Brilliant Anti-IRAQ statement from John Quincy Adams

[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

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...

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

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

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

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

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.

When all signs say.... 'cult'

Cults have long been a topic of fascination for me: what do they do? what do they believe? how/when does a cult become a 'mainstream' religion? how do I start my own?

Ok, so the last question was never quite so seriously asked, but probably very often on the periphery as the other questions were explored. A good friend of mine, Katie, a sociology graduate from UM often shared cult-starting strategies with me. She, however is an expert. Me, I'm a mere novice. Her focus was cult groups, even going so far as to live with a certain quasi-acceptable and mostly defunct cult group for an entire summer.

I first met her on a class trip to Vancouver, British Columbia (Canada) to spend a weekend with ISKCON, aka the 'Hare Krishnas'. I had a great time on the trip, sensing a genuine spiritual devotion amongst the ISKCON members, if not some hint of need in the younger ones. Their temple was beautiful and their prayers deep. Though they hailed a 'God' toward which I felt no calling, I felt comfortable in the presence of their own prayers, mantras, and devotional calls.

I had only just taken up a strong interest in Buddhism the fall before, and while I had no intention of joining them, my poor mother had not a few fears that I might not return! Leave it to mom to worry too much! I was still extremely skeptical, especially of 'organized' religion. And despite my affinity for the ISKCON members, they seemed to be just slightly better than what I imagined any average Christian church group to look like. I was in no way about to join any religious group.

Now.... Fast-forward four years to this year. I've been calling myself a Buddhist (see blog name) for about four years to most people, even nearly resigning my membership in Idaho Athiests (nearest organized group to me in Missoula!). But I didn't resign, and so that group is the nearest I have to any kind of religious organization to date. I did found a 'campus sangha' Buddhist group along with a UM freethinkers group, but both fizzled quickly so I don't count them. I did also inquire about becoming a 'mitra' (official 'friend') in the FWBO - Friends of the Western Buddhist Order in Missoula, but due to my continued interest in various forms of Buddhism (still 'shopping around') I was dissuaded from further commitment.

Recently, however, I have been contemplating joining some sort of Buddhist group with more solid commitment. The problem is, I haven't found the group yet! My reason for wanting to join something more is that I have done a ton of 'skimming the surface' here and there, and even tasted some of the depths of disciplined practice on a couple retreats, but I think it is time to further that discipline.

I have joined a 'Diamond Cutter' study group here in Bristol which has largely been made up of just myself, Achintya (an FWBO monk) and Suzanne (an active member of the New Kadampa Tradition). Now, in 5 days, I will see Geshe Michael Roach give talks in Ireland with these two people. Geshe Michael is an interesting character himself, not uncontroversial; but it strikes me that both of my travel mates are involved in groups that have had at least a brush with 'cult' accusations, the FWBO for odd/secretive activities of its founder, and NKT for the seemingly less ominous activities of worshiping a somewhat divisive deity and arguing with the Dalai Lama (see the links for more on each).

The status of these groups aside, cults are a real and destructive element in society, now as much as ever. But the lines between evangelical, fundamentalist, 'new' religion, new age, and cult are very blurry, and become even more difficult once you are a part of a group, as you become less able to make objective judgments.

So how does one know if the 'prayer group' or 'meditation class' they are going to is really nothing more than a front for a cult group? Well, I have been perusing the online anti-cult world and found at least one interesting article combining the experiences of an ex-Moonie and Lama Surya Das, as well as the useful site http://www.rickross.com/.

After some reading and reflection I agree that the groups of my travel companions are questionable, but certainly one needs to know more before calling either a cult. The fate of each rests on the shoulders of its members as well as the educated public. We all share a bit of the responsibility for questioning things that don't seem right and pointing out inconsistencies when we find them. The same goes for students of Geshe Michael Roach, including myself. His organizations are still outside of the public eye, but it will only be a matter of time before questions are raised, problems are pointed out, and it will be up to us all to treat such things openly and honestly. Thus far it seems that he has been very open about his life, teachings, and practices which, though it may initially put some people off to him, is certainly the best course for the long run.

Wisdom of Monty Python

Always look on the bright side of life.  From "The Life of Brian"

 http://www.mwscomp.com/sounds/mp3/brghtsd.mp3 or http://www.emp3world.com/mp3/5031/Monty%20Python/The%20Bright%20Side%20Of%20Life

Bright Side of Life
  by Eric Idle
  Cheer up, Brian.
  You know what they say;
  Some things in life are bad,
  They can really make you mad.
  Other things just make you swear and curse,
  When you're chewing on life's gristle,
  Don't grumble, give a whistle,
  And this'll help things turn out for the best, hey,
  Always look on the bright side of life,
  Always look on the light side of life,
  If life seems jolly rotten,
  There's something you've forgotten,
  And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing.
  When you're feeling in the dumps,
  Don't be silly chumps,
  Just purse you're lips and whistle,
  That's the thing.
  And, always look on the bright side of life,
  Always look on the right side of life,
  For life is quite absurd,
  An. death's the final word,
  You must always face the curtain with a bow,
  Forget about your sin,
  give the audience a grin,
  Enjoy it, it's you last chance of the hour.
  So, always look on the bright side of death,
  Just before you draw your terminal breath,
  Life's a piece