhi) and endowed with mind (-mana-), that, I declare (lies) the world, and the origin of the world, and the stopping of the world [nirvana], and the way that goes to the stopping of the world (S.I.62). {in Harvey, p.75}

Harvey comments on this thus:

Within the confining parameters set by a certain meaning-world, one has some freedom of action in accordance with one's degree of awareness and reflection. A more full and accurate meaning-world, closer to seeing things as-they-really-are and thus less affected by ignorance, opens up new possibilities, which are closer to the experience of nirvaana-the unconditioned (asankhata).

My Kantian-Buddhist angle on this would say that our degree of awareness and reflection is roughly the same as Kant's use of Reason (in the non-calculative sense). The more irrational we are, the more we are slaves to a very narrow meaning-world - generally determined by our religion or political persuasion and the people we have regular contact with. Our use of reason (generating awareness) allows us to rise above this, giving us a 'more full and accurate meaning-world.'

Our suffering is so much a result of our concepts - our attempts to box in the world and make it predictable (my friend and fellow blogger, Nacho, often remarks on the fact that Buddhism seems to be the only religion to stress the moral importance of accepting uncertainty). And where do we get these concepts? From other people and social, political, and religious institutions.

But this is not to deny the importance of institutions and other people. We need both of these. The problem only arises when institutions and people claim to give us some sort of certainty, or we seek certainty in them. This is a problem because change or flux is fundamental to reality. And flux (anicca) is fundamental to seeing-things-as-they-really-are (yatha-bhuta).

Nirvana, it would seem, is the fullest acceptance of flux - or fullest recognition thereof. It is a rising above the happy-one-moment, sad-the-next that dominates samsaric existence. This is a true happiness, one unconditioned by the vicissitudes of daily life, one which runs much deeper.

So for both Kant and Buddha it seems that happiness is a result of disentangling ourselves with the ways of the world around us in search of something deeper. This 'something deeper' was for Kant the 'moral law' and for Buddha the dharma. For both this was the goal of a good life. For both, bad things could still happen - living morally or according to dharma is no guarantee that things will be hunky-dory. The Buddha still had to confront angry elephants, a serial killer (angulimala), and his jealous and murderous cousin devadata. In recognizing this, Kant was quite clear that living a moral life is no guarantee of happiness - stuff will still happen - but it does guarantee that we are worthy of happiness, that is, we can rise above the stuff as it assails us.

Life: wandering 'round London

2008-01-20T23:10:00.000Z

London can be a dark and dreary place, especially these days when we seem encased in clouds and the sun, when it does cut through, sets around 4pm. 'Tis even drearier to sit around my flat (see my earlier post), or the Goldsmiths library, or most anywhere else in my neighborhood.

Luckily I have adventurous flatmates. Sjors (pictured) is one such flatmate. Born on the tiny Dutch island of (insert unpronounceable Dutch word), Sjors has since sought a life of international travel and artistic media stuff.

Yesterday we ventured south and west on foot up Telegraph Hill and then on randomly until we found Nunhead Cemetery. The place was amazing. First thing was saw? A fox! After that we meandered up its main avenue toward the burnt-out church in the middle.

I'm not sure why, but I always feel a little extra sense of peace when I'm in cemeteries. Perhaps its the R.I.P. mantra engraved on so many headstones. Perhaps it's an extra jolt of awareness that there are bigger problems in the world than those I face each day. Perhaps it's knowing that I'm surrounded by people who... can't really talk to me. It has all the people-feeling, without the people-noise. I get that in churches too - the big, quiet churches where no one talks. 'Tis nice.

In any case, I came away feeling refreshed. Last weekend we ventured to Blackheath, a very nice (posh, villagy) area not far from here. I think we're starting a tradition.

Oh, I can't help but toss in this poem I found on the Brockley wikipedia page (it seemed appropriate on so many levels):

Linton Kwesi Johnson mentions Brockley in his poem "Inglan Is A Bitch". He spells it "Brackly" as this is roughly how it sounds in Jamaican patois:

dem a have a lickle facktri up inna Brackly

inna disya facktri all dem dhu is pack crackry

fi di laas fifteen years dem get mi laybah

now awftah fifteen years mi fall out a fayvah

Buddhist Ethics, Free Will, and the logic of Karma

2008-01-19T02:21:00.000Z

It seems like it's been forever since I've posted on Buddhist Ethics, and almost that long since I've done any work on it. Oh well. We're moving past that slump now with a bit from an article fresh off the press (well, electronically, and it may be a few months old, hard to tell). The article is:

"'Freedom of the Will' in the Light of Theravāda Buddhist Teachings" by Peter Harvey [view] [print] from the 2007 edition of the Journal of Buddhist Ethics.

I should note a big kudos to Asaf Federman, a former coursemate of mine at Bristol (and soon-to-be co-panelist, more on that to come), who is cited frequently and approvingly by Harvey.

The one point that I wanted to post today was Harvey's modern logical extension of of the Buddhist concept of Karma.

While the idea did not exist in the pre-modern era, contemporary Buddhists are able to say that, as one gets one's genes from one's parents, and one gets one's parents from one's past karma, then any genetic influence on character, and thence behavior, is itself a mode of karmic influence. (p.47)

This is something I discussed a bit a while back. In that post I discussed the Buddhist five niyamas*. Though it is never, as far as I know, made explicit in primary or commentarial literature, I think these sets of causality may be seen as nested, that is, all that falls within a narrower category necessarily falls within the next larger. One example of such nesting is found in the similar categorization in the natural sciences, which may go something like this:

1) all that is, is determined by laws of quantum mechanics
2) within that is the category of (observable) classical physics
3) within classical physics are organic things governed by biological laws
4) certain biological things appear to have mental states*
*since the mental is so poorly understood in Western thought, no proposal that these be governed by laws has yet caught on.

Notice that this is a sort of 'bottom-up' nesting, from the littlest things to bigger and bigger. Many materialists will simply leave it at biology and say that mind is 'reducible' to that level (thus avoiding messy talk of mind all together).

And here's the Buddhist model (with my nesting interpretation):

1) all that is, is within dhamma-niyama
2) within that is a category of (moral) action, the kamma-niyama
3) within kamma-niyama are mental actions, citta-niyama
4) only within mind (citta) are organic or cyclical processes, bija-niyama
5) and within that is the category and laws of mere matter, utu-niyama.

The Buddhist nesting theory is 'top-down'. It starts with the big, abstract stuff, dhamma, and works down to the material world. This makes matter itself a consequence of cyclical processes, which one could stretch to (match with contemporary physics and) say that the creation of universes itself is a cyclical process and it only within these that matter may be produced. More difficult to match up with any Western thought is the idea that organic or cyclical processes themselves are an outcome of mental actions, or that those fall on moral foundations.

Yet in Buddhism, at least in Tibetan expositions I have heard, everything does rest on moral, or karmic, foundations. Even our non-volitional actions, like rolling over and hurting a bug in our sleep (or a mouse if you're me), can only happen because our karma led us to have this body and live in this place. Yes, it would be silly (not to mention pedantic) to attribute every little thing to karma - to some past deed.

Later in the paper, Harvey explicitly asks: Is everything due to karma? (p.50) He suggests, that it is not karma, but other forms of conditioning that can be the cause of experiences (p.51):

At S.IV.230-231, the Buddha discusses the various causes of the experiences (feelings/sensations: vedayitāni) that a person might have. They can originate:
in bile...in phlegm ...in the winds (of the body) ...from a union of humors (of the body) ...born of a change of season ...born of the stress of circumstances ...due to (someone else’s) effort (opakkamikāni)… and some things that are experienced here, Sīvaka, arise born of the maturing of karma.

It is thus seen as incorrect to say that, "Whatever this person experiences, whether pleasant or painful or neither painful nor pleasant, all that is due to what was done earlier."

But how does this match up with Harvey's logical extension of karma above? Certainly if we wish to say that things caused by "(someone else's) effort" are not due to karma, then wouldn't our conception (so clearly a result of our parents' effort) be not karmically caused? It seems to turn on how you interpret the Pali canon passage cited above. I take it to say that it is incorrect to attribute every experience to some (particular) past action (karman). Harvey is interpreting it as saying that there are experiences for which karma (our past volitional actions) has no causal role.

But then another question comes to mind. If being born as a human is due to karma, as all schools of Buddhism emphatically claim, then aren't all experiences in this human body due to that same karma? Now, that is emphatically not to negate other causal factors. If I have a belly-ache, it makes more sense to investigate the Thai food I ate last night, not what I did in a past life. I take this to be what the Buddha was suggesting here.

It is said that in this passage the Buddha was specifically refuting Jain theory. This fact supports my interpretation. The Jains focused so heavily on karma that they sought both to create no new karma (through an ultra-minimalistic lifestyle) and to burn off remaining karma through austerity (tapas). In this context we can see that the Buddha is simply giving a less radical, more common-sense teaching: "maybe you are sick because of the 'changing of the seasons' or because someone sneezed on you, (in cases such as this) don't worry so much about karma." He is not making the more radical claim that there are certain things in our life completely outside the sphere of karma.

* niyama = conditions, constraints, or laws - see p.199 of Keown's Dictionary of Buddhism, 'Fivefold Lawfulness' or 'natural order' in Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary, p.135.

Life: My house is famous

2008-01-15T12:18:00.000Z

(Jan 16 update: I just found a poster from one resident offering anybody $300 to take their place (lease) at Batavia Mews. Yikes! Not only is it unlivable, but we're trapped! And residents are paying other people to take their places!)

This week my flat, Batavia Mews, made the front of the London Student newspaper.

The story focuses on the mouse infestation that has run rampant through the flats for the last six or so months, and also discusses a couple other problems students have faced: electrocution (from faulty wiring) and dirty mattresses.

Here at flat 4, we have had a few of our own problems:

No heat until mid-October
Clogging sinks
Clogging shower drains
Three days in December (19th-22nd) with no heat or hot water - (meaning no showers and lots of cold, stinky flat-mates)
Loud cleaners (who come with friends and/or chat on their cell phones in the kitchens - right next to my room)
Broken cabinets (one in the kitchen just fell off its hinges over a week ago, yet to be fixed)

We also live right on a major thoroughfare, meaning people with rooms on one side of the house (with old, thin windows) hear traffic noises day and night - the traffic never really stops. And then their is the nightclub half a block away, providing a persistent 'thump, thump, thump' of bass on Friday and Saturday nights, and the heavy 'fire' doors that are rigged to slam shut - they have mechanical arms that are supposed to prevent this, but most of those are worn out, and the creaking hinges (I'm looking for WD-40) and stairs and paper-thin walls and floors.

Hmm... Is that all? I think so. I really don't like to complain, especially about somewhat trivial matters when so many people in the world have it so much worse and I should be spending time on loftier academic-type things. But, I'm afraid that conditions here have made other thought and work and relationships quite difficult.

A friend of mine, when I told him that London was draining me, commented that he thought a Buddhist could be happy anywhere. I suppose this is a common misconception, that we can somehow retreat from the world around us with meditation or chanting or some such thing. On the one hand, I could retreat inwards to some extent, focus on immediate tasks and cultivating calm and metta. I think I did this three years ago when I was in Bristol.

But going underground and inward for a bit is not always so easy with the "householder's" life. The struggle for balance is an almost daily one, between the solitary academic Buddhist and the community and family-oriented guy from Montana. Both sides love nature and silence, and both are far removed from these in Southeast London.

And I sigh, sitting in my room listening to the banging of utensils and cupboards in the kitchen - and sirens from streets below, looking out over a grey, blustery day in London.

Where is my mind?
Here?
In the kitchen?
Outside?
Watching over Kelly as she sleeps 4000 miles away?
Watching a summer sunset from my favorite perch near Missoula?
Where is my mind?
ha!

2007 in Review (part one)

2008-01-13T12:54:00.001Z

In looking back at a year passing I suppose we search for insights, teachings, and lessons for the coming year. Or just a quick summary to answer the question: what happened to my year?

I'll begin with my greatest insight: that no matter how great last year was, each year has the potential to be even better.

I say that mainly because, for some reason, I had the idea that at some point in my mid-20s I would reach a peak, after which life simply couldn't be as good. Granted, I had some great years, so I felt justified in thinking, "It can't possibly get better than this." For instance, going back to 2003, I had a beautiful relationship with T., the second love of my life, and began really growing to love Missoula through community and academic activities. In '04 things with T. ended and I committed myself to intensive self-improvement, with several hours each day in dharma study (via the Asian Classics Institute) and meditation, and then I was off to Bristol for my Buddhist studies MA.

In 2005 I found my feet in my Bristol studies, traveled around England, Ireland, Wales, and Spain, and developed some amazing friendships before returning to Missoula and philosophy studies. '06 began with a trip to Hawai'i, a note from my Bristol advisor that I had been awarded the mark of Distinction on my dissertation, and the rekindling of my wonderful (though long-distance) relationship with Ana in Spain.

2007

The year began well enough, celebrating with friends in Missoula. I was living in what is known widely as simply, "the 6th Street house," a dilapidated old mansion (which, legend has it, was one of Montana's brothels). An air of unhappiness filled the house, so I was all to happy to spend my time on campus, starting an intensive Philosophy of Religion (musings on omniscience and politics) class, working at the Center for Ethics, and hiding out in my office in the Liberal Arts building.

As January came to a close and the new semester began, I posted on the terrible situation in Tibet (which only seems to be getting worse). I was quickly overwhelmed with the new semester, teaching a course on Tibetan Buddhism at the University and taking a full load of courses myself.

February began with an excellent (if I do say so myself) post on Kant and Happiness. I conclude it by saying:

I like the youthful exuberance that I see in Kant's philosophy, his revolutionary anti-authoritarianism, his fist-pounding exhortations to self-development and loyalty to our moral sense, his recognition that the world provides a thousand and one distractions and excuses keeping us away from that very moral nature within us.

That is followed by yet more brilliant musings on Genesis as a coming-of-age tale and the book Ishmael.

The premise that the world is 'for us' and that we are separate somehow from the rest of creation is the premise of our culture. It is the story we tell our children before bed, but also the story we hear on the evening news and on the corporate billboards, in the academic curricula and in the novels we read. And, according to Ishmael at least, it is the premise of a dying culture. It is a myth gone bad.

And as much as I lament television and major corporations, I did find this to be a wonderful message:

By mid-February I was moaning groaning with too much work and waxing on about children and society. And by month's end I was in a fancy hotel in Cincinnati for an Ethics conference, pondering humanity's (including my own) destruction of the planet.

In March, an article was written about me in the college newspaper, I wrote about how multi-tasking is actually a huge waste of time (we operate more efficiently when we have only one task before us - as I know all too well!). Then I was lucky enough to find real grounding in a Native American sweet lodge ceremony, and to ponder the right proper recipe of balance and striving that would result in virtue. The month ended with me in pain, having visited England again and Ana and encountering the beginning of the unraveling of our relationship. My reflections consequently turned to my previous love and 'levels' of contentment and discussion, and to grief and letting go.

In April I found myself back in nature, reflecting more positively on life and love and setting new direction for myself. And then a little diddy on Dali - and philosophy

"Mistakes are almost always of a sacred nature. Never try to correct them. On the contrary: rationalize them, understand them thoroughly. After that, it will be possible for you to sublimate them."

-Salvador Dali

Me: This speaks to our reactive tendencies: problem? fix it! So much of our lives consist of 'quick fixes' and superficial bandages on problems/mistakes that go quite deep in our lives/society. How does the story in Australia go?...

Then, perhaps in a subconscious foreshadow of my current living situation, I posted this image and the question:
What does it mean that we "live in a technologically mediated world?"

That was followed by three posts on Buddhism (go figure!): one on community, one on dzogchen (great perfection) teachings, and one on Buddhist Ethics - communal or individual. I then posted on the Virginia Tech incident, and my - then - current obsession, Regina Spektor: Fidelity.

And then yet more on Buddhism: a recipe for social action:

So before we act [in the world/with our bodies], we need understanding [the activity of clarity in the mind]. We need to empty ourselves of notions of how it is supposed to be. From there we can look at the world anew, just soak it up. And from there also we are able to respond without preconditions, without prejudices.

and lessons on letting go; along with a lovely bit of Missoula graffiti and my acceptance to the University of London ph.d. program :)

With May I think things lightened up a LOT. I finished teaching/studying, regained my footing, spent time in nature (much needed!) and finally got to a Socrates Cafe!

Specifically, I started off posting a great video on the value and beauty of living for others; and my decision (finally) to definitely go to London. Then, as the semester ended, I posted a round-up of the term. After that I returned to a regular topic in my thought, Buddhism: Happiness and Community, concluding that "Community is good, but for true happiness, we need solitude."

Then a very pointed post; feeling perhaps at the hight of my (often very high) disgust for the selfishness and superficiality of Western society. Returning to some of the things I enjoyed so much - time in nature, I blogged about the beauty and tranquility of Missoula, at times, and the existential questions arising from a close encounter with a young fawn. Then - Life: Every Day a New Dawn - And new opportunity - to share, grow, exercise, work, play, smile, and be grateful.And even more beautiful Montana nature photos! May ended with a meeting with my thesis advisor at UM - encouraging me to finish things up - and my formation of a book-club on Happiness (because I can always find ways to avoid doing what I need to do!).

June brought my birthday (27 years old!) and plenty of freedom to enjoy, reflect, and to spend time with a very special, beautiful new person in my life.

My first post discussed (or lamented - see February stuff) my ecological footprint in Missoula, which was WAY too high. Then I went on about my thesis - apparently I was making progress - but still got overwhelmed and began pushing back deadlines. Then a nice post from a news story on nature and depression (get enough of the former and you'll likely avoid the latter), and my own particular Buddhist interpretation of depression:

Depression in my experience consists of a brooding, a mind unable to just settle, a disconnection between the world around me and my experience. Meditation then is simply the exercise in settling the mind, over and over and over again, on the breath. It's like a work-out regimen for the mind.

In my second encounter with Kelly (after the Socrates Cafe) she mentioned the writer Edward Abbey... My following blog post? Philosophy: Edward Abbey "Note to self: get/read Edward Abbey (Desert Solitaire, or whatever)... Any of you know this guy? Want to recommend anything from him?"

Hehe...

The next day (June 7th) I got to look through my teaching evaluations (holding my breath....) and found out that, in fact, most everybody had really nice things to say :) - I guess I REALLY am my own worst critic. Then I traveled home to Helena, where some movies gave me impetus to take stock in life. I also managed to get out a bit with the family:

Here we all are [me and the family] after a day in Philipsburg, MT mining for sapphires. I then returned to philosophical/Buddhist ponderings with the question of identity (another one of my regular topics), wondering:

What exactly does Buddhism teach about "who we are?" Is it to abandon such labels and live purely in the moment? Perhaps is it more to recognize the contingency of all labels, to use them but not be trapped by them? Or could it be that for some, labels, as bonds to history and other beings, are as necessary as the air we breath?

My last post of the month came on the 23rd, as by this time I was spending nearly every day with Kelly - still as 'just friends' - but friends with an immediate deep spiritual bond and some major chemistry heating things up.

And that post, go figure, is about Edward Abbey and the amazing experience granted in true wilderness.

Well that gets us through June; and wow there's a lot there! It interesting to look over. In one sense I'd say it's pretty unremarkable in contrast to prior years. I seemed to be following a trajectory much the same as before. Little there would lead one to expect the major changes about to take place... And 'tis those that will be the subject of a future (very soon) post.

Fun with Pāli and Sanskrit

2008-01-06T19:36:00.001Z

In my last meeting with my thesis advisor it was revealed to me that I ought to be learning Pāli. Ohhh... Shoot.

No worries. Picking up a canonical language of Buddhism should be a breeze. I've studied Sanskrit, after all, the canonical language of early Hinduism and 'father' language of Pāli. The two are remarkably similar: karma is sanskrit, kamma is Pāli; dharma / dhamma. Simple stuff, right? I'm sure there are some much tougher cases. I know 'ignorance' in sanskrit: avidyā, becomes avijjā in Pāli. But anywho...

In my search for 'learn Pali easy' on Google I came across some great resources. Here are a few:

एवेर्योने शौल्ड लीर्ण संस्कृत: everyone should learn sanskrit. I don't know if this is really useful (e.g. if I should need to compose something in Devanagari, the alphabet of early Pali and Sanskrit - and contemporary Hindi). But it can be fun. For instance, ever wonder what your name looks like in Devanagari? Mine is:

जुस्तीं व्हिताकर (Justin Whitaker).

I actually found that on the Sanskrit Links Blog, a useful and current repository of helpful links. (largely Hindu-based, but still helpful)

And that I found from Granthinam, a German academic's Blog - which itself has a good half-dozen other academic blog links.

I've also spent some time (too much for now, as Tibet is off my radar for a bit) at earlytibet.com; an excellent repository of the work and thoughts of Sam Van Schaik, a recent ph.d. and current worker at London's own British Library.

A few more - and more useful ones given my current assignment - are:

The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary
Lily de Silva's excellent book the Pali Primer (online), and
a Concise Pali-English Dictionary by A.P. Buddhadatta Mahathera.

So, there are some fun resources if you're interested in fun with Pali and Sanskrit. I'm sure that's not many of you out there! BUT, for those with the interest and dedication, these should make for a fine start. Good luck and enjoy!

Buddhist ethics and metaphysics

2008-01-03T23:08:00.000Z

This is a bit of notes composed about three years ago when I was a student in Bristol working on a paper on the Early Buddhist Philosophy of Mind. Today as I work on Buddhist ethics it is again important. The Buddhist path, most of us know, is commonly divided into three parts: sīla, samādhi, and paññā (morality, meditation, and wisdom). Just how these three come together to form a path is a matter of dispute, but it is said that:

… sīla-paridhotā hi bho Gotama paññā, paññā-paridhotaṃ sīlam, yattha sīlam tattha paññā, yattha paññā tattha sīlaṃ. Sīlavato paññā paññāvato sīlaṃ, sīla-paññānañ ca pana lokasmin aggam akkhāyati. (Dīgha-Nikāya i. 123)

Or, if like me you can’t read a lick of Pāli:

… For understanding, Gotama, is washed around with virtue, and virtue is washed around with understanding. Where there is virtue there is understanding, and where there is understanding there is virtue. Those who have virtue possess understanding, and those who have understanding possess virtue, and virtue and understanding are declared to be the best things in the world. (translated by Keown, 2001, p. 39)

(Is it just me or is the Pali language just a lot more economical?)

The point is that ethics, or morality – doing the right thing – is tied in with wisdom, insight, or philosophy. As Socrates stated, “To know the good is to do the good.”

What is the good? What is reality itself? These are questions of metaphysics.

Metaphysics: 1.the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology. (dictionary.com)

Metaphysics first aims to be the most general investigation possible into the nature of reality, asking, “are there principles applying to everything that is real, to all that is?” The second aspect of metaphysics is its quest to uncover what is ultimately real, frequently offering answers in sharp contrast to our everyday experience of the world. For instance, the ancient Greek philosopher Thales suggested that water was all that was ultimately real, George Berkeley is famous for asserting that mind alone is real, while many contemporary thinkers believe that matter alone is real. Understood in terms of these two tasks, metaphysics is very closely related to ontology, which is usually taken to involve both "what is existence (being)?" and "what (fundamentally distinct) types of thing exist?"

To elucidate what Buddhist metaphysics may look like we may employ the trilemma introduced by Prof. Earnest Sosa (In The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Honderich ed., p.559) of illusion, well-founded appearance, and fundamental reality. If we recall the three marks of existence: anicca, anattā, dukkha (impermanence, non-self, and unsatisfactoriness), then we can explain the Buddhist position on these three metaphysical levels of reality.

Illusion is obviously anything thought to have permanence, attā, or sukkha (satisfactoriness or unending happiness). To hold anything thinking, “I will have this forever” is to merely grasp illusion. To think to yourself, “this is my true self, this is who I am” is to create a boundary, an illusion. Even the view, “I am already enlightened” is an illusion. In fact the Buddha described the “conceit of I-am” (asmi-mana) as one of the most nefarious forms of ignorance. As Rupert Gethin clarifies, “Thus Buddhist thought suggests that as an individual I am a complex flow of physical and mental phenomena, but peel away these phenomena and look behind them and one just does not find a constant self that one can call one’s own.” (1998, p.139) Lastly, To strive for anything thinking it will bring unending happiness also is an illusion. Often, especially when we are young and ambitious, we think that reaching this goal or that will bring us happiness. And sure, we find happiness in reaching goals, but isn’t it always the case that our happiness is lost as we see yet another goal to strive for (thinking, “then I’ll really be happy.”). This is what psychologists today aptly call the hedonic treadmill. To get beyond mere illusion we must get beyond the ideas of permanence, of who we truly are – our true Self, and true happiness (in this world).

Well-founded appearance, it would seem, is represented in the various Abhidhamma accounts of dhammas. These are the essentials of experience: momentary, self-identical (svabhava), and caused. This is a move to a level of reality where spiritual growth can occur. It is in advanced vipassanā meditation practice that one moves his or her attention to the ever-changing flow of dhammas, to experience itself free of conceptual constructs – free of illusion. Of course, as any vipassanā teacher will tell you, this is based on a great deal of preparatory work, work done within the realm of illusion.

The final level, fundamental reality, is empty of its own qualities, but is itself the anicca, anattā, and dukkha quality of all dhammas. This may be better understood by referring again to Inada’s claim that the anattā doctrine represents a Copernican turn in philosophy.[1] Whereas we would assume that metaphysical claims should come in the form of an assertion of an underlying reality, the Buddhist metaphysics points instead to everyday reality and says “this, this is fundamental reality.” There is no foundation beneath it to be found.

It thus becomes plausible to say that Buddhist metaphysics is an anti-metaphysics, insofar at it rejects abstract theorization and points instead back to the pragmatic aspects of meditation and ethics. Again, the metaphysics of Buddhism may be summarized as such: ultimate reality is nothing other than this reality seen correctly (yathabhutaṃ), this reality may be analyzed into constituent parts or dhammas, and it is from these dhammas that we, out of ignorance, construct the stories of our lives.

The therapeutic, or ethical, aspect arises when we truly come to terms with this understanding and its implications. The first step is in understanding that most of the big problems in life are illusions. War, poverty, disease, famine: all illusions. But they are based on well-founded appearances: instances of death, hunger, illness, and waste. Well-founded appearances are not themselves illusions: death is real, so is hunger and the rest. Yet it becomes illusion when it is seen as permanent, possessing self, and/or leading to ever-lasting happiness.

Seen correctly, as impermanent, not-self, and unsatisfactory, death, like life, takes on a new meaning. The two lose their mystique as opposites and we see that they are intermingling all of the time, just as wealth and poverty, disease and health, and so on are always commingling. Knowing this, it no longer makes sense to struggle so much for one and to avoid the other. Knowing this one lets go. One flows with life rather than against it.

[1] Kenneth Inada, “Problematics of the Buddhist nature of self,” Philosophy East and West, 1979, vol. 29, no.2, p.141.

Smiling at 2007, welcoming 2008

2008-01-02T22:07:00.000Z

Soon I'll post a bit of a round up of 2007 blog posts akin to the one I did last year. Overall I suppose I don't make much of new years, but I have been surprised at each passing one, including 2007, that they just keep getting better. I really thought I would peak some time in my early 20s, but alas, samsara's grip has continued to weaken year after year with no end in sight.

But enough about that for now. I have a very busy year ahead of me. Through it all, one thing has remained constant for me these last seven years:

A gift of Dhamma conquers all gifts;
the taste of Dhamma, all tastes;
a delight in Dhamma, all delights;
the ending of craving, all suffering
& stress.
- Dhammapada v.354

It is somehow beyond what I can put into words, but even as life gives me more and more to be happy about, I find still a deeper happiness in those moments of calm when I realize that all of this is impermanent, that clinging to it is suffering, that there is no Self here to make happy by it all. It's as if above worldly happiness, which I have had so much of lately - and so much to be thankful for - there is simply something more.

So I will let that be my first lesson for 2008.

Politics: toward a Buddhist immigration policy

2007-12-20T23:01:00.003Z

What would a Buddhist immigration policy look like for the US (or UK)? Obviously such notions as generosity (dana) and nonviolence (ahimsa) should come to mind. Or perhaps Shantideva's simile of the hand and the foot: urging us to reach out and help others as we are all interconnected. People may also like to stretch analogies regarding the Buddha as one who broke down barriers such as caste and gender, teaching openly to all and proclaiming the same spiritual potential in all beings.

It seems that little will be found in the early Buddhist sources to condone exclusionary practices of any kind. If anything, it may be the strategy of the anti-immigration Buddhist to say that the Buddha was a bit naive in regards to these issues, and that immigration represents a special case in which it really would be better for everyone (thus an act of compassion) if big walls and even bigger prisons were erected in wait for those 'huddled masses'.

Recently, Kelly sent me a thought-provoking article by Amy Chua, a Yale Law professor, discussing the topic. It contains five recommendations (you'll have to read the article for details):

1 Overhaul admission priorities.
2 Make English the official national language.
3 Immigrants must embrace the nation's civic virtues.
4 Enforce the law.
5 Make the United States an equal-opportunity immigration magnet.

These are interesting suggestions and deserve some thought:

Focusing more on skilled workers and reducing family connections sounds good, but I wonder if this wouldn't actually dissuade many skilled workers from coming here in the first place. Americans are famous for geographic mobility: families don't stick together in the US. This is not the case most places. A brilliant computer scientist in India may choose to languish there in a sub-par job rather than travel half-way around the world with little or no chance of bringing his (extended) family with him.

I agree with Chua that more attention to job-skills should be made, but I think it goes too far to say 'the immigration system should reward ability and be keyed to the country's labor needs -- skilled or unskilled, technological or agricultural.' Focusing too much on these people as 'skilled or unskilled' etc. risks losing sight of their humanity.
Adopting an official language seems absurd to me. English is already de facto our country's language, but ever since its inception our nation has been a host to countless other non-native languages (and of course a whole host of Native American ones!). The Buddha, in sending out his students to teach others, told them to teach in the language common to each area. This is in direct opposition to the Brahmans, who taught and preserved their scriptures only in Sanskrit. Thus a Buddhist policy would:

Inspire, not legislate, others to learn English. This once-great language seems to be producing more trashy pop-music than classical literature today. Learning English as a second language is hard; I'd rather we focus on incentives (carrots) than punishments (the stick).
Learn more languages ourselves! Sure, English will stand as the most common language, but as the ACLU argues, it doesn't make sense to limit the use of other languages. I think the great French Philosopher Merleau-Ponty was right in suggesting that the language must be correct to express the life of the speaker. Languages change with history, some simply die out as speakers adopt a more dominant or useful language. I say: bring on the Spanish, bring on the Chinese (Mandarin)! Let them shape a stronger English, or replace it.

Chua states that 'It's up to each immigrant community to fight off an enclave mentality and give back to their new country.' I fully agree. But I think the job isn't just for them. Americans need to make a habit of reaching out to people outside the mainstream. We, too, should go into the enclave as much as they should come out! Not to mention the Americans who are rapidly building enclaves of their own (gated communities) to keep new immigrants out.
It's hard to argue against enforcing the law. My only thought is that we should be looking also at what compels many people to risk their lives and freedom crossing into the US illegally. Could it be that our own economic policies perpetuate injustice and poverty in their countries? Could our political and military actions be undercutting democratic movements and propping up unpopular dictators? Jeez, I don't know. But if any of that does happen to be the case, we should work hard to reverse it, ensuring better lives to people in those countries. If their lives are better in their home country, then I'm sure they'll be more patient with the legalities of proper immigration.
Finally, Chua suggests equal-opportunity immigration, stating that 'The starkly disproportionate ratio of Latinos -- reflecting geographical fortuity and a large measure of law-breaking -- is inconsistent with this principle.' I'm all for equal opportunity, but I think 'geographical fortuity' should be given more credit. Practically speaking, I think it just makes more sense that we have disproportionate numbers of Latinos. All things considered, if I were, say, an English-speaking political exile from Burma in search of new opportunity, I'd probably want to go to India or Australia. There would have to be some special reason for me to want to go all the way to America. Likewise a Romanian student would feel more geographically compelled to study in England over the US. Just as in point one where I'd say that 'family matters,' here also I would say that 'geography matters.'

That is not to say that we shouldn't reach out to our brothers and sisters in Burma and elsewhere. But perhaps we can stretch Shantideva's simile a bit and say that there are many thorns in the body, and unless one in the foot is particularly bad, it just makes more sense to pull out those that are nearest. In practical terms if we can reduce more suffering in Honduras than Burma simply because it is nearer, we should.

As with most things in politics, the immigration debate sparks many emotions and far more complex than a few paragraphs can give justice to. One of my favorite statements on the topic came from a cartoon on a professor's door near mine back at UM. It featured a couple Native Americans overlooking the building of a colonists' fort. One says to the other, "they ignore our customs and refuse to learn the language. I say we kick 'em out."

Right...

To me one of the greatest American values has been the value of opportunity for everyone here. The opportunity to make something of their lives, to create new community, and to pass that forward to the next generation. Perhaps, contra Buddhism, that value has been translated into commercialism and greed. But it could also be translated into deeper opportunities for service, for realizing our interconnectedness, for overcoming ignorance.

It is a fact that some amount of material sustenance is necessary for spiritual development. It is also taught by the Buddha that too many material possessions will hamper that development. Americans today suffer not from too little material wealth (and hence real fear of immigrants taking it away), but instead from too much. It is much of the rest of the world that has too little. It seems obvious that the Buddhist immigration policy would look to eliminate this imbalance.

*with small alterations 25-2-2008

God part 3: tentative resolutions

2007-12-19T19:45:00.000Z

Every once in a while I will start a planned series of posts and then begin to lose interest in finishing it. That seems to be the case now as well.

Regarding Buddhist ideas of Karma and Rebirth I will refer you to the recent post and comments at Progressive Buddhism.

Plenty of people far wiser than I have put in countless hours thinking about these matters. For my own part I will again agree with Kant (link to God part 1) that certain questions seek to go beyond the mind’s capacities. In a time when many thought they had ‘proved’ the existence of God, Kant deftly showed the fallacies of their arguments. Yet Kant knew that striving after such ultimate answers was and is still a fundamental aspect of being human. For our part all we can do is allow these questions to arise and to ensure that our own reasoning is clear. Greater clarity is the gift provided to us by generations past and the debt we owe to the next.

The Buddha, too, avoided what he saw as merely speculative metaphysics. If his words wouldn’t aid in the removal of suffering from a student, the Buddha would not teach. He taught simple doctrines of generosity and harmlessness to many lay-people. To only a few did he teach more complicated doctrines such as non-self (anatta) or impermanence (anicca). These were dedicated to the monks and nuns, those who had committed themselves to understanding the deeper truths of his teachings.

But those deeper truths were still only those that helped along the path to nirvana. It is said that the Buddha’s teachings are like a few precious leaves compared to the forest of his knowledge. The implication is that he could have taught all sorts of things, from horse-riding and archery to walking on water and through rocks, but these were seen as a waste of time compared to the vast project of eliminating one’s fetters (i.e. greed, hatred, ignorance) and achieving freedom or awakening.

As I mention in a comment on the Progressive Buddhism post above, the ideas of karma and rebirth sometimes play a role in my life. They ease my worries or spur me to cultivate virtues. This is fine. So long as there is positive practical/ethical outcome from these beliefs, I see them as valuable. If ever I were to become obsessed with past-life issues or karma I would hope to be slapped back into the present life and moment as quickly as possible.

As for God, I still have not found one worth believing in (link to God part 2) . I know that many others have, including perhaps many Pure Land Buddhists. If belief in God brings benefits, let it be held, but if they are a source of anguish, it should be released.

What I have come to most in these posts and recent Buddhist studies is that it doesn't really matter whether one believes in God, karma, rebirth, etc. (I sense a collective ‘duh’ from wiser readers everywhere.) What matters is how we live our lives, how well we are able to translate our beliefs, whatever they may be, into the service of humankind. Mental labour should thus be spent far less on the cogency of belief, and more on the path to awakening.

Life: merry -- mas

2007-12-18T21:28:00.000Z

Holiday Spirit, London style

19 December update:

"Christmas gift suggestions:
To your enemy, forgiveness.
To an opponent, tolerance.
To a friend, your heart.
To a customer, service.
To all, charity.
To every child, a good example.
To yourself, respect."
-Oren Arnold (borrowed from here)

Life: back on track, but still too busy to post for myself, so...

2007-12-17T16:55:00.000Z

Here are some interesting bits from my friends:

First: SJ in Calcutta! I was supposed to accompany him to our friend Soorjya's wedding there but my Visa got caught up in bureaucratic channels (lesson learned: check entry requirements for any country you plan to visit!). So I'm stuck in London and he's in Calcutta - which is better? Read for yourself.

Soorjya and bride Ishita

Either way I AM really sorry to be missing India and especially Soorjya's wedding.

Next: A little heads-up from Nacho about US media:

And speaking of US media, Kelly sent me this recent article from the Washington Post on my recently blogged issue of America and immigration, "The Right Road to America?"

Kelly has also been blogging! About what? Books of course! Lately she's mastering making history and getting rich.

And lastly (leaving out several - but feel free to check my links on the right to see what else I try to keep up on in the blog-world), David, who teaches Religion, Philosophy and Ethics in Gloucestershire raises some interesting questions about being Politically Correct (and lying to Children!) around the holidays:

Leaving asides cheap jibes about believing in a fictional old man, who you can't see: why do we perpetuate this falsehood?

Wait, one more! I have yet to read it, but it sure looks like a great discussion at Progressive Buddhism on 'Rebirth, Reassessed.'

So much to read and catch up on! And soon, hopefully, some more blogs of my own!

Life: "Trying to catch up with the speed of Justin"

2007-12-16T18:02:00.000Z

That is how a friend of mine, Larry, titled a recent email to me. "Trust me, I'm trying to catch up too!" I replied.

Life has just been a whirlwind lately, returning from D.C. to London, wrapping up the term, getting sick, Christmas events, saying goodbye to people for the holidays, preparing for Kelly's arrival here, thinking about our wedding...

phewww....

Now, for the average person this might not seem like much, but for the Buddhist Philosopher things like moving around, people-stuff, and events are all mighty draining.

I had the pleasure of meeting with my philosophy advisor from UM, Christopher Preston, yesterday here in London and we discussed this a bit, the difficulty of combining new adjustments in life and studies. He noted the six weeks it took him to get his bearings straight when he first went to college in Durham, NE England.

I was reminded, too, of my first term in Bristol as I studied for my MA in Buddhist Studies. My first ten weeks were extremely difficult: the newness of life in the big city, five thousand miles from home, new people, new customs... any time I sat down to do homework my head was spinning from trying to process all the new sights and sounds.

And here I am again three years later, a bigger city, a bit further from Montana, more new people and customs.

So I am not surprised that my head is spinning a bit, that I can barely read two pages of my books before needing to take a walk or find some other distraction.

I was also asked about my meditative practice here, whether I had found a group to practice with or practiced on my own. Unfortunately, neither has been the case. As I described it, I've been basically 'coasting' from my early summer meditation practices. I'm not sure how much it is discussed in Buddhism, but I have a sense that once you reach certain plateaus in meditative cultivation it is very difficult to slide backward.

So, while my mind is itself somewhat overwhelmed by life these days, there is no attachment to it being otherwise. Whenever I do get to step back and see all this that has me so busy these days I can only look upon it with overflowing gratitude, and at times even tears of joy. From simple days on dirt roads under the big sky of Montana I have found myself working on my Ph.D. in one of the largest cities on earth and engaged to the most amazing woman I've ever met.

I'm not used to all this change, these new people, new customs, new pace of life. I'm far better suited to simpler places, simpler times. I think most philosophers are; those who stargaze, searching for 'first principles,' unity amidst the chaotic multiplicity, universals in a life of particulars. But the Buddhist knows that such are not easily found if at all, and that in the mean time it is the acceptance of change (the release of thirst) that brings freedom.

Is America an open society?

2007-12-04T22:04:00.000Z

This question stems from conversations with my fiancée as well as friends here in London and could also be phrased:

Is the US or the UK a more open society?

(with regards to ideology and/or immigration)

- feel free to toss other countries into the equasion.

Post your thoughts in the comment area if you would (please).

Some random thoughts/questions on this:

Cassius Clay became Mohammad Ali (in what some call more of a political move than a religious one) in 1964 after joining the Nation of Islam - what would Americans think if someone of his fame did this today ?
The great physicist David Bohm was forced out of Princeton when it surfaced that he was a sympathiser of Communism (he later got a job in Bristol, England)
London, Madrid, and the US have all been targeted by Islamic Terrorists in the last 1o years - why? But let us not foget those in India recently as well. Are there more cases of calculated domestic Islamic terrorism?
Is America "a nation of immigrants" as JFK proclaimed in 1958 or a "Christian Nation" as John McCain and the Republican Party of Texas (amongst others) seem to believe. Can these two notions coexist? (my own sense is that 'Christian' is exclusionary - while 'immigrant' is inclusive - even Native Americans immigrated at one point).

Leaving Sukhavati

2007-11-28T14:18:00.000Z

Today I fly back to London to resume intense studies, get back into blogging, hang out with new friends, and prepare for a trip to India with my good friend SJ to reunite with Soorjya who is getting married. There is a lot to look forward to. But my heart is still heavy as I imagine getting on the plane in nine or ten hours.

I've done a lot these past three weeks in the US. I:

spent time with Kelly's lovely aunt Suzi and grandmother (Gabbo)
saw Princeton, where Kelly began her doctoral studies,
met Kelly's good friends Carolyne and (?), who she met through her first Socrates Café
visited Storm King Art Center, a beautiful 500 acres of brilliant trees, rolling hills, a playful stream, and open sky (and some funny art too),
met Ken and Christine Lindsay, an amazing couple (celebrating just over 60years of marriage) who Kelly met in her research on WWII art preservation,
made some headway in my research and a conference panel discussion on "Buddhism and Philosophy" in the spring,
saw Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling Water, where I
proposed,
received a 'yes',
and thus became officially engaged :) Update: a photo from just after our engagement:

and a whole lot more...

Yet still it seemed to go all too fast.

C'est la vie.

Sukhavati,

Land of Great Bliss.

I bid you adieu, but not for long.

God part 2 of 3: the meanings of things

2007-11-07T20:37:00.000Z

Preface, or 'pre-post tangential interlude': Before I get into blog post proper I wanted to share a discovery I made today thanks to David Webster's Gloucestershire Uni course blog. It is a discussion by academics of Socrates' life from BBC Radio 4. It was interesting for a variety of reasons: the problem of the written word (vs oral teachings), problems of democracy, questions of virtue and the good life, and (for me) connections with Kant and the nature of God.

One of the points made by Socrates, found in Plato's Euthyphro, is that we cannot reasonably place the gods (or in our case God) above morality. That is, if we can know right from wrong in human affairs, then we should judge the claimed actions and wishes of god(s) by these same criteria. As Socrates asks Euthyphro in that dialog (quoting from memory):

Is it right because the gods accept it,
or do the gods accept it because it is right? (my emphasis)

Socrates of course supports the latter option. Morality, virtue, rightness, goodness and the likes all supersede the whims of the gods.

But for the Greeks the gods (and Old Testament followers of God as mentioned in the radio show) were heavily personified beings, basically humans with certain qualities exaggerated and with added magical powers. They had their faults, inconsistencies, and foibles just as the rest of us. Socrates was thus a radical for saying, in effect, "don't waste your time trying to please them, put your effort into a virtuous life, a self-examined life, and you will find happiness."

Ironically, I noted in the last post that things hadn't changed much between Kant's time and our own, and it seems that even more so things remained amazingly constant between Socrates life and that of Kant.

"GOD"

Now, neither Kant nor Socrates denied the existence of God, both simply demanded a rational understanding of the deity. And while for Socrates this is mainly a moral matter, for Kant it is both moral and extends to the natural world (following the inspirational works of such thinkers as Newton, Galileo and Copernicus). But, once we have rationalized morality and the good life, as well as the physical world, what is left of 'God'?

And that exact question has been the prime battle ground for over two hundred years (at least) of Western theology.

Kierkegaard, for one, argued that Kant and others missed the whole point: that God and reason have nothing to do with one another (and for that matter God and morality). He famously retells the story of Abraham and Isaac. He admits that what Abraham is about to do, kill his own son, is morally wrong, but then says that in religious terms it is right. So for Kierkegaard 'God' means something beyond our categories of reason and morality.

A thinker closer to home (for me) is Albert Borgmann who, as it was explained to me, treats God as a moral necessity. For Dr. Borgmann it is God to whom we must give thanks that there is existence at all (recalling the Parmenidean question, "why is there something instead of nothing?"). Dr. Borgmann accepts that it is science to which we should turn to explain all that is in existence, but that it is God that has ensured that there is existence in the first place.

A good exercise you can do now is to to play:

Battleground God (a witty Q&A to see if your views are at least consistent with each other)
Do-it-yourself-deity (a simpler, one-step game raising the typical objections to the Judeo-Christian notions of God)

As either game suggests (especially the second) 'God' has problems. If we give her the typical attributes that people have since time immemorial then she no longer seems to fit into our world (ruled by physics and rational ethics). If we strip her of these in the hopes of keeping her here (a God'ess' in the gaps) then the game-makers openly wonder if what is left deserves the name 'God' in the first place.

In the end I tend to just give up and join another former philosophy professor of mine (retired), Dr. Burke Townsend, and say that I don't believe in God because I don't know what that means. (It's not that I disbelieve, but only that I don't know what it is that I am supposed to believe in here.)

I believe in the fundamental morality of the universe, as I have felt it tugging at my own conscience and I have discovered practices that I have experienced to better attune me to that universal moral nature. I believe in the inexhaustible beauty of the natural world, from mountain sunsets to the ant's antennae, from the cosmic singularity to the evolution of human beings, it all makes me bright-eyed and grinning with wonder.

But that's it.

I must laugh at its simplicity, but also the sheer complexity when you get right down to it. It is simple because it is all right here, every action and item before me opens the worlds of morality and nature. It is complex because, in Kantian terms, I am heteronomous, pulled in dozens of directions at once, tugged by forces outside of my moral center, forces other than my own reason. And the physical world, too, reveals a depth of complexity that thwarts our eager probing at every turn. In Buddhist terms both (our understanding of morality and the natural world) are clouded by ignorance, clouds that are sometimes equated with language (conceptuality) itself.

But again, that's it.

For both Kant and Buddhism the task is thrown upon us, each of us, to lift our own veils of ignorance, to unravel the bounds of unknowing, to come face to face with reality. To appeal to God for either would be to side-step this responsibility, an escape from the here-and-now reality of our lives.

But then, that is just one conception of God, namely the traditional Judeo-Christian conception (and the roughly parallel Brahmanic/Hindu conception). There are other conceptions of God that bring him (or, preferably her) down to earth and into our lives. Think of Native American ideas of the Great Spirit, or perhaps certain gnostic ideas of God-within-all.

In the last part of this series I will explore other conceptions of God, asking if reconciliation may be found.

God part 1 of 3: Living with myths

2007-11-06T17:12:00.000Z

Myths are not untruths, but truths that extend beyond the rational mind. - Dr. Alan Sponberg from his Intro to Buddhism Course.

The God I grew up with was a God that you would ask for things from, or appeal to when things didn't go your way or call upon to tell others that they are wrong. People around me spoke of praying to God for health, emotional strength, and money; they openly asked God why 'bad things happened to good people'; and they used God as an ally in their cases against the evils of everything from homosexuality to lousy parking. I knew people for whom 'good person' and 'church-goer' were synonymous and who could not (would not) believe it when a church-goer was accused or convicted of some crime or wrong-doing.

So it may not be surprising that at age twelve, when exposed to my first natural science textbooks, that I openly disavowed any belief in God. Since then I have traveled a long way, through atheism (weak and strong), agnosticism, secular humanism, trying to become Christian followed by nihilism, and then Buddhism (whatever that means). Through Buddhist practice I have simply tried to live more freely and in the present moment, to be open to ideas and people, to understand my weaknesses and cultivate virtues.

Two questions come up for me sometimes: 1) do I believe in Buddhist ideas like nirvana and karma? and 2) where does all that put me with God?

The answers are rather complicated, but put simply the answers are something like "sure, whatever (agnostic)" and "what-do-ya-mean by 'God'? (atheist)." Following Kant, and (I think) the Buddha as well, I think that certain things are just too big to fit within our puny intellects. Questions like, "is the universe finite or infinite" or "is there a (Judeo-Christian) God or isn't there" are just silly because they ask our finite, limited minds to judge something that is not with those bounds or limits. The Buddha was famously silent when people asked him such questions and Kant called those who claimed to have an answer pretentious.

However, for neither was this the end of the story. For neither of them denied the possible reality of such things. In the Buddha's case, karma - a moral sense of cause and effect - was simply taken for granted. And for Kant too, the fact that there is a moral law is something that we as humans simply cannot deny. As for nirvana - the total cessation of suffering* - the Buddha certainly taught it and claimed to have achieved it. Yet the Buddha also taught that one should treat his teachings as a goldsmith treats gold, by testing it in many ways to determine its authenticity. So I take it to be within his teachings that I don't necessarily buy into nirvana; not that I deny it, but only that I'm still testing it out and until I know from my own eyes whether it is authentic I will remain agnostic-open. Yet, as Allen W. Wood notes, "Kant also holds that it is rational to pursue an end only insofar as you believe the end possible of attainment through the actions you take toward it." (Kant, p.180) In that case I must admit that I believe in nirvana, or at least something quite close (I say that because my belief arises from experiences - periods of time spent free from all suffering - and the reasoning that such periods could be extended indefinitely). The belief therefore is one that I think a skeptic such as Hume could assent to - it is not an unquestioning faith but a trust in experiences that could be replicated.

Kant it seems was exposed to much the same God that I was. Allen W. Wood, writing in a very Kantian vein states:

"Religious communities have usually been founded on a supposed divine revelation, [a scripture] accepted as authoritative... ruled by a class of priestly tyrants, who have done more to enslave than to liberate the mind and spirit. The idea of serving God that such communities have had has often been corrupt and superstitious, consisting of a set of morally indifferent or even degrading constraints on conduct (the performance of rituals, meaningless restrictions on what people eat or when they are permitted to work, regular performances of fetishistic conjurations of divine presence or formalized practices of slavish praise and contemptible begging directed at the divine being -- conceived, accordingly, as a vain tyrant who is disposed to favor unjustly those cringing subjects who most flatter him and abase themselves before him)." (pp. 183-4)

Wow. He goes on about war and each side's use of God as 'on our side' and about religious claims to "exclusive access to divine will" and imposing beliefs on others.

It would be nice to think that that was just the Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) of the 1700s and that it is totally changed today, but as I mentioned this was pretty much what I encountered growing up in little Helena, Montana.

However, Kant did see a rational basis for belief in God - that of morality. You see, for Kant, to be good is to be worthy of happiness. And as we know many good people die without finding happiness. So for that moral law that Kant saw as undeniable to work, there must be an afterlife and some "wise, benevolent, and just Providence ordering the world." (p.180) This, for Kant, is God: simply the guarantee (or guarantor) of the happiness one comes to deserve through his or her morality in life.

How interesting. And this seems to be much the same role that karma plays for Buddhists. It is a law-like causality that guarantees happiness comes to those who do good (puñña). Thus to have experiences of freedom from suffering and the reasoned belief in the possibility of total freedom, one must have some reasonable connection between the two. That is, one must believe that one's actions (karma) will lead to the fruits (phala or vipaka) of happiness or nirvana.

So it seems that in both cases we have reasoned cases for quite different beliefs. Or is it just that we have different words for much the same thing?

In part two I will explore that question, asking, "just what do we mean when we say 'God' - or karma or nirvana?"

* commentators are quick to point out that the end of suffering is not the end of physical pain. The Buddha still had pain as he grew old and died, he simply did not identify with the pain of his physical body. And it is this identification with or clinging to - as 'mine' - pain that causes us suffering.

Life: pond-hopping again

2007-11-01T20:53:00.000Z

Sigh... At last, I'm off to see my fiancee again after six weeks of separation. And the separation itself wouldn't have been so difficult I think except that we have both been under so much stress. When the world around you is just closing in, you need that other person, that life-partner, there to hold at the end of the day.

As I have told friends back in the states, this place and my month here have been an odd mixture of 'philosopher's paradise' (total academic freedom, access to vast worlds of knowledge, and an amazing advisor) and bureaucratic nightmare (poor institutional organization, dodgy neighborhoods, defunct social telephony services). I'm not sure where it all balances out in the end. It's not bad I suppose, plenty to work with and work on. And I recall that in my first couple month in Bristol I was having a pretty hard time too. So I can look forward to settling in more and a very productive January onward.

I applied for a job at Jamyang Buddhist Centre and interviewed yesterday. The interview went pretty badly on my part. I was worn out and a bit flustered from being late and I did far too little research on Jamyang itself. So when they asked how I would work on certain aspects, like the beautiful Talking Buddhism website, I really had painfully little to offer. I went away feeling that I had been a bit foolish and perhaps over-confident, so not very happy with myself. Luckily I was invited to stay for one of the teachings with Geshe Soepa. He covered a four-fold mind training (lojong) from the Sakya tradition and it really hit home for me.

if you are attached to this life, you are not a religious practitioner
if you are attached to cyclical existence, you are not on the path
if you are striving only for your own awakening, you are not on the Great path
if you do not have correct understanding (of emptiness), you cannot attain Buddhahood.

(I may have got those a little off, but that's the gist of the training) Each step pushes one to think less of mundane concerns and more toward the highest possible service to humanity, and each has deeper explanations that would be familiar to the Tibetan Buddhist practitioner.

What resonated so well with me was the sense of attachment I had come with, attachment to the outcome of the interview and the ensuing deflation when it didn't go as planned. It seemed like each word from the Geshe's mouth and each breath I breathed deeply lessened that sense of unhappiness, helped me let go of my expectations. By then end I was smiling and able to head home with a light heart. Oh well if I don't get the job. It's a wonderful, amazing Buddhist centre and I'd love to work there, so we'll see. If not, I'm sure I'll be back to hear more wisdom and perhaps see if I can volunteer in some way.

In other job news, I did get hired on as a Departmental Student Coordinator here at the college. It's just a 2 hour/week on average job, but it will get me some good inside experience with the History department and with student affairs. The other coordinators and our fearless leader are all great folks (we got to know one another through a 5-hour training and a beer last week), so it should be fun all around.

Studies are going well too. I still haven't found a very peaceful place to get into my work. Everywhere I go there are constant disturbances, diversions, and inconveniences of one sort or another. But I'm making do, finding little moments of inspiration and progress.

I don't understand the intensity of the bureaucracy in England. Nobody I talk to understands it. The Brits don't either, but simply seem to accept it. For instance, phone/internet companies seem to compete for who can be the most complicated and difficult. Right now BT is the hands-down winner, discouraging 3 of my flatmates from getting land-lines through red-tape, long hours on hold, and lack of effort to speak in an understandable tone. Today I was celebrated for fighting through it all to establish our flat's first land line. Yay me. :) Oh yea, and the cost: $500 for installation and the most basic service on the minimum contract. Next step: wireless. Everybody is chipping in on this, so hopefully with about $100 each we can get the phone line and wireless all set up for the year...

Anywho... I've got to pack! 14 hours and I am in the air to see a certain gorgeous redhead!

Buddhist Ethics: figuring out Karma

2007-10-30T15:34:00.000Z

I have been pondering a minor quibble in Buddhism for quite a while now (in fact it has been on my mind for about four years), so I figure I should share it with the world, even if I'm no closer to figuring it now than I was way back then.

The question regards the 'domain' of karma. That is, is everything that happens to me due to my karma? Now keep in mind that I'm not questioning the relevance or coherence of karma in our modern world. I'm asking 'as a Buddhist' (and academic) trying to understand the classical sources. With that in mind, there seem to be two classical statements:

1) "not everything that happens to a person is seen as due to karma." (P. Harvey, 2000, p.23)

Harvey cites this sutta (From accesstoinsight):

SN 36.21: Sivaka Sutta — To Sivaka {S iv 230; CDB ii 1278} [Nyanaponika | Thanissaro]. The Buddha explains that present experience cannot be described solely in terms of the results of past actions (kamma).

[Moliyasivaka:] "Master Gotama, there are some priests & contemplatives who are of this doctrine, this view: Whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before. Now what does Master Gotama say to that?"
[The Buddha:] "There are cases where some feelings arise based on bile. You yourself should know how some feelings arise based on bile. Even the world is agreed on how some feelings arise based on bile. So any priests & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I say that those priests & contemplatives are wrong."

(because I'm fast becoming a nerd, I'll pop in the Pali from here)

[Moliyasivaka:] ‘‘santi, bho gotama, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā evaṃvādino evaṃdiṭṭhino – ‘yaṃ kiñcāyaṃ purisapuggalo paṭisaṃvedeti sukhaṃ vā dukkhaṃ vā adukkhamasukhaṃ vā sabbaṃ taṃ pubbekatahetū’ti. Idha [idha pana (syā. kaṃ. pī. ka.)] bhavaṃ gotamo kimāhā’’ti?
‘[The Buddha:] ‘Pittasamuṭṭhānānipi kho, sīvaka, idhekaccāni vedayitāni uppajjanti. Sāmampi kho etaṃ, sīvaka, veditabbaṃ [evaṃ veditabbaṃ (syā. kaṃ. ka.)] yathā pittasamuṭṭhānānipi idhekaccāni vedayitāni uppajjanti; lokassapi kho etaṃ, sīvaka, saccasammataṃ yathā pittasamuṭṭhānānipi idhekaccāni vedayitāni uppajjanti. Tatra, sīvaka, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā evaṃvādino evaṃdiṭṭhino – ‘yaṃ kiñcāyaṃ purisapuggalo paṭisaṃvedeti sukhaṃ vā dukkhaṃ vā adukkhamasukhaṃ vā sabbaṃ taṃ pubbekatahetū’ti. Yañca sāmaṃ ñātaṃ tañca atidhāvanti, yañca loke saccasammataṃ tañca atidhāvanti. Tasmā tesaṃ samaṇabrāhmaṇānaṃ micchāti vadāmi.

See, that clears everything up, right?... Interestingly, the term kamma doesn't occur in the discussion until the next section:

‘‘Semhasamuṭṭhānānipi kho, sīvaka…pe… vātasamuṭṭhānānipi kho, sīvaka…pe… sannipātikānipi kho, sīvaka…pe… utupariṇāmajānipi kho, sīvaka…pe… visamaparihārajānipi kho, sīvaka…pe… opakkamikānipi kho, sīvaka…pe… kammavipākajānipi kho, sīvaka, idhekaccāni vedayitāni uppajjanti. [my emphasis]

Which Thanissaro Bhikkhu translates as:

"There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the change of the seasons... from uneven care of the body... from harsh treatment... from the result of kamma. [kammavipaka is 'the result of kamma' - I'm not sure what jānipi refers to] update - jānipi is a verb, I believe it means 'coming from.'

Anyhow, now that I've lost half of my readers (and myself) down this strange tangent, I'll return to my point: how extensive is karma?

The counter argument seems to come in Shantideva's great work "A Guide to teh Bodhisattva Way of Life." Here he discusses, in his chapter on Patience, the notion that karma, or our past actions, must be considered whenever we are to place blame for (our) suffering. Giving the example of someone striking him he states (translated by Wallace and Wallace, 1997):

43. Both his weapon and my body are causes of suffering. He has obtained a weapon, and I have obtained a body. With what should I be angry?

44. Blinded by craving, I have obtained this boil that appears as a human body, which cannot bear to be touched. When there is pain, with whom should I be angry?

Thus it seems that even being embodied as humans is attributable to karma - and if that is the case, then all that follows is due to karma too. Just as if I drop a rock on a mountain top that hits some more rocks and they hit some more, creating an avalanche, it can be said that I caused the avalanche and whatever distruction happened to follow.

We can discuss a remote/proximate distinction regarding karma. But I think it would be correct to say then that everything that happens to us has some moral (karmic) dimension - as Tibetan Buddhists seem to stress. So we can speak of accidents, but not mere accidents. That is, accidents can occur, but always within the domain of karma. Likewise if I am attacked there is always some extent to which I am responsible for that, simply for making the choices to be at that place and time (or even embodied).

The distinction may turn out to be nothing, but I have a sense that it is important for a 'Kantian' understanding of Buddhist Ethics, since for Kant humans always have the capacity of reason (and morality). Thus every situation is within the moral realm to some degree. Accidents can happen to me, but to say it was totally an accident (denying all agency on my own part) would be to deny my own freedom in the matter - to enter into Sartrean 'bad faith.'

Likewise I think a Buddhist must acknowledge that even his indigestion is at least proximately a result of his karma (to have a body and eat spicy foods). But that appears to contradict Harvey's conclusion that, "not everything that happens to a person is seen as due to karma." Would it be more correct to say that "not everything... is seen as due directly to karma, but everything that happens is in some proximate way still attributable to karma (cf. Shantideva, CH 6...)."

To throw in one more curve-ball, it goes back to the five niyamas (or laws) as well. The logical structure could be one of nesting; i.e.

1) all that is, is within dhamma-niyama
2) within that is a category of (moral) action, the kamma-niyama
3) within kamma-niyama are mental actions, citta-niyama
4) only within mind (citta) are organic or cyclical processes, bija-niyama
5) and within that is the category and laws of mere matter, utu-niyama.

Perhaps I'm trying to impose too much logical clarity to Buddhist thought where there simply is none, but that looks awfully tidy if that is how they constructed it.

It also could be helpful in compairing with Kant's phenomenal/noumenal distinction in which mind plays a nicely central role with the thing-in-itself and morality on one side and planets and physics on the other.

Enlightenment? First Königsburg

2007-10-29T17:21:00.000Z

It has been a while since I have delved into the riches of Kantian philosophy, mostly due to the burn-out of overexposure during my MA program in Montana. So it brought me doubled pleasure today to pick up Allen W. Wood's book Kant. I figured this general introduction would be a fine way to ease my way back into Kant's work. And it was perfect.

In the preface, Wood, whose works on Kant have been the backbone of my own knowledge of this great philosopher warns us of falling too much in love with Kant as a person. Our interest in his life "may be historical, or antiquarian, or it may be mere idle curiosity. But it has nothing at all to do with his philosophy."

Really? Does a philosopher's life really have nothing to do with his philosophy? In fact I just had a conversation with my flatmates, agreeing with one that a philosopher's life must have something to do with his/her philosophy. After all, how can one tell us the nature of the world having never experienced it, or how to live having led a terrible life?

Can't we take note of Sartre's wartime experience and bad luck with women as we try to temper his pessimism toward humanity and sexuality? Shouldn't Heidegger's refusal to repudiate his Nazi past give us some pause when reading his advocacy of a folkish ('focal things') based life. And of course there is Hume's admission that his own epistemology made no sense even to himself once he set down pen and went out for drinks with friends. And likewise, shouldn't philosophers known for their virtue, both intellectual and personal, deserve special attention?

Yet Wood persists, "It is unhealthy and completely unphilosophical to venerate philosophers of the past as gurus at whose feet we should sit in order to absorb their wisdom. Such an attitude toward any other person, whether living or dead, betrays a contemptible slavishness of mind that it is incompatible with doing philosophy at all." Wow, pretty heavy words. And he continues, "In holding that opinion, I am, incidentally, also being a good Kantian, since Kant regarded the practice of those who set up others as models for imitation as morally corrupt, tending sooner to produce either self-contempt or envy than virtue." He concludes that such a view, "should be held only because experience shows it to be true -- and true even about Kant himself." (p. x)

To conclude the preface, Wood admits, "that the boldness of Kant's insights and the power of his arguments sometimes awaken in me feelings of admiration..." even to the point of veneration. At that point he takes it as a sign to quit reading Kant and switch to another thinker such as Hume or Hegel, "regarding whom such exceedingly anti-philosophical sentiments are not presently sapping my critical powers and clouding my good judgment."

Any truly contemporary Buddhist thought must agree with this. It is so easy to read or listen uncritically, whereas it takes real work to listen critically and think for yourself. As an aside, it's also easy to be cynical and not listen at all! For a good example of a critical analysis of one of the earliest Buddhist texts - which itself calls for critical analysis! - see this recent post by (the other) Justin at Progressive Buddhism.

A lot of work needs to be done today: fighting the current of consumerism, the idolization of Hollywood and the Twiggy body-type (yikes) on the one hand and coming to a sensible understanding of karma, rebirth, hell-realms, and other sorts of Buddhist strangeness on the other. And at times it is difficult. But it is always rewarding. Sapere aude - Dare to know!

IMMANUEL KANT

An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?"

Konigsberg in Prussia, 30th September, 1784.

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!

Was ist Aufklärung? in German (with audio)
What is Enlightenment? (English e-text)
What is Enlightenment? as discussed by Michel Foucault in 1978 (English e-text)

Un-American, not Deep, and Un-Buddhist!?

2007-10-26T17:13:00.000+01:00

Some mundane aspects of life in London:

(from 19/10/2007)

Here in the UK I really have no desire to meet, talk with, stand near, or otherwise relate to other Americans. So much so that I sometimes try not to talk when I know Americans are around, for fear of being ‘found out.’ So far, the plan is working brilliantly.

There was a close call once, at a lecture given by some famous Russian guy now teaching in California. My housemate Sjors (from Holland) pointed out two American men and said, “Oh, Justin, there are some other Americans, actually real Americans I could introduce you to.”

After some inquiry I learned that my lack of ketchup consumption and use of the word ‘cool’ have rendered me ‘un-American.’

As any of my faithful readers (and you both know who you are) know, I kind of think of myself as a rather ‘deep’ thinker. So it came with great sadness one day when Sjors (the very same) described to me his hair-brain theory (look that one up in your Dutch-English dictionary) that all thought consists on a sort of ‘bubble’ – and that when someone thinks they’re having a ‘deep’ thought, it’s really just another superficial thought, only somewhere else on the bubble by itself. In effect, his theory describes all of my philosophizing as: “not deep, just different.”

Right. So now I’m un-American and shallow.

Most recently, I took a walk around central London with Lenart, a Slovenian ~~paparazzi~~ journalist. My American geography, based on cold-war era high school textbooks, doesn’t include ‘Slovenia.’ So, out of embarrassment I checked out a children’s guide to new EU countries from the college library. It tells me Slovenia is a new country, emerging from the collapse of Yugoslavia, with sunny beaches, mountain lakes, and pretty girls; also that it is quite small. Lenart supports this by telling me, “you can ski by day and have drinks on the beach by evening.” (drinks with a pretty girl, no doubt)

Lenart and I were walking in London and entered Soho, famous for its theatres, just a few blocks from Piccadilly circus (which, for my fellow Americans, is not really a “circus” in the Ringling Bros sense). And not long after we passed two girls, scantily clad and just standing there staring at everyone including us as we pass, Lenart informed me, “Ah, yes. And in case you ever have an Un-Buddhist thought… This is the place to find street girls.”

Hmmm… Un-American, not deep, and now I’m given pointers on where to purchase sexual favors (favours) in case I turn out also to be Un-Buddhist. Not bad for just four weeks.

Update (23/10/07)

Tonight, after 5 or so minutes of chatting, one of the ladies in the room below mine said, in a normal voice, “Hi Justin, can you hear us?”

“Hi Sana, yep” I answered back.

A brief conversation ensued - at basically normal speaking voice, through my floor and into Shahnaz’s room - after which the ladies decided to move to another part of the flat.

(today)

Last night we (Lenart, Sana, Shahnaz and I) discussed the merits of living where we do (Batavia Mews, aka Batavia mouse). Sure it's

mouse infested - I recently had one walk into my room (under the door) look up at me and leave,
noisy - traffic out front with police/ambulance sirens passing directly below every 15 minutes, a major nightclub, Venue, a half-block away, and each other through thin walls and floors.
poorly maintained - broken showers, clogged sinks, failed heating/hot water have all been faced and some actually fixed in the last month; bathroom hooks and towel racks, broken who knows when, remain unfixed.
in an unsafe neighborhood - one gang/drug related murder down the street last month, a couple mugging stories, broken car windows....
anything left out?...

But, at least:

It's cheap (by London standards). Rent is a mere £86/week, roughly $175, or $700/month per room for 20 of us... I guess in central London a tiny flat can cost £800-1500, or $1600-3000/month. Even the other student housing around here is an extra £15-25/week, which ads up pretty fast.

and
We'll have great stories to tell our kids/grand kids. As Lenart pointed out, great stories are usually based on experiences that aren't really fun when they're happening. Those people in fancy places are surely bored with it. Yay.

Buddhism, propaganda, anti-propaganda propaganda and so on

2007-10-24T22:01:00.000+01:00

It seems like I've been discussing propaganda and the media a lot lately. A lot of it started when I watched Dove's new ad, Onslaught (posted on my friend Patia's blog). The ad made me feel sick to my stomach by first showing an innocent little red-haired girl (of course a spitting image of my future daughter) and then a flurry of advertising images aimed at women. It just gets worse after that with dieting images and then (worse!) plastic surgery... The commercial ends with our little girl and the words:

Talk to your daughter before
the beauty industry does.

"Wow.... Bravo," I thought, "way to go Dove for spending your hard-earned advertising budget on something positive." Now I'm not naïve. I know that this kind of advertising might just make it more likely that I will choose to by Dove next time I'm at the store (fact check: yep, I am a long-time Dove purchaser, but I think more because it's cheaper than other name-brands). But I figure that if their ads are actually a force for good, I'd much rather support them anyhow.

Then I read a post on The Situationist called, "Hey Dove! Talk to YOUR Parent." Apparently Dove is a subsidiary of a larger company, Unilever, which also makes Lynx body spray. And it just so happens that Lynx advertising is about as awful as it gets (you can see the ads in the Situationist post - picture hundreds of girls in tiny bikinis running at a guy with the words:

Spray more
Get more

displayed on the screen.

So... In effect Unilever is warning us against the evils of the beauty industry with its right hand and exploiting women and sexuality as a whole with its left. Pretty sinister, huh? Exploit sexuality, make money. Exploit the fact that a lot of us are fed up with the exploitation of sexuality, make more money. Next we'll see another Unilever company warning us against commercials altogether (at last!). And making more money (booo!).

I also discussed this a bit with, Lenart, one of my new flatmates. I said, "can't we just create commercials that teach us to see through all this corporate crap, to see that we're being brainwashed with images of beauty, masculinity, prosperity, and so on." He told me they tried that with young people [in Slovenia I think, where he's from]. But one problem: they underestimate the power of these industries. Even when people know that they're being brainwashed by it all, they are still affected.

~~~

So, on the one hand I'm being told that I'm too fat, too old, too poor (and all this would be solved if I just purchased X or Y-services) and that my fiancée is also somehow failing in every way that she isn't a wafer-thin twenty-two year-old rich model (really, they tell me this, I'm not making it up). That's one thing. I think I can even handle all of that. I love myself and my fiancée and I've read enough philosophy to know that youth, beauty, and/or wealth do not bring happiness.

But then this:

It's not that I'm opposed to the armed forces per se, but the glamorization of them really disturbs me.

Even more bizzare was this (from my new abode of England):

It mixes battle scenes, running with an injured person, and running across a tropical beach with (you guessed it) skinny, bikini-clad women. To give it credit though, at least it focuses more on what looks like the humanitarian aspects of the armed forces while the US ad just kind of pounds in the notion of Strength (which in itself isn't a bad thing).

Now for the 'anti-propaganda' propaganda. I couldn't find the original that this spoofs - I'd love a nice side-by-side comparison - but I'm sure you know the gist of it.

And, oddly equally stomach-wrenching (shouldn't it be more) as the Dove ad:

And this poignant rap:

The question: who to trust in the midst of all this? Nobody?

Yep. Nobody. As I meditate on one of the central themes in Buddhism, ignorance (Skt. avidya, Pali avijja), I see that both sides are filled with misconstruals of the truth (i.e. lies). And I, as a third ignorant party, have my own dilusions about the matters.

Considering the Dove ads, the biggest mistake would be to think that we see here 'both sides' of the industry or the beauty debate. Far from it. We're getting two corporate angles, two methods of selling stuff. As my friend Lenart pointed out to me, "at the end of the day, you're still getting the same message, that you have to buy things, or there is something wrong with you."

With the military/anti-military ads it is slightly different in that you're getting two radically different messages. But both distort the facts, both play with our emotions with graphics (and the music in that first one, sheesh). But in the end we could say they're both selling something, an ideology. And the ideology of militarism is one that will get more than a few bucks out of your pocket - it can get chunks of your life, perhaps all of it. And anti-militarism seeks no less (though I doubt they can recruit many, like Cindy Sheehan, that will put their life on hold for the cause).

So where does the Buddhist stand in the midst of all of this? A bit bewildered? Yes, quite likely. I don't recall if it was Lenart of me that suggested that we need a Buddhist advertising company - producing comercials that just tell us to be happy with who we are, to love those around us, to find contentment in a simple life, practice generosity, and so on.

Ahhh... but wait. (I think I blogged about just one such music video not to long ago)... Perhaps it's not quite perfect, but it's a start:

Based on the teachings of Mipham Rinpoche ("Mipham the Great", 1846-1912). It takes a minute to get into, but watch it (at least listen) to the very end - it's worth it.

may you be happy

may you be happy

may you be happy.

I'm sure this won't end our worries about beauty and war today, tomorrow, or in the near future. But it does seem to be the Buddhist answer. To quote from Bikkhu Bodhi on the power and importance of simply following the precept to abstain from harm:

The Buddha says that one who abstains from the destruction of life gives immeasurable safety and security to countless living beings. How the simple observance of a single precept leads to such a result is not immediately obvious but calls for some thought. Now by myself I can never give immeasurable safety and security to other beings by any program of positive action. Even if I were to go on protest against all the slaughterhouses in the world, or to march against war continuously without stopping, by such action I could never stop the slaughter of animals or ensure that war would come to an end. But when I adopt for myself the precept to abstain from the destruction of life, then by reason of the precept I do not intentionally destroy the life of any living being. Thus any other being can feel safe and secure in my presence; all beings are ensured that they will never meet harm from me. Of course even then I can never ensure that other living beings will be absolutely immune from harm and suffering, but this is beyond anyone's power. All that lies within my power and the sphere of my responsibility are the attitudes and actions that emanate from myself towards others. And as long as these are circumscribed by the training rule to abstain from taking life, no living being need feel threatened in my presence, or fear that harm and suffering will come from me.

Why Buddhist Ethics? - and how

2007-10-19T14:07:00.000+01:00

(some notes toward future conference papers/my thesis)

To begin it should be stated why one needs to study and understand Buddhist Ethics. One could argue that since it is not an obvious category within the tradition itself that Western scholars really have little place trying to create a 'Buddhist Ethics.' It has also been suggested that doing so only distorts Buddhist thinking with the concerns of Western thought.

To the first objection it must be stated that while Buddhism seems to have little in terms of explicit thought dedicated to a category answering the question, 'how ought I act' in a way that the West has, it does have a wellspring of injunctions on proper living combined with teachings on the methods (meditation) and understandings that give rise to awakening (in fact these three are encapsulated and expounded upon as the three-fold path of sila, samadhi, and pañña, often translated as ethics, meditation, and wisdom). In my own work I see all three of these as necessary elements of what in the West we study as Ethics.

The second objection is far more important and far more difficult to overcome. Over time the Buddha's teachings have been (mis) used to support Schopenhauer's pessimism toward the world, Victorian British humanism and rationalism (explicitly contra Christian dogma and superstition), and the American anti-authoritarian hippy/drug culture of the 1960s. It has also been abused by Nietzsche as life-denying nihilism, by Italian missionaries as Satan's version of Catholicism, and so on. It seems that few from the West have been able to come to Buddhism with clear eyes. Instead, as Damien Keown notes at the start of his Very Short Introduction to Buddhism, we are like blind men sent to examine an elephant and report back what we have found: one grabs the leg and reports it is a post, another gets the side and reports it is a granary (or a barn), and so on.

Yet this does not mean that the work should not be done. One important reason is that 'Buddhist' and 'Western' are no longer exclusive categories (as if they ever really were). Today more and more Europeans and Americans are becoming Buddhists or adopting elements of it into their lives. At the same time, the influence of Western thought now pervades traditional Buddhist countries. Even many the most 'traditional' Buddhists there are interacting with Westerners and their thoughts and this cannot help but influence their teachings on Buddhism.

The criticism does stand though, and ways to handle it are being sought. One method, employed in the recent volume, Indian Ethics: Classical Traditions and Contemporary Challenges is to encourage a two-directional exchange in which traditionally Western concepts and categories are used to interpret Indian thought and vise versa. This is done to avoid the all too common practice of 'cherry-picking' bits of thought and running them through your categories to prove your point (Victorian Englishmen, German Philosophers, Italian Missionaries, and most recently American Hippies have all been shown to have done just this). I will attempt to follow the authors and editors in Indian Ethics by utilizing the categories of Buddhism to critique Kant (and Western thought) as much as the latter are used to critique the former. [fn. 'critique' here is used to mean examine, not criticize] Just as language of rights and duties cannot be left out in a fair discussion of Kant, notions of kamma (Skt. karma) and rebirth cannot be conveniently set aside in illustrating Buddhist ethics.

cf. Cooper and James, p.39: "Two conceptions in the general framework that the Buddha certainly did not repudiate are the related ones of rebirth and karma. These are not conceptions that will loom large in our exposition and interpretation of Buddhist moral thought. And that, perhaps, is just as well, for if these notions play an indispensable role in Buddhist ethics then it is not an ethics that could have much appeal outside Buddhist and Hindu circles -- for people, that is, who are unable to subscribe to the doctrines of rebirth and karmic law."

This, it seems, is like saying we will set aside conceptions of God and Heaven in our discussion of Christian ethics because those are not things to which everyone can subscribe; or that we will set aside conceptions of the equality of humanity and evolution in our discussion of Humanistic ethics. Certainly, it must be admitted, the resulting description will be distorted. Ethics and other issues dealing with what may be called metaphysics, cosmology, and ontology, cannot so easily be set asunder - certainly not in Buddhism.

On the other hand, describing Ethics by simply observing the activity of people and perhaps asking them why they act thus (what I will term the anthropological method) does provide its insight. [fn. see pp. 1-2 of Indian Ethics for discussion of three methods of Ethics] Furthermore, it might be argued that many Buddhists don't think much about karma or rebirth as shaping their actions (or that Christians don't think much about God or Heaven). But, just because a Christian's first answer for 'why do you do this' may not include these notions, they are none the less central to her reasoning. For, if asked 'why' her answer was given, before long these concepts will be invoked as something like 'final reasons.'

This questioning in the service of seeking higher (or 'deeper' - choose your imagery) reasoning is the providence of a second method in Ethics, which I will refer to as the culturally philosophical method). Here the reasons which unite a whole tradition are fleshed out; these are the reasons which ultimately unite Christians to other Christians and Buddhists to Buddhists and so on.

A third method, the universally philosophical method, also known as meta-ethics, seeks to unite traditions, to show how they say the same things at times and why they differ at others. Meta-ethics also seeks to show the inconsistencies within traditions and at times to show the supremacy of one over another.

All three of these methods must be used to get a full understanding of Buddhist Ethics, which ranges from such anthropological issues of who becomes a monk/nun and why to very philosophical questions of why the Buddha taught the idea of anatta (Skt. anatman = no-self, or not-self, or non-self). And though he did not employ the current Anglo-American analytic idiom, he did discuss such things as the definition of brahmin (or priestly-caste person, stating that the definition depends upon deeds, not birth) and kamma (or action, by equating it with cetana = intention).

This work of the Buddha (or his early followers, as it may be argued that we cannot say for certain that any of the Pali Canon really is the Buddha's words [cf. Gombrich on this]) is done within a given cosmology, with a given metaphysics, and so on. And, while it is often cited in Western 'dharma books' that the Buddha eschewed metaphysical inquiry, he did teach of and within a stated metaphysical world-view.

Thus, while we may not accept certain aspects of the world-view presented in the early texts, or we may find it internally contradictory at times, we still must not set any part of it aside if we are attempting to understand Buddhist Ethics. Once we understand that framework in its wholeness we can properly ask both why certain aspects changed (for instance, as Buddhism flourished in Tibet and China) and if (and under what circumstances) certain aspects may be subject to change today, as Buddhism and the West collide.

Buddhism: two suttas

2007-10-19T12:42:00.000+01:00

Some notes:

(from access to insight):

SN 22.86: Anuradha Sutta — To Anuradha {S iii 116; CDB i 936; this sutta is identical to SN 44.2} [Thanissaro]. Ven. Anuradha learns that if you can't even locate the Tathagata in space when he's sitting right in front of you, how can you ever hope to answer questions about his fate after death?
SN 22.89: Khemaka Sutta — About Khemaka {S iii 126; CDB i 942} [Thanissaro]. Although dis-identification with the five aggregates indeed plays a crucial role in becoming a noble disciple, full Awakening calls for more.

The Anuradha Sutta is where I found for my last post the often quoted line (found at the bottom) "it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress." - of course it should be noted that the translation uses 'stress' for dukkha and I used 'suffering.' I think 'unsatisfactoriness' is the best English term to capture the meaning of dukkha, but it is also clumsy (7 syllables).

The gist of the sutta is partly that asking questions about 'where do I go when I die' is useless because there is no 'I' to go anywhere. The Buddha goes through the standard list of constituents (khandas: form, feeling, perception, concepts, consciousness) that could constitute the 'I' or 'soul' and gets Anuradha to agree that each of them is changing, unsatisfactory, and hence no-self.

"What do you think, Anuradha: Is form [and so on] constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord."

"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."

Even the idea, 'I have a soul' (which would be classified as a concept) comes and goes. So too for the being in front of you: no part (khanda) of him/her is permanent.

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

"No, lord."

"Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."

It is precisely when we give up the fruitless search for the eternal, unchanging, always-satisfying etc. that we find release from our suffering. Or as my old professor Alan Sponberg put it: Buddhism in three words, "just let go."

The Khemaka Sutta is about a monk near death who has given up his clinging to the five khandas. But still he has not attained the awakening an arahant (Pali for 'worthy one'). This introduces the notion of residual clinging.

"Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession.

The five fetters:

avijja (ignorance),
tanha (craving),
vicikiccha (doubt),
mana (conceit), and
sakkaya-ditthi (self-identity view, personality-belief).

The analogy is then drawn between a such a view and a soiled cloth. Even when the cloth is cleaned it still retains some residual smell of the cleaning product (which curiously could have been salt earth, lye, or cow-dung!). It will still take some time for this new scent to disappear.

Likewise the noble disciple, even having overcome the fetters by the teaching and practice, still has notions that must be dispelled before awakening is established (cf the raft simile).

(note the image here of a soiled cloth being cleaned - compare that to the 'removing the paint' analogy of my last post - the Buddha's teaching is centrally one of unbecoming wrong traits/views, not becoming this or that type of person)

ps - if you are better with Pali than me (which isn't too hard) and can find these suttas at the Tipitaka in Pali sight on the right. I suspect it is here, here, or here.

Buddhism and Life as a Whole

2007-10-19T11:32:00.000+01:00

Just a sketch of a point to be filled in later, over time:

Cooper and James write:

It has been rightly observed that 'the point of entry for ethical reflection' (Annas 1993: Ch.1) among these ancient thinkers [Aristotle, Epicurus, the Stoics] was the individual person's concern for his or her life as a whole...

One of my intuitions about Buddhism not being a virtue ethics is the sense that Buddhism isn't really so concerned with 'life as a whole.' Buddhism is far more concentrated on just one aspect of life: suffering and its end.

For 'virtue ethicists' this must be an overly focused view and leaves out all of the 'substantive' work of cultivating this and that virtue. For in virtue ethics the goal is to cultivate a good life, the good life is defined by 'concern for ... life as a whole'.

On the other hand the goal of Buddhism is the alleviation of suffering, defined as the removal of greed/lust, aversion/hatred, and ignorance/non-seeing.

Is that fairly clear?

Virtue ethics is like finding a great painting (a virtuous person) and trying to recreate it in oneself. It takes time, education, and trial and error until one has finally made him/herself into a fellow virtuous person. It requires good judgment about what qualities are virtuous, and how to cultivate them.

Buddhist ethics is like finding a painting, any painting (oneself) and trying to pick all the paint off to expose the perfect surface underneath. Its about letting go of conceptions of 'great' - judgments that get between oneself and reality, conceits that cut off spontaneity. In the process one becomes freer, and this freedom manifests itself in wisdom and compassion.

But the logic goes thus: free oneself from greed/aversion/ignorance and you will grow in wisdom and compassion on the path to awakening. It is not: cultivate wisdom and compassion as character traits that will make you awakened. Thoughts?

Dalai Lama is awarded the U.S. Congressional Gold Medal

2007-10-17T18:16:00.000+01:00

"May I become at all times, both now and forever
A protector for those without protection
A guide for those who have lost their way
A ship for those with oceans to cross
A bridge for those with rivers to cross
A sanctuary for those in danger
A lamp for those without light
A place of refuge for those who lack shelter
And a servant to all in need."

Buddhism, art, and 'stuff'

2007-10-17T12:05:00.001+01:00

I've read bits of Stephani Kaza's wonderful book (I bought a copy for my mother) Hooked!: Buddhist Writings on Greed, Desire, and the Urge to Consume and recall one good story about a Buddhist practitioner who 'religiously' only has something like 600 objects in his (or her) home; when he buys something new, he must give away one of those items. Apparently it brought enormous mindfulness to his life in our consumer culture. "Brilliant," I thought, and then bought an extra copy of the book for myself.

Then yesterday I came across this in the Boston Globe: "Toothpaste, light switches, remotes: Artist finds room in her life for her stuff." This story of painter Gail Martin perfectly captures the struggles of contemporary consumerist/Buddhist life (at least for those sheltered far, far away from places like Burma and Iraq).

"I study Buddhism and I practice meditation, and one of the teachings is always that desire leads to suffering," Martin said recently. "My house is full, I can't fit anything more in my house, I have everything I need, but that urge to acquire new things never abates. The next shiny bauble I see, I want."

Her solution? Paint it - all of it, or at least a bit every day for 365 days. And the result?

Is that a Buddha with a laptop!?

"It was interesting, when I finished the project there was definitely a bit of disenchantment with possessions and a bit of an abatement of the urge to acquire more things," she said, adding with a laugh, "Of course, another teaching of Buddhism is that desire is never-ending. . . . It's pretty much back now."

"Somebody saw this work in preview at my open studio last spring and said, 'Oh, it's about stuff, huh? Well now you have 365 more things!' And it's like, oh, darn, I hadn't thought of that. I think part of the detachment thing is, it's like a virtual yard sale. I get to let go of the things without actually having to let go of the actual object. There's a lot of ironies in it."

Oh, the woes of samsara. At least we can make it pretty.

Buddhism and War

2007-10-15T14:53:00.000+01:00

As the issue of Burma seems to slip away, many are still asking, 'what can I do?' From across the Buddhist world there are many suggestions, ranging from surgical strikes (Tom from Zen Unbound) to continued pacifism and khanti or patient endurance (Gary from Forest Wisdom, commenting on my last post here).

Tom also recently brought to my attention a couple articles attempting to address the issue of War in early Buddhist thought. The first, by Professor P. D. Premasiri (University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka) argues that Buddhism has no place for a so-called 'just' war:

...the Theravada canonical scriptures considered to be the primary source of the Buddhist system of moral values ... contain absolutely no instance in which violence is advocated as a means of achieving it [peace]. This is in clear contrast to Hindu scriptures like the Bhagavadgita that contain a concept of a righteous war [dharma yuddha].

Furthermore:

The doctrine of the Buddha is such that one who lives in accordance with it succeeds in living in the world without coming into conflict with anyone [na kenaci loke viggayha titthati].

And thus,

Conflict is explained ... as a consequence of an unenlightened response to one's sensory environment.... The selfish pursuit of sense pleasures [kama] is considered as the root cause of conflict. Where there is sympathetic concern, compassion, sharing, charitableness and generosity conflict can be minimized. The latter attitudes, however, are not instinctive. They need to be cultivated through proper reflection and insightful understanding.

And perhaps most importantly:

The point made by the Buddha in this connection is that people are psychologically incapable of forming opinions about what is right and wrong, just and unjust, righteous and unrighteous while being immersed in their defiled psychological condition. They may express strong convictions about what is just and right, but when objectively examined they turn out to be mere rationalizations of their pre-conceived notions, desires, cravings, likes and dislikes.

On the other hand Damien Keown (Goldsmiths, University of London) who in his article argues that Dr. Premasiri and early Buddhism both fall into 'psychological reductionism' when dealing with war and other moral issues. This is unfortunate, he argues, because it fails (perhaps) to evaluate the situation on the proper level:

Does not politics usually enter into the picture, not to mention, law, religion, history, as explanations as to why wars occur? To reduce all this to psychology is surely an oversimplification.

He argues that if we speak of the 'use of force' instead of 'violence' then suddenly Buddhism is more ambivalent.

...for example: to restrain an emotionally disturbed person who seeks to harm himself; to subdue rowdy passengers who threaten the safety of an aeroplane; to control violent thugs who terrorise innocent citizens... And if the use of force is justifiable in these circumstances, then why not on the larger scale of a military campaign?

And that, while not explicitly accepted, there are indications of a 'just war' theory in early Buddhism.

But it seems to me that Buddhism does indeed make a distinction between just and unjust wars. For instance, the just war in Buddhism is the war that would be fought by the Cakkavatti. Although as far as I am aware he is never actually depicted as waging war in the texts, he certainly has an army and presumably is prepared to use it when necessary (if not, why is it there?).

...The recent UN intervention in Bosnia may provide an example of the kind of situation where military force may be necessary as a last resort for humanitarian reasons. Situations of this kind seem to demonstrate that the use of force need not always be tainted by greed, hatred and delusion.

Thus he concludes:

i) to analyze war primarily in terms of psychology is to overlook its essential moral dimension; this is the result of the standard Buddhist strategy of psychologizing ethics; ii) the use of force can be justified in certain circumstances; iii) Buddhism accepts the concept of a 'just war' iv) there is nothing intrinsically immoral about a just war and v) participating in one need not be motivated by greed, hatred or delusion.

It does not seem to me that these papers are truly in conflict with one another, but rather they address the same issue from differing perspectives within Buddhism. Dr. Premasiri's point is that within Buddhism, the most important work we can do each day, each moment, is the work of removing our own defilements. Until then we are likely to cause more harm than good with all of our wars.

But, Dr. Keown's point is equally valid, that Buddhism does allow for force to be used to stop or avert suffering. The common ground between the two is in the waging of purely defensive wars. Premasiri suggests this, stating that "Buddhism does not envisage a society in which the necessity for engaging in war never arises. Perhaps the implication is that even a righteous Cakkavatti who will not engage in wars of imperialist aggression, would need to fight in self-defence."

Of course that still leaves the strict definition of defensive open to debate, but it would certainly rule out speculative 'pre-emptive' wars such as that currently going on in Iraq. It would also rule out ideology-based wars such as that in Vietnam forty years ago. And yet it would seemingly allow for the Allied involvement in the two World Wars as well as the NATO action in Bosnia mentioned above. That is, these wars were waged in defence of a pre-existing peace.

WWII

It gets murky of course, as the real world rarely conforms to simple principles and this is perhaps why Buddhism, for the most part, says little about 'the real world' and focuses on basic rules of conduct and meditative discipline. The American involvement in the second World War, for instance, does not very easily constitute a purely defensive war. Certainly, it could be argued that our Buddhist principles demand minimal response: perhaps crippling the Japanese Navy, strikes on any German U-Boats encroaching on US vessels, and nothing more. And yet we (most of us) feel that the employment of the entire US forces was indeed just.

IRAQ

On the other hand, most of us feel that the current war in Iraq is unjust. It is unclear who exactly we might be or have been defending: threats to the US and Britain were grossly exaggerated and even Israel it seems could hardly have been harmed by the weak and demoralized Iraqi army. On the other hand it is quite clear who has suffered from the war. It is perhaps debatable whether ordinary Iraqis are better off now than they would be if there had been no war. My impression is that they are worse off. Yet there can be no doubt that 3829 US soldiers have suffered the ultimate price and over 25,000 more have been wounded. That is not even to mention the emotional scars that thousands more will carry with them forever. One must remember that while over 58,000 US soldiers died in the Vietnam War, over 70,000 later took their own lives. (a recent story on US army suicides)

It seems also that, as mentioned, the principles of Buddhism could not allow for a war such as that in Iraq. Based on Keown's discussion of 'just war' theory in Aquinas, it seems that in that tradition as well, this war is unjust: "war must be declared by a competent authority, it must be declared as a last resort only after all non-violent options have been explored, it can only be fought to address a wrong suffered (the classic example is self-defence against an armed attack), if there is a reasonable chance of success, and with the aim of re-establishing peace."

Perhaps it is as one of my good friends says, that only time can judge (in fact the Dalai Lama himself has said this back in 2005, clarifying in 2006 that history had indeed made clear, " - too many killings"). On the other hand it may be clear enough that, as Rev. Danny Fisher put it:

At some point, everyone connected to this war needs to own their accountability and respond. They have to refuse service, refuse to pay taxes, refuse to sign over funds, demonstrate, and so on. A Buddhism that would excuse us from looking at the realities and the complexities of war is unacceptable.

I agree wholeheartedly with the first and last sentences, but Buddhism demands we each come to our own conclusions about specific actions (though Danny's suggestions are noble). And this lack of decisive and authoritarian ethics is perhaps both the greatest strength and the greatest weakness in Buddhism. The judgments of each of us must take into account our own mental states; we must know ourselves before trying to solve world-political issues. But Buddhism does not advocate self-knowledge for its own sake, but rather as a stage of development necessary for the sake of compassionate activity toward all living beings. We must understand were we are, and be willing to go boldly from there:

For as long as space endures
And for as long as living beings remain,
Until then may I too abide
To dispel the misery of the world.

For as long as space endures
And for as long as living beings remain,
Until then may I too abide
To dispel the misery of the world.

Burma: a sadness so unbelievable

2007-10-14T13:02:00.000+01:00

In an article today in the New York Times, several more first-hand accounts of the recent demonstrations and crack-down are given. The article, titled "A Few Voices From the Deepening Silence" provides a few intimate stories of those who were there.

A housewife recalled the brutality she saw while shopping for food Sept. 28:

...Someone who was with me at a previous job lost her son in these protests. He might have been on his way home, but we don’t know. This mother had a friend in the army and she asked him for help. He told her to stay home and — no questions. The son, her only child, is still missing.
~
A young man described how the junta has clamped down on social exchange, destroying trust among people:
There is no more connection between people. It’s been broken... This is not the end. This is just a stopping point and we are not satisfied. We don’t know the future but we will keep our anger burning inside.
~
A teacher talked about the pain of seeing Buddhism desecrated and the fear of the military that spread among the monks:
I cannot continue to tolerate this. We only hope that bad karma will fall upon them but there’s nothing else we can do now.... The day after the shootings started, I went to this monastery and the faces that I saw on those monks was something I had never seen. It is not fear. It was a sadness so unbelievable.
~
A businessman whose company lost an enormous amount of business during the upheaval lamented Myanmar’s isolation:
My own experience of traveling to other countries opened my mind and changed my life. I loved the freedom I found in the United States. It was something I had never experienced. If I hadn’t spent time abroad, I would have ended up as a military man. Or else I could have been an informer exposing the conversation we’re having right now.

Take action

Nirvana: who wants it?

2007-10-13T12:47:00.000+01:00

One of the hot little debates in contemporary Buddhist Studies is focused on the nature of Nirvana and who exactly wants it.

Background:

The debate began in 1964, to the best of my knowledge, when Winston King published "In the Hope of Nibbana; an Essay on Theravada Buddhist Ethics." There he describes a split soteriology (that is, two distinct goals) within Buddhism:

that of the laity (heaven or a better human rebirth) and
that of monks (nirvana).

For him this was based on empirical evidence. He did field research in Burma and Thailand (I believe) and simply asked people there why they practiced Buddhism. In general, the laity said, "to gain merit toward a better rebirth [in heaven or on earth]" while monks and (presumably) nuns said, "to attain nirvana."

His findings are supported, moreover, in the textual work in Richard Gombrich's "Theravada Buddhism." There (pp. 73-4) he states that, "... the Buddha expected those seriously interested in attaining salvation to become monks or nuns, that meditation was considered to be normally impossible for laity, and that much of the Buddha's teaching was only given to the Sangha." Gombrich gives the example of the very moving Anathapindikovada Sutta, in which Anathapindika, a lay patron of the Buddha is visited by Sariputta on his deathbed.

Sariputta attends to Anathapindika with calm and soothing words, to which the layman responds that he is suffering greatly and near death. Having heard this, Sariputta gives a long teaching on non-clinging as the final training for the dying man.

When this was said, Anathapindika the householder wept and shed tears. Ven. Ananda said to him, "Are you sinking, householder? Are you foundering?"

"No, venerable sir. I'm not sinking, nor am I foundering. It's just that for a long time I have attended to the Teacher, and to the monks who inspire my heart, but never before have I heard a talk on the Dhamma like this."

"This sort of talk on the Dhamma, householder, is not given to lay people clad in white. This sort of talk on the Dhamma is given to those gone forth."

"In that case, Ven. Sariputta, please let this sort of talk on the Dhamma be given to lay people clad in white. There are clansmen with little dust in their eyes who are wasting away through not hearing [this] Dhamma. There will be those who will understand it."

There is no indication that the monks follow Anathapindika's suggestion, but rather they leave and soon after he dies and is reborn in Tusita Heaven, one of the highest realms of rebirth in Buddhist cosmology.

"Elsewhere," Gombrich continues, "the Buddha says that monks have a duty to show laymen the way to heaven; note that he does not say the way to nibbana [= S. nirvana]." The sutta he refers to there is the Sigalovada Sutta, described as 'The Layperson's Code of Discipline.' The only thing I can find there is in the Buddha's reinterpretation of the devotion to the six directions (a ritual performed by laypeople in his day) to mean a set of devotions (or duties) to six sets of people:

East = Parents
South = One's teacher
West = Husband or Wife
North = Clansman (or friends)
Nadir = Servants and Employees
Zenith = Ascetics and Brahmins

All of these are reciprocal relationships, i.e. a list of five duties toward the other and five duties they have back toward you. One of the duties that Ascetics and Brahmins have toward the layperson (and interestingly the only place where there are six duties instead of five) is (vi) they point out the path to a heavenly state. Also worth noting is that the Buddha does not speak strictly of duties on the reciprocal end, but rather five ways that the others "show their compassion towards [the layperson]." Lastly, this does not necessarily refer to Buddhist monks (who may well be charged elsewhere to lead the laity to nirvana), as the Buddha uses the term samaṇabrāhmaṇā (Ascetics and Brahmins) and not bhikkhu. (you can find the whole Tipitaka in Pali here)

Analysis:

To come... In brief, I think there is something important here, the beginning of a 'wedge' of sorts between the hightest good of the worldly life (heaven) and that of the renunciate/bhikkhu (nirvana). Those working to classify Buddhist Ethics as a 'virtue ethics' have tried to argue this wedge away.

Perhaps everyone does seek nirvana, but many simply accept that it won't come in this life. I don't know. It certainly raises questions for me - and I'll be interested to here what others think.

Who do ya love?

2007-10-12T20:25:00.000+01:00

You, babe!

It is a perfect understanding
between a man and a woman. And it happens
in the blinking of an eye. This affinity
is born in a single moment, and is greater
than all other affinities, this spiritual
conversion we call: Love.

Khalil Gibran

Joy! What more can I say? Sometimes I get a bit too serious in this mucky old world of ours and I just have to see this face to recall how deeply, happily, enthusiastically, enstatically in LOVE I am.

To the one I love: thank you.

"the glorious inequalities of life"

2007-10-11T17:29:00.000+01:00

"God values men and women equally... It's just that he's given them different responsibilities in life: Men make decisions. Women make dinner."
- from a recent story in the L.A. Times about a new course in homemakeing at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Living in England now I sometimes feel very sad to be an American, other times I am defensive of what I still think is a pretty great nation. Then I read things like that. On the one hand, I'm sooooo glad I was neither raised Southern Baptist nor did I somehow fall in love with one! On the other hand I am saddened that this is the state of our country.

"In their vision, graduates will create such gracious homes that strangers will take note. Their marriages will be so harmonious, other women will ask how they manage. By modeling traditional values, they will inspire friends and neighbors to read the Bible and then, perhaps, to follow the Lord."

There is certain truth in the fact that living well will attract others to your way of life. But I somehow doubt that homemaking courses are the foundation to a harmonious and inspirational marriage. Yet what really catches my attention and raises my blood pressure a bit was this:

"For the rest of the nearly three-hour class, guest lecturer Ashley Smith, the wife of a theology professor, laid out the biblical basis for what she calls 'the glorious inequalities of life.'"

Three hours to pound in the idea that the women in the room were in fact subservient! If women and men are willing to go along with this garbage about biblically founded 'glorious inequalities' in the 21st century then one really must wonder what will come next. We all know that the bible is rife with rotten things, from the subjugation of women, the acceptance of slavery, disdain for homosexuals, non-Christians (heretics) and so on. And countless individuals, especially in the last two hundred years have fought, and many have died trying to dispel these myths of inequality.

For their sake, and for that of ourselves and our children, we need to continue the struggle toward the 'glorious equalities' of our shared humanity. People may claim this needs to be tolerated in some kind of religious inclusivism, but I disagree. We can, and should, welcome and defend all faiths (and the faithless), but only so long as they recognize the basic equalities of all persons. These equalities must take precedence over any holy text or authority which may claim otherwise.

Burma: Tibetans are Watching

2007-10-10T14:02:00.000+01:00

In an interesting bit of analysis on DNA India today, Venkatesan Vembu discusses the possibility of a Burma-like uprising in Tibet in the near future.

"... if there were protests in Lhasa today, hypothesises Dondup [a pseudonymous source within Tibet], Beijing would probably be constrained by the international focus on it in the context of the Olympics next year. “Would the Chinese government hesitate in cracking down?… Would this hesitation be enough to allow a few small protests to spiral into a challenge to Chinese rule?”
[full article here on Phayul]

Protesters wave Tibetan flags at the Oct. 6 Free Burma rally in London

Similarities between Burma and Tibet are at times striking, especially regarding the hand that Beijing plays in both. But the differences may be more important. Note that the power in Tibet is essentially foreign. To this day native Tibetans are in most all cases barred from public service positions, including political and military roles, in their own country. The Burmese military, on the other hand is home-grown. And in fact, as one commentator noted, both military and monastic life draw from similar social groups meaning that soldiers and monks in Burma may well be brothers.

The Chinese power in Tibet is maintained by an iron fist, crushing uprisings first in 1959 and again in 1988. Since then many smaller protests have occurred, mostly met with apathy by the international press.
In 2004, more than 3,797 people were executed in 25 countries and at least 7,395 were sentenced to death according to Amnesty International. Out of 3,797 executions 3,400 were carried out in China, but sources inside the country have estimated the number to be nearly 10,000. (Amnesty International, Death sentences and executions in 2004, published in April 2005) - Friends of Tibet

The Burmese junta, on the other hand, has maintained power through the rhetoric of necessity. They advertise, and may well believe, that without such military rule, the country will dissolve into mass fighting amongst its various ethnic groups. So the 'price of democracy', many Burmese may think, is national insecurity (why do thoughts of G.W. Bush keep coming to mind?). In Burma, as in other countries to go unnamed, it seems that democracy has been abandoned in return for a belief in security.

Tibetans have little besides their lives to lose in opposing Chinese rule, and as you can see many do pay 'the ultimate price' to live by their conscience and countless others have disappeared to concentration and imposed labor camps throughout Tibet and China. The Burmese, however, pay the ideological price of a sense of security (and perhaps even ethnic/national pride) by opposing their authoritarian government. In both cases the international community has said little and done less, and who can blame them, China has become 'the elephant in the room' of international politics and economics.

But with things dying down in Burma (monks have again accepted donations from the military - re-establishing its authority) it seems that our eyes may need to return to Tibet where massive international focus will grow as next summer's Olympics near. However, it is still possible that the struggle in Burma will continue, as news of international political attention makes its way back into the country.

There is a presentation being held here at Goldsmiths today at 5pm (in two hours) so I'll post more after that.

Buddhist Ethics: one week on

2007-10-09T21:39:00.000+01:00

One piece of advice I was given back in Bristol (by a PHD candidate) and again by my current advisor is that to successfully finish a doctorate one must write, write, write... Lucky for me, I already do a lot of that (e.g. here). Unlucky for me, I should be writing about my studies.

So here are some reflections from my first week. Most of my reading has come from these two sources:

Theravaada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo. By Richard F. Gombrich. The Library of Religious Beliefs and Practices. London and New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1988. Pp. x + 237.

Buddhism, Virtue and the Environment. By Cooper, David E., and Simon P. James. . Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2005.

Though I also skimmed the intro to Damien Keown's Contemporary Buddhist Ethics.

SUMMARY *(note: S.=Sanskrit, P.=Pali)

Consistent with Damien's remarks in person last week, and with things that I have picked up over the years, I would say now that Buddhism is, in the Western sense, a-social. That is, it has no philosophy or set of ideals relating specifically to society. This may well, in part at least, be due to the timing of the life of the Buddha and the social conditions then. Previous thought (Brahmanic/Vedic) had been a-individual, i.e. the individual had no value per se, but only gained worth by acting according to his/her social roles (castes, or S. varna). The religion of the time was one in which priests (S. Brahmins) were concerned with maintaining a cosmic order and cosmic order equaled social, ecological, spiritual order. The priests were relied upon to perform rituals (S. karman, actions) to maintain all of this and in turn held power (though tentatively, sharing with the warrior caste (S. kshatriya varna) from which Kings generally came) over the populous.

The Buddha's major change to this (or one amongst many) was to ethicize karma; to in effect make all intentional acts equivalent to ritual. Put shortly, he made our every willed act sacred. He did this by denying religious reality of the caste system and the notion of the soul (P. atta S. atman) born with its particular duty (P. sva-dhamma). It seems clear that the power of the priests came insofar as they could convince people that they had been born with a destiny that they (the priests) had sole authority over, as they had sole access to the holy texts, the Vedas.

The Buddha's famous phrase is: "It is intention, oh monks, that I call kamma." No longer was supreme religious activity restricted to the rituals of the priestly class (the laity could still gain merit/good karma by supporting the priests - and hope for a rebirth as a priest next time 'round). Within his community (Sangha) all varna distinctions were abolished and followers, "became simply sons and daughters of the Sakya." (Gombrich, p.69)

Gombrich goes on to discuss why this ethicization of karma was great for the rising merchant classes: you could pretty well trust a fellow Buddhist trader because he/she trusted that cheating you would end them up in hell or some such thing, and you could trust that by your own good deeds you could gain higher rebirth or even nirvana regardless of what particular religious fuddy-duddies of the day had to say. He also notes earlier in the book that most early followers of the Buddha are kshatriyas and brahmins, suggesting that this is because the world that they had once ruled together was in a state of somewhat chaotic change. A warrior, for instance, could no longer count on his being a warrior to get him by (in life or beyond). It was a time of widespread existential angst and the Buddha's message, which began and ended with the issue of suffering, made quite an impression.

THOUGHTS

Right. All this is fine and good, indeed very good. But while what emerges is a rich tapestry (throughout Buddhist traditions and history) of methods of personal spiritual cultivation, nowhere it seems is there or has there been an attempt at formulating a broader, social set of ethics.

Commenting on my last Buddhist Ethics post, Gary noted, "With all these different types of Buddhism, with their various interprtations of the Buddha Dhamma, it's not surprising that there's no consistent system of ethics." My sense is not that there is a problem here with consistency, but that there just isn't anything here to begin with for traditions to share notes on.

Perhaps it goes back to the point about karma being all-pervasive: Buddhists have simply accepted that those in political power must be there for a reason (karmically, that is) and it isn't their job to intervene. Perhaps it also rests in the Buddhist unwillingness to go to war, or to advocate war even, it would seem for an apparently just cause. There are exceptions to this in history that probably need to be worked out on a case-by-case basis. A question I will have to answer at some point in these next three years is (again): are there moral absolutes in Buddhism? For instance, killing. If intention is what matters, could there be appropriate intentions to kill? Of course the pervasion of avidya or ignorance must play a key role.

Alright. That is enough for now. I still have a LOT more to read tonight. On top of all this I have taken up specific interest in Burma (many thanks to my dear Kelly for suggesting I do so) as a case study and Damien has suggested a bit of further reading:

1. Harris, I.C. and Becket Institute., Buddhism, power, and political order. 2007, Abingdon ; New York: Routledge.9780415410182 (hardback alk. paper)

2. Ling, T., Buddhism, imperialism, and war : Burma and Thailand in modern history. 1979, London: Allen & Unwin. xvii, 163.0042941059

3. Than, T. and P. Strachan, Essays on the history and Buddhism of Burma. 1988, Whiting Bay: Kiscadale. 185.1870838009

4. King, W.L., A thousand lives away : Buddhism in contemporary Burma. 1964, Oxford Eng.: Bruno Cassirer. 238

He also pointed out that PBS will be doing some further coverage that I may look into. (here is a recent feature from them: Ethnic and Religious Persecution in Burma April 21, 2006 Episode no. 934)

And for future perusing: Buddhism and Ecology Bibliography (if only there were something like this for Buddhist Ethics! - sounds like a job for.... me.....)

The holiness of the mountain

2007-10-08T12:56:00.000+01:00

“I wish I could say it gets easier, but even years on, you still make mistakes. You just keep trying,” one of the ‘graded’ Ju Jitsu students told me after class on Friday.

“It is poetry in motion,” Kelly tells me of martial arts, happy that I am giving Ju Jitsu and Kung Fu a try.

“What is true in martial arts is true in all of life,” I think to myself, peaceful though mentally and physically drained.

Tired and unable to study last night I picked up a stack of photocopied and highlighted pages from Robert Pirsig's “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” that Kelly had long ago given me. In one section she drew my attention to Pirsig's description of the failure of his character Phaedrus to summit the holy Himalayan mountain of Kailas (Kailash), “the source of the Ganges and the abode of Shiva…” Phaedrus made the all too human error of making the journey about him, his experience and growth. For those who made it, on the other hand, “each footstep was an act of devotion, an act of submission to this holiness.”

Pirsig calls Phaedrus an “ego-climber” and the other a “selfless climber.” And for the selfless climber, as the cliché goes, it is not the destination that matters but the journey.

Being in love and with Kelly has brought me well above the clouded peaks of Mount Kailash. My mistake is in trying to make a destination of this journey called love. I recall the famous sutra by Dōgen, “The Rivers and Mountains Sutra." In it he describes the pilgram’s recognition that the mountains too are walking; those who fail to see this fail also to see their own walking, they fail to see their own relationship with reality.

Relationship is evolution, and love is the highest evolution. What the pilgrim recognizes atop Mount Kailash is not that his journey has ended, because it has not, it cannot end. The pilgrim recognizes that the true journey has only just begun. And that journey is living life fully in every step. Ha! What a joke the great religious masters play on so many of us! And sadly how few seem to get it. So many devotees will live their whole life for that one journey. And then, once they’ve been there and utterly failed to recognize the meaning of it, they will spend the rest of their poor lives raving about it like lunatics, going on about “that moment” way back when and exhorting others to go, go, go… Others, in dissapointment, will ridicule all climbers and every mountain.

But those who reach the summit in that rare stride of selflessness – they realize that it’s just another hill! They see the other holy mountains in every direction, and the fools and sages atop each of those hills as well. For them the moment is just a moment like any other, the journey up becomes meaningless, for it has passed, and the way down is meaningless, for it has not yet come.

Every step through in these noisy, unfamiliar streets of London is a moment on Mount Kailash. There is no difference. Sometimes the fool stumbles on, clinging to the past and yearning for the future. Other times in these streets a sage walks, alive in the moment and the love therein. For he knows that the holiness of the mountain is the holiness of every step.

Buddhist Ethics: Burma

2007-10-04T17:25:00.000+01:00

A couple weeks back my (lovely and brilliant) fiancée, Kelly, asked me what I thought of the then recent demonstrations in Burma that were broken up by security forces (Sept. 5, demonstration in Pakokku). I sighed, thinking of the long, unjust, and widely ignored house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi. Burma is a nation ruled by its military essentially since its inception just after WWII. What power do a few, or even a great many, monks have there?

My response was that it would probably pass. The government would give some grounds on the monks demands, or it would escalate to a point of violence and then the monks would back down. It seems now that my prediction then, the latter one unfortunately, has come to pass. The escalation culminated in massive protests including tens of thousands of monks and perhaps 100,000 lay supporters being met with automatic gun fire and tear gas. The result, according to the French news agency AFP, quoting Shari Villarosa, is that "a semblance of normalcy has returned, but those of us who live here see the mood has changed..."

However it is unclear what will happen next. What is the proper Buddhist response?

I asked my advisor, Damien Keown, about it in passing and he too sighed. This was just after we had discussed the lacuna that exists in Buddhist politics and ethics in general, not to mention for specific situations such as this. Buddhism has generally been a religion that stays out of politics. That's not to say that Buddhists always stay out of politics, only that in terms of the body of Buddhist thought, little exists that deals with politics. Think of Tibet: even there the Dalai Lamas (and earlier Buddhist rulers) controlled their nation more with traditional Tibetan methods than with any enlightened and expounded Buddhist political philosophy.

Ashoka was perhaps the Buddhist King par excellence, but no treatise on his methodology was ever written, no rigorous handbook on the principles of proper rule ever composed. Only perhaps in the last thirty years, most notably with Vietnamese monk and activist Thich Nhat Hanh, has Buddhism found a voice for political action. Perhaps contrary to professor Keown's and my pessimism is Hannah Beech's comment that, "After all, it was Burma's monks who spearheaded acts of civil disobedience against British colonialists. Time (9/17). Yet the article immediately follows with, "Buddhist clergy were also at the forefront of mass protests in 1988, which ended when the army gunned down hundreds of peaceful protestors and declared martial law."

From a practical standpoint there are many questions: how strong is the military junta today? How unified are the Buddhist monks? How devout/willing to follow are the citizens? The same goes for the soldiers - will they attack monks? What is to make us think that now, after nearly two decades of military rule, something will change?

From a more theoretical standpoint I also wonder: does Buddhism demand social justice, or simply seek it? Can Buddhists in Burma rise up like the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers and demand justice? Does Burma as a nation have a strong enough history of social justice (as the US did in the 1960s) for such a movement to succeed?

In closing, I also am a member of the Progressive Buddhism blog and will post this over there as well, slightly modified.

B-Ethics: meeting the great man

2007-10-03T17:23:00.000+01:00

I met with my advisor, Damien Keown, for the first time today to go over my thesis (n.b. I think in the States you do a Masters thesis and a Doctoral dissertation; in the UK you do a Masters dissertation and a Doctoral thesis). The meeting went splendidly. Damien is very enthusiastic about his work and it shows. I left the room looking forward to jumping into some reading. Here are some general notes:

We will meet every Wednesday to go over progress, questions, thoughts, etc.
Endnote - GET IT. This is an essential bibliographic tool for researchers. I think the college has something called EndnoteWeb that I can use free, just gotta track it down.
Begin work immediately, don't send three emails to your fiancé and a long blog entry - oops, well...
Create an outline with chapters that looks something like this:

Literature review (what's been written in the field already, see esp. JBE)
Methodology (the how, what, and why of my project)
What Is Buddhist Ethics:

Is it Utilitarian
Aristotelian
Other

What Is Kantian Ethics:

The Caricature (rigid/vapid)
Neo-Kantians (Onora O'Neill, Allen W. Wood)
Other uses and interpretations

Is Buddhist Ethics compatible with Kantian Ethics
Conclusion

Keep a research journal/diary: ideas may come up any time - keep track of them
After one year be prepared to submit a chapter to upgrade from MPHIL to PHD.

Easy, just 10-15000 words (n.b. half of this may come from revising my MA dissertation from Bristol)
Or it could be the Lit. Review
Viva would likely just be DK and Howard Caygill (likely to be my other advisor)

Alright, some more specific questions/issues:

Are there Moral Absolutes in Buddhism? - DK thinks yes, so do I.

How do we show this?
Where might apparent exceptions lie?

Are there "Buddhist Ethics" in traditional sources? DK: not really - Buds. have been concerned with other issues: psychology, ontology, never the systematic justification of why certain actions ought to be undertaken (i.e. ethics).
How about "Buddhist Politics?" DK: no, snippits here and there, but nothing systematic and thought out vis-à-vis other systems like what we find in Greece when people defended democracy against oligarchy, monarchy, etc.
So we (modern academics) are left to conjure up Buddhist Ethics, to actually (hopefully persuasively) create it anew from suggestions and underlying tendencies within traditional sources.
There has been resistance by academics to doing this. Why? In this global age people are seeking answers to the "what is the Buddhist position on x,y,z?" - why are Buddhists reluctant to try to formulate answers?

It can be attributed in part to the non-authoritarian nature of Buddhism, which has no pope or patriarch or supreme council to lay down laws.
But look at Protestant Christianity in the US. Even without central authority there is still active discussion about Christian Ethics, and think-tanks busily putting out position papers and statements. Why not in Buddhism?

Lastly, keep in mind the range of library resources available: SOAS, the Royal Asiatic Society, the British Library, King's College-London, and Senate House (esp. for philosophy).

So that was that, a very intriguing and positive start to what is sure to be a challenging and exciting course of study!

London, sweet cold London

2007-10-02T19:40:00.000+01:00

I hear the cold has descended over Montana, while DC was balmy with blue skies. London has been cold. And not only outside, but also inside my flat. They have yet to turn on the radiator water, so we are left at the mercy of nature and our own devices. It didn’t help that someone left open a massive hall window. It was up so high that nobody could reach it. I didn’t pack for the cold, either, actually bringing some shorts: no gloves, no hat, ah, but two scarves… and a thin acrylic blanket (acrylic blankets …?).

Nicely, one of the travel alarm clocks my parents bought me over the years has a thermometer on it, so I watched as my room’s temperature shifted from the upper 50s to the lower 60s each day.

Waking up at night, cold, I started throwing extra insulation over myself: a jacket over my legs, a towel up around the shoulders. I also started filling my little wash basin with hot water, thinking the heat may radiate a bit. It seemed to help. I even ran my laptop computer, with the DVD player, the external hard drive, the lights in the room – anything I could think of that would produce heat.

There was some amusement in all this experimentation. Near the wash basin it was indeed 3-4 degrees warmer than on the other side of the room (where I happened to sleep). I also found that if I took a super hot bath and then came back to the room my own body temperature would raise the room temp about a degree.

Fun as that was, I still wasn’t sleeping well, making the already tiring experience of adjusting to London even more difficult. So I took a chair from the kitchen so I could reach the big hall window and got it partially closed, then found an ironing board and finished the job, bringing much joy to both myself and my flatmates. Then I noticed that my blanket is pretty huge and I am on a tiny bed, so I folded it in half and voilà, double the insulation and my first good night’s sleep.

Keeping warm: just another thing to keep in mind when you travel. It took me a full week to get a lot of the kinks worked out here in London, but now I am starting to feel at home. It will never be Home in the sense that Montana is, but it will be my home, for now.

Life: Orientation week : done (Acceptance)

2007-09-28T15:14:00.000+01:00

As I sit in the Goldsmiths College library I cannot help but miss home. I miss the silence. I have to smile when someone actually whispers in the library here, it is so rare. Others freely shout on cell phones or let them ring incessantly. And even the library itself has an intercom system (think, "clean-up on aisle four... clean-up on aisle four") on which they repeatedly announce impending closings: "The Goldsmiths Library facilities will be closing in one hour at eighteen forty-five, please report to the main checkout desk by eighteen thirty." .... "half an hour...." .... "fifteen minutes...."

I practice breathing meditations and return to my work.

In a spiritual sense, little of this is worthy of such attention. Just noise, just people, just sounds and sights like anywhere. But I feel myself, first in my body, then mind, pulled from my spiritual "home" by this foreign world. So much different, so much unfamiliar. The body doesn't like it much. Why? Insecurity?

Tiny shifts do happen though. I notice CCTV cameras, feel safer; see familiar faces, feel safer; relax with new friends at the flat, feel safer; meditate and work out, feel safer. I am starting to see more smiles, to relax and probably smile more myself as well.

Tied in with the last post, I am sure all of this newness has triggered an evolutionary response of heightened stress-hormones that I am just having to deal with. I read somewhere recently that this is just what we have to deal with. Shy of being an extraordinary yogi like Matteau Ricard (who was able to shut down his startle/stress-response to a gunshot-like noise near his head) our body is just set up to jump into these stress-hormone releases. I'm not sure how much I simply accept that (I am sure we can all become as adept as Ricard, given the practice), but I do agree with the point that came later, namely that what counts is how we deal with this bodily reaction. Do we allow ourselves to get 'heated-up' to the point that we are breathing heavily (even while just sitting in traffic or at our desk)? Do we lash out either subtly by calling other drivers names, mumbling under our breath in anger, or more overtly? Or do we acknowledge the realness of the reaction our body is having and counteract it with calming thoughts and exercises (such as simply breathing slowly and deeply through the nose)?

If we cannot eliminate bodily stress-reactions, or even if we can but just have not developed that capacity just yet, then obviously it is essential to minimize the damage these do to our mind and body (excessive cortisol, a main stress hormone, is linked to the build-up of deep tissue belly fats, hyperglycemia, and adult-onset diabetes). Obviously exercise is hugely important. But a second, and perhaps more important factor may be attitude. The very act/habit of constant worry, and honing in on the negatives, the disastrous possibilities out there, and so on is a key ingredient in the chronic stress that plagues our society.

Life is complicated these days. There is so much to worry about: am I dressed ok, do I speak ok, is my face (skin/hair/etc) ok, do I smile enough, am I doing the right things to get ahead? It's funny. It's one of the reasons I have long been attracted to monastic life. You wear robes, you're mostly silent, hair shaved, mood: contemplative. Somehow that just kind of fits me so much of the time. As a monk in society you are not expected to fit in, you are an outsider, cut and dry. Sometimes that is revered, sometimes ignored, but at least it is there - no worries.

But then I am told, by monks, that it isn't really that simple. Some monks specially alter their robes this way or that, or wear a pin or cloak or something that makes them unique. Some jostle for the approval of higher-ups, some back-bite and seem to lose track of contemplation as a focus in life. So much for those romantic dreams.

So what am I (are we) left with? Just this. Hopefully a smile (I hear using all those facial muscles actually reduces stress). We have the world as it is. And what is the fourth great weapon of the warrior-bodhisattva? Acceptance. Accept that life is a flow, and that the mind may get ever so busy reifying elements of it - labeling, boxing off, trying to exert control, or to find stability. But that is just the busy mind, and the body may get busy too, reacting to these reified elements, but that is just the busy body. Reality stays the same.

Stress and weight

2007-09-26T11:55:00.000+01:00

Just found this today:

Is stress making you fat?

It is informative about the physiological and evolutionary mechanisms of stress and why it, perhaps as much as (or more than in some cases) poor diet and/or lack of exercise may be at the root of so many people being overweight.

"Ask the average man or woman off the street if he or she gets stressed out on a regular basis, and you’ll most likely hear an emphatic, "Yes!" So if we can’t eliminate stress, how can we combat the negative effects of the flight or fight response? One of the most obvious ways to combat fat and the ravages of stress is with exercise. Exercise represents a triple threat to body fat. First, exercise burns calories and utilises stored body fat as fuel. Second, working out increases the amount of lean muscle mass your body must provide with fuel on a 24-hour basis. More muscle means less fat...[and third] moderate to vigorous exercise, such as lifting weights, can offset the negative effects of cortisol and insulin... With as little as 10 minutes of strenuous exercise the brain begins to produce beta-endorphins that calm you and decrease levels of the stress hormone."

Very important though is to exercise in moderation (and get plenty of sleep!):

Don’t overdo it. Too much exercise can actually cause additional stress and associated symptoms. Be sure to get plenty of rest. Inadequate sleep increases cortisol levels and reduces leptin, a hormone that signals fullness.

So - I'm off for a nice meal, a relaxing bit of Buddhism reading, and then to the gym.

Life: photos and orientation

2007-09-25T15:47:00.000+01:00

Click on either for details and a larger view.

I'm pooped! Two days of orientation have me worn out and I can't wait to get into studies proper next week. What can I say? Orientation has been a bore. As a career student with past studies in the UK, I feel like I know most of what is being covered and any questions I might have will be handled by my department (which I haven't met up with just yet). A good time to practice patience and the letting go of expectations.

I could write pages comparing this place with Bristol, and thus far Bristol wins, hands down. Of course in Bristol I conveniently missed orientation week, thus pushing through the bureaucracy alone the week after everyone else did. But I imagine that, like Bristol, once everything is ironed out things will procede here very nicely.

I am also not quite over the jet-lag which is new for me. In the past I was off and running within a day or two. But again just a bit to adjust to.

The flatmates are great. Most are from Asia and study arts and post-colonial studies, which has led to some good conversation around the kitchen we share.

Alright, 'tis all for now. I've done some reading of Richard Gombrich's book, "Theravada Buddhism" and will post thoughts asap. I am also painfully overjoyed (big smiles across the pond) to be helping in the planning of a wedding - my our wedding - with the beautiful miss McGannon, and it's about time I devote a full post to her.

Life: I'm Back!

2007-09-23T19:54:00.000+01:00

Well, what can I say? I'm back.

This is day two back in the UK, the first filled with the drama (trauma) of lugging two 50-pound (that's about 22 kilogram) bags from Heathrow airport to SE London via the tube transit system, followed by about a mile of wandering aimlessly trying to find my flat and a way in. I was doing fine up until the last 1/2 mile or so of wondering, when I hit a quiet side street lined with shady-looking individuals... "Al-roit," I told myself in an odd British accent, "head down, move forward" - awkward bags and all.

Luckily I managed to find my appointed spot and was rewarded with two undergraduate bag-luggers. Joy. Extra joy because I was exhausted (did I mention I only slept an hour and a half en route?) and my room turned out to be on the fifth floor of the flat (good news: great view). Once in my new room I thought, "hmmm... this is like Bristol," and simply passed out for the next four hours. Then I got up and unpacked, and unpacked and unpacked. Then I passed out again, this time for 12 hours.

Waking up this morning was tough. I was sad mostly, my heart still in America, and most of my head too. My stomach was definitely in London though, and it is what finally got me going. I decided to make it a day of exploration, to feel out my little piece of London (photos coming soon). And it's been good. I haven't managed to find a phone card to call home, or even a public phone on which to make such a call, but I did satisfy my stomach with two supermarket trips. The highpoint though was definitely reading an email from Kelly and her latest blog updates. The one about detox and becoming the observer helped me a lot as I work with my own anxieties and defense mechanisms of being in a distant and unknown city.

Anywho - time's up at the net cafe. Until next time.

no more justin in England...

2005-09-09T18:30:00.000+01:00

Now, alas, I am back in Montana... Strangely enveloped in a busy, hectic, hazy, noisy existence. How odd: peace, quiet, reflection - in a city of half a million. Now anxiety, flightiness, superficiality, in a mountain town of nigh 80,000.

Oh well... I’ll find my inner-peace, or whatever it is that Buddhists typically do when thrown into a chaos of their own making. What I will do, eventually, is create another blog or go back to an old one… leaving this to posterity and the jackals.

Try me now at http://americanbuddhist.blogspot.com

Good luck - meditate - help someone out a bit.

The Less you know: great political commentary

2005-08-07T10:45:00.000+01:00

John Stewart this week took on several current issues in US politics: (video here)

New photographs of Abu Ghraib abuse - ACLU wants the other photos made public. The US government doesn't think the public really needs to see them.

Bill O'Reilly, (alternate site / another) the Fox News spinster who seems to know little about everything and much about nothing, makes the case quite clear: a knowing US public, compliance with the Geneva Conventions, and civilian lawyers all "help the terrorists." Hence anybody who wants

transparency in government,
the rule of international law, or
the upholding of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution

are "terror allies."

John Stewart jokes that this is a direct quote from Bill's new book "The O'Reilly Factor for Kids: with no more than a passing acquaintance with logic" book (yes, Bill really does have a new book out for kids).

John goes on to note that the Whitehouse is battling a bill by John McCain which seeks to prevent the US military from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross (a violation in international law). Mr. McCain (who spent 5 years as a POW himself) went on O'Reilly's show where he was promptly instructed by O'Reilly that his understanding of torture (er... 'coerced interrogation') was incorrect.

---------------

Ah... sigh... As they said on Crooks and Liars: "Why-oh-why must a fake news program do the real reporting?"

There is always work to be done - getting people to look at the issues themselves rather than relying on the likes of Bill O'Reilly. It's nice that we can laugh at his absurdity now, but we have to weep a bit when we think of all the people who swallow his 'analysis' without any thought of their own. Sigh again... 'Baby steps', I think, 'baby steps'. That's how we can make real change in the world - keeping aware of every opportunity: to tell a friend, to learn for ourselves, to intelligently discuss an issue, to donate a few dollars to a good cause. Baby steps...

Soon to return to the US...

2005-08-06T17:39:00.000+01:00

Frantic organization,
Bored procrastination,
Dhyanic meditation,
Academic inspiration;

Such is my life lately. It is a bit surreal; time is moving slowly, hence the boredom. I know I will be exhausted from the time I get back to the US (midnight on the 11th) until I'm at least half-way moved over to Missoula (week of the 15th). I am planning a last-minute trip to London
as well, with Soorjya (left). Hm... London... Yes, I had pretty well decided that I would not go to London (see recent post on the terror attacks), but we managed to create a trip which would be dirt cheap - my money will still go to organizing a 'terrorism' dialogue in Montana.

I have said my goodbye's to two of my course-mates and my advisor. Paul Williams, my advisor, was great - he gave one last go at advice for my dissertation, which he thinks is coming together fairly well (he even made me believe so), while giving me very positive feedback on my essays from spring term classes. Heather, a classmate, will be moving to the states herself in a few months, so hopefully we will keep in touch. Alison, another classmate, will travel to India (sweet India) to teach and do community work with her boyfriend for six months. Mary, classmate number three, will stick around Bristol with her boyfriend and will start an MA in Creative Writing and Personal Development (sounds fun) in October. Considering Alison will have an MA from Oxford soon enough and I'm going on to my second MA, it looks like we're almost all double-MAers.

I will do two last sessions of meditation with Sumita, a housemate: tonight and on Tuesday. We have been doing metta bhavana and mindfulness of breathing for a couple months now, and will try some vipasyana - just a taste for her before I go. It has been good for me to have a 'student' of sorts; forcing me to reflect on my own states and how they affect another person in that type of relationship. In the Geluk tradition there is great warning upon those who aspire to be a teacher (lama), as such a position carries huge responsibility, and can easily lead to an extremely unhealthy codependence. So I have had to make clear (to myself included) my own faults and deficiencies. It is easy for teaching to become an act of conceit, an ego-booster, ruining what little attainments a person has. I am not sure though if it should be heavily restricted, only to those who have proven their knowledge or other abilities. It is still all quite a mystery to me; and I can only hope, as I feel, that I am doing some good.

Academically... Well - you can look at my last post, or (likely) some future posts to see how that is going. I'm working on it a bit every day, and the ideas are gelling, so to speak, but not much is coming out on paper just yet. I am still aiming to have a full first draft before I leave... And, yea, I will. I'll try to crank out a section tonight, in fact! (that's the spirit :)))

Feelings... Well, I'd like to say 'equanimity' but that is a bit tough to judge. My time here has been wonderful beyond expectation. The course has been great, fantastic, and inspiring. The people I've met in the course and in the house (oh, and in the Diamond Cutter study group also!) have all been probably the best overall group of people I've ever been around. Everyone has had a great grip on life, no (or extremely little) of those dramas that seem to consume so many people's lives. It has become home for me.

Missoula: mmmm, sweet Missoula. Well I have no doubt that I will pick up there as if I never left (in some regards), and yet bring back part of England, with bits of East Asia, Ireland, and Spain as well! It is easy there to get in the routine of life (it is a rich, almost intoxicatingly pleasant routine) and fail to look outside into the world with wonder... I am hoping to keep the wonderment I have picked up here - to enrich Missoula in some small way; to not assimilate into the community or fall back into my old habits. But some of the best friends I have ever had are there (though sadly (or happily, depending on how you look at it) my sister has moved on to LA) so I know I won't feel the anxiety and isolation of entering a world anew. Missoula, too, is my home.

Well, those are my thoughts as I prepare, or not, to return to the US; leaving home to go home.

Kantian and Buddhist ethics: Thinking outloud

2005-08-03T18:06:00.000+01:00

Plan of attack:

Intro - why Kant? Deontology flows from reason, as opposed to feelings/authorities (reason as internal and all else as external - reason: autonomous; all else: heteronomous) Buddhist ethics pursues similar ends for the individual, an overcoming of circumstances as bases for action: they (bodhisattvas) should do good out of good intentions without desire for reward, etc.

Cautionary note: pitfalls and difficulties in comparative philosophy. It is easy to create your own version of Kantian or (more easily) Buddhist ethics and knock down 'straw-men' critics. One must treat each fairly and note aspects that will not be covered and why.

Keown: criticizes comparisons with Utilitarianism (ends justify any means) in favour of Aristotelian ethics. Detailed discussion of karma, nirvana, kusala (good/right), puñña (merit/meritorious), pañña (wisdom), karuna (compassion), cetana (intention), etc. Cover here arguments on Buddhism as Utilitarian, Keown's rebuttal, and his arguments toward an Aristotelian understanding of Buddhism.

Kant against Aristotle: Kant's arguments against the ethics of Aristotle. Aristotle builds his ethics on the goal of eudaimonia (happiness/flourishing). Kant says that any goal which is basically a 'feeling' fails to give ethical guidance. Our feelings will influence our understanding of eudaimonia, and as such, our goal will oscillate this way and that, making our ethics - if they are pinned to that kind of goal - in flux.

Kant's Ethics: argues that a solid foundation for ethics can be found in reason - not mechanical reasoning - but in working to 1) think for yourself (question authorities); 2) Listen to others, put yourself in their situation to improve understanding, and; 3) think consistently: develop intentions that can guide you in more and more situations rather than shifting rationale from one situation to another. When a community does this together, out of their conversation come elements of the 'moral law' - a complete and universally binding law which is free from particular wants/needs/desires. This actually establishes a beginning point upon which to build a future order: we must begin with something everyone can do; thus act on maxim that you would will to be a universal law. This is the famed Categorical Imperative.

Feelings/Respect: Kant does have room for feelings in ethics; but not just any feelings. The only feelings that can have moral significance must flow from a reasonable basis, and Kant argues that in reasoning we do actually feel something: Respect. Respect is what we feel when we employ our own reasoning and it is what we feel when we encounter reasoning in others. In so far as a person can reason, he/she is worthy of respect; such worth of respect is dignity. Anything which cannot reason has no dignity.

Freedom/Autonomy: Given that science (think now of life in the 1700s) has shown that everything we see, smell, hear, etc is part of a mechanistic / purely deterministic world, there must be something beyond this world in us. An animal doesn't reason when it is in a difficult situation, it only reacts, but humans think about the situation. It is this capacity that sets us apart from the purely natural world where this is no freedom and everything is determined by outside forces. We have the unique ability to reason, to overcome outside forces. Kant holds that the very concept of morality requires agents with freedom who make choices. Weather patterns make no moral choices, nor does a wild animal.

Duty: Humans, and any other rational beings, because we can (it is not the case that we always do) make moral choices, have a responsibility to do so (not sure if this is Kant's reasoning exactly). He says that nature (or God) provides no .... (will return) While following rules at work to get promoted, participating in community service to bulk up your CV, studying hard at school to get a good job, or buying flowers for your significant other to make him/her happy may be praiseworthy acts, none of them has moral worth. Only action which is in accord with duty and is done out of duty is of moral worth. So you constantly have to question your own motives when doing something 'good' - is it because you know you will get something out of it? or are you acting simply and solely because it is a good thing to do, the good thing to do, and you need no other reason to do it?

Politics / Self-development: And as such, our duty to act in accordance with the Categorical Imperative drives us to question authorities (church and state) and to fight our own personal inclinations (wherever they disagree with the dictates of reason). Virtue, according to Kant is 'the strength and ability to overcome such powerful forces' (paraphrase - will get source/quote). So Kant at once has a powerful political (and anti-Catholic) statement and an command for self-development.

Result / Kingdom of ends: The Kingdom of ends represents the actual nature of all rational beings, in that they/we are all worthy of being treated as ends and not mere means. This sounds vague, but has strong implications. Whenever you deal with anyone in the world around you, you must see them (honestly) as a moral agent, not merely a shop clerk, merely a waitress, etc. This is imperative, again, for both political and self-developmental reasons. The Kingdom of ends also (possibly/likely) represents heaven, wherein all beings actually do treat one another as full moral agents, equal before the moral law (the Categorical Imperative). In each case, people act at one time as legislator (acting from the law) and as subject to (in contact with other people) the moral law.

Buddhism as Kantian: This will be a task in essentially 'constructing a Buddhism' which fits my arguments and then seeing if that is an agreeable form of Buddhism, or if most Buddhists would disagree with my statements.

Buddhism and Reason: The first of these is that reasoning plays a vital role in the development of the Buddhist. A Buddhist cannot merely recite passages, do calming meditation, follow the precepts (or vinaya/ethical rules if ordained), and expect to gain enlightenment. Such actions, while praiseworthy and good will only produce mundane happiness - ie. a good rebirth, happiness in this life, etc. Cf the Kalama Sutta, Nagarjuna's Precious Garland, wherein injunctions are made to carefully analyze your actions and decide only with first hand knowledge, whether the guidelines you follow are good or not.

Buddhism and Freedom/Autonomy: As many Buddhists are agreeing recently, autonomy and free will are only a problem if you presuppose a mechanistic material world 'out there' which is experienced by you and me 'in here'. Such a bifurcation is difficult to make in Buddhist philosophy, and so arguments about freedom are never strongly made. The Buddha did, however, argue very strongly against a school of thought which preached predeterminism and hence the uselessness of morality (all will happen as it is already determined to happen). The very fact that the Buddha instructed his followers in a path that they must choose, according to Kant's standards, implies an implicit notion of freedom. Of course Kant's notion may be overly slanted toward freedom due to his Protestant background. In Buddhism, we are not determined, but we are conditioned by past actions, and this conditioning will determine our future circumstances.

Self-Development... I'll take a break here.

Brilliant Anti-IRAQ statement from John Quincy Adams

2005-07-30T19:21:00.000+01:00

[America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

John Quincy Adams, 6th president of the USA.
Borrowed from an Indian Theoretical Physicist here: http://theory.tifr.res.in/~mukhi/Misc/war.html

poem: Turning from Virtue

2005-07-29T13:36:00.000+01:00

The turn of mind
To sensual pleasures
Seems innocent
In ignorance
Blinded by passion

The sticky pleasure
Of desire fulfilled
Does not permit
Easy return.

homage to reason, that which we are so in need of...

2005-07-27T22:28:00.000+01:00

Car enfin, soit que nous veillions, soit que nous dormions nous ne nous devons jamais laisser persuader qu'à l'évidence de notre raison.

- "Fourth Medidation," by René Descartes

For in the end, whether we are awake, or we are asleep, we must never let ourselves be convinced except on the evidence of our reason.

Find the whole text in French with annotation here: http://wings.buffalo.edu/litgloss/descartes/text.shtml

Regaining integrity in purpose

2005-07-26T21:53:00.000+01:00

This last month or so has seen my direction in life tossed a bit this way and that, perturbed by a wonderful Spanish girl and a spiritual journey to Ireland. But now, slowly, four days after saying goodbye to that girl, I am beginning to regain my integrity of purpose: namely dedication to writing my thesis.

Some may think this is an easy thing: just sitting and reading and writing... Either they've never undertaken such a large task, or they've done so many that the steps fall into place before them without effort. I'm still young, and I have only attempted small tasks in comparison with this, so often I am paralyzed by its sheer enormity, and at other times I spin off into work which ends up being too tangential to be relevant. The balance of effort and overview is delicate, and takes practice.

This little diagram represents my mental operations when still a bit disoriented. Basically, my mind goes in five different directions, at random, without a great deal of focus.

This is where I was last Thursday, the day Ana left. Also for at least part of each day since, but I can sense the flutteryness of my mind settling a bit. I'm focusing more, in part thanks to meditation, in part due to applied effort in my thesis.

This represents my mental states now: less deviation, more focus; only a bit of flittering this way and that. Now, when I try to focus on something, I can more easily and for greater spans of time.

Ahh... This is me in meditation or in total concentration on my thesis. Very nice - no distraction, no deviation of energy or direction. This is me now, in fact, having just spent the last half hour in a meditation with a couple house mates. The key is now to channel the focus into life a bit - into mindfully living each moment. There is a desire lurking in the background to fall into habitual patterns: staring blankly at the computer monitor, surfing news sites, etc - but these mustn't be allowed to drag my focus away, to spring to life the deviations which dominated prior life.

But in the end they will, so long as my focus is not well disciplined, so long as I am not well practiced. Some day, though, the focus will be attained and will not be lost. When I pay my salutations to the Buddha, in a way, I am paying salutations to that day. That day integrity in purpose will not faulter. Om, ah, hum.

Responding to the Terrorist attacks in London

2005-07-21T16:01:00.000+01:00

The message from the powers that be is 'business as usual' or else 'the terrorists win'. In a positive development, Tony Blair is calling for dialogue with moderate Muslims. On the other end of the spectrum, US Representative Tom Tancredo called for retaliatory attacks on Muslim holy sites if further terrorist attacks occur, effectively calling for the deliberate murder of innocent people and destruction of militarily insignificant targets in an utterly barbaric manner.

The truth seems to be that we are in a perilous age; that while the evil of dictatorial communism is no longer the rallying cry of the right wing of Western politics (extending beyond the republican party into neo-fascist circles), the new cry of an 'evil' enemy to be defeated quickly surfaced. Read Orwell. Read Machiavelli. The fact is that while the 'left' is not perfect, the right can easily become extremely nasty and manipulative of the common man.

The message of 'business as usual' combined with the prospect of 'perpetual war' is the perfect recipe for creating a subservient populous: people who willingly dedicate themselves to this ideology, abandoning their own dreams. Dreams take time, they take independence in a safe environment and a respect for diversity. All of these are at stake now; threatened not by 'communism' not by 'drugs', but by a new amorphous threat: 'terrorism'.

The war on communism failed because people came to realize that the threat was not as real as it had been imagined. The real threat was between imbeciles in power who refused to communicate. With communication, initiated by and large by Michael Gorbechaev, the threat evaporated. But the story is never so simple: closed, dictatorial societies still exist, some espousing Communist ideals, others of a religious nature, and thus the threat continues (but again not from the ideologies themselves, but from the imbeciles in power).

The war on drugs likewise is a failure; as more people discover that drugs (especially marijuana) are not the cause of insanity and violence in our culture. But 'terrorism' might be the label that neo-fascists were dreaming of: how can anyone claim a benign or positive character to 'terrorism'? It is imperative that we as citizens seek to understand 'terrorism' for what it truly is. We must look to the social context from which it arises, the ideologies it can manipulate, and the desired results. We must not confine ourselves to recent attacks, but to take a long view, questioning whether the Boston Tea Party was not an act of 'terrorism' or the killing of the Archduke Ferdinand. How does his killing differ from US government-sanctioned assassinations?

Of course the wrong thing to do is accept terrorism, in any form, as a legitimate way of getting one's message across. It seems clear that moderate Muslims, as well as anyone else, see murder as an anathema to their religion. But it is clear also that some Muslims, as well as some Christians, Communists, and others, will find justification for murder in their beliefs.

The key to all of this is, I hope, in Mr. Blair’s move: dialogue, as opposed to the retaliatory comments of the US Republican. Freedom requires that we can think for ourselves, that we can listen to others, and that we can use reason to act consistently, fairly with everyone. We must force ourselves to hear all parties, to see murder/suicide as an act either of utter desperation or insanity. If we give voice to the desperate, a breakthrough may occur if it is done before a move to violence is taken. If we bring the insane into the light of conversation, they will be seen for what they are, and they can be dealt with before they can act to harm others.

For those for whom dialogue is no longer an option, those whose wounds of perversion have festered under our collective neglect, force may be our only option. But the mistake our leaders consistently make is to focus all of our energy on these groups, while ignoring the festering wounds of future terror: right-wing extremists, poverty-stricken children of war-torn nations, imbecile leaders in isolated countries, etc.

For my own part, the message is not 'business as usual', but rather to seek out and cultivate dialogue. I will not travel to London to see the sights of the great city as I had planned, but will instead spend that money to help organize a dialogue in Montana when I get back. I think the 'business as usual' of conspicuous spending/consumption of so many of us in the West while so many others suffer under dictatorships or dire economic conditions is a travesty that we must eliminate as quickly as possible. If you really think about the human lives that are lost when you buy a $25 or more meal, or an expensive bottle of wine, or any of the other dozens of wasteful ways we spend our money rather than using it to help end poverty - if you really spend a moment to think about that - then your stomach should really turn. I know mine does.

We are both perpetrators and victims of an ugly system, one that encourages waste while discouraging understanding of the world around us. Think about it. The more you do, the more your own stomach turns, the more nausea you feel for your own waste, the more likely you are to change - to turn off 'prime-time TV' - to put down the expensive toy in the store - to eat a modest dinner, simply grateful that you get to eat at all when over a billion people must live on less than one dollar per day.

It is up to each of us to make a difference, however small. We are culpable in so far as we refuse this responsibility. I am no saint, I too waste. I cannot point fingers, nor do I wish to. I just wish to reduce my own destructive impact and somehow to help others.

Mixing Christianity with indigenous African beliefs: too horrible to imagine

2005-07-13T15:57:00.000+01:00

Certainly this isn't the story for all of Africa, nor even for all of Angola, but even if it is exremely isolated (which I doubt), it still merits our urgent attention.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4677969.stm

Integrity: cleaning the mirror; unleashing pure light onto the world

2005-07-08T20:45:00.000+01:00

I started a post on integrity on July 1st, but it seemed to trail away from my main point to the point where I could neither stop writing nor make sense of what I had written already. The thought which sparked the post was on religious leaders and their use of dishonesty or secrecy to further their own projects. My mind wandered into politics, where I think it became lost in the sheer size, complexity, and darkness of the great 'political machine'. But my point, well the point I was hoping to reach eventually, was that honesty and integrity are essential components of the good life; for our understanding of ourselves, for our relationships with others, for our knowledge of the world, and most importantly, for our efforts to help those we find in need.

In Buddhism two images are often used to represent our fundamental 'nature': a mirror and light. Imagine a mirror, look at one. What do you see? If it is a good mirror, and clean, then you see the world reflected in it without error. If it is dirty, then the world in it is obscured. For most of us, our mirror-nature is very dirty: covered by the dirt of greed and anger, dusty with misunderstanding and laziness, streaked with worries and dislikes. When we find a clean part, a moment of personal clarity, we feel it; we know that there is a bit of truth. But these moments are rare, so most of us accept our condition and try to make the best of it: fulfilling our desires, avoiding our dislikes, etc.

But in Buddhism we are taught, and with meditation quickly experience, that the mirror can be systematically cleaned: greed can be understood and overcome, as with anger, misunderstanding, and the rest. The process is not easy, because it usually means getting really close to those negative things in our life - the muck of existence - so that we can remove them. But there is a process, there is a path. It cannot be given to you, you have to tread it yourself, and you have to do it with your critical faculties fully intact, examining the teachings with as much care (or more) as you would put into buying something like a new house. Buying a terrible house can ruin you financially for up to maybe 30 years, but buying a foolish philosophy or way of life will ruin you much more extensively and for far longer.

So you have to, everyone has to, examine very carefuly the life you are leading, the world-view you have, the things about the world that you take for granted. Don't spend too much time examining others, either. Maybe 10% of your time can be devoted to this, but it becomes all too easy to pick on the mistakes and faults of others so much that this negativity becomes a fault of its own. Note the faults of the world, they are out there, but then get down the nitty gritty of your own dirty mirror. This, after all, is the material right before you. Perhaps paradoxically, cleaning the mirror and seeing the world more clearly make you see more beauty in the world, not more ugliness.

The second analogy is that of radiant light as our true nature. Imagine a brilliant, radiant light emanating from your heart. Imagine it as very very tiny at first, just shooting out glimmers and rays of light. But then imagine it growing, and with it imagine feeling warmth, lightness, joy, and equanimity. Imagine yourself actively building this up inside you until you have a body of pure light, then imagine friends and family coming to join you and your light empowering them, bringing out the pure light within each of their hearts, one by one. This is the power and action of enlightenment: creating and spreading pure joy, warmth, and understanding.

This returns me to the beginning: integrity. What does integrity have to do with all of this? Enlightenment, happiness, warmth, joy: these are nothing other than integrity. Integrity is what you have when you speak and you know your words are meant with love, compassion, and understanding. It is what you have when you can say that if today were the last day of your life, you would have spent it exactly as you just have. It is what you have when you can look in the eye of someone who is causing suffering and tell them to stop: out of compassion for them and for their victim. It is a truthfulness which is not only within you, but is also in the world before you. It is the clarity of the mirror, the illuminating quality of the light. It is the sine qua non of the good life; of love, compassion, and understanding.

Integrity allows us to question others, whether it is our friends who may be making a mistake, or the government which is supposed to represent us, without fear that we ourselves are distorting things, that we are the ones making the mistake or seeing things wrongly. Lacking integrity we follow others, fearing that our faults will become the centerpiece for someone else's ridicule. Lacking integrity we are not taken seriously, like 'the boy who cried wolf'. Lacking integrity our words are confused, our needs cannot be expressed, our wisdom becomes muddled.

This is no mere speculation, either. I may be young, but I have for most of my life now been exceptionally self-aware (even most often to a fault). I long ago turned my critical eye to the world and found its many faults. Anger at them, and to the world in general, blinded me to my own true nature, giving me false notions of superiority (for seeing all the faults when others did not), false nothings of holding the truth (which in fact was nothing more than the affirmation of my anger and skepticism), and false notions about the hearts of many fellow human beings (seeing only faults, blind to the warmth and joy at the heart of each of them).

Now, looking inward, I see that my own lack of integrity has caused so much of my own dissatisfaction in the world, and so much suffering for others around me. I see this in others too, but like I said, only 10% of one's time should be spent worrying about the faults of others: I need the other 90% (perhaps more!) to examine, come to terms with, and overcome my own faults here, so that I can see, and help others to see, the world as it truly is: beautiful.

American Buddhist in England

Back in the US, back in the US, back in the USSA

Blogisattvas, Bristol, and more...

Life: Homeward Bound

A Blakey day

Life: Whirlwinds Strike Again

Living: memed

Living: return to nature

Living: Insight from the Dalai Lama

Living: Sunseeking

Living: Reflecting

Living - moving?

Living - Goodies from Home

Quote of the Day:

Reflecting on Aristotle, (1 of 4)

Quote of the Day:

Back on and in search of Buddhist Ethics

Tuesday's Lessons

Sunday Night Ramblings

A compass in stormy seas

Life: Global Warming, Polution, and Interconnectedness

Kant and Buddha on Happiness

Life: wandering 'round London

Buddhist Ethics, Free Will, and the logic of Karma

Life: My house is famous

2007 in Review (part one)

Fun with Pāli and Sanskrit

Buddhist ethics and metaphysics

Smiling at 2007, welcoming 2008

Politics: toward a Buddhist immigration policy

God part 3: tentative resolutions

Life: merry -- mas

Life: back on track, but still too busy to post for myself, so...

Life: "Trying to catch up with the speed of Justin"

Is America an open society?

Leaving Sukhavati

God part 2 of 3: the meanings of things

God part 1 of 3: Living with myths

Life: pond-hopping again

Buddhist Ethics: figuring out Karma

Enlightenment? First Königsburg

Un-American, not Deep, and Un-Buddhist!?

Buddhism, propaganda, anti-propaganda propaganda and so on

Why Buddhist Ethics? - and how

Buddhism: two suttas

Buddhism and Life as a Whole

Dalai Lama is awarded the U.S. Congressional Gold Medal

Buddhism, art, and 'stuff'

Buddhism and War

Burma: a sadness so unbelievable

Nirvana: who wants it?

Who do ya love?

"the glorious inequalities of life"

Burma: Tibetans are Watching

Buddhist Ethics: one week on

The holiness of the mountain

Buddhist Ethics: Burma

B-Ethics: meeting the great man

London, sweet cold London

Life: Orientation week : done (Acceptance)

Stress and weight

Is stress making you fat?

Life: photos and orientation

Life: I'm Back!

no more justin in England...

The *Less* you know: great political commentary

Soon to return to the US...

Kantian and Buddhist ethics: Thinking outloud

Brilliant Anti-IRAQ statement from John Quincy Adams

poem: Turning from Virtue

homage to reason, that which we are so in need of...

Regaining integrity in purpose

Responding to the Terrorist attacks in London

Mixing Christianity with indigenous African beliefs: too horrible to imagine

Integrity: cleaning the mirror; unleashing pure light onto the world

The Less you know: great political commentary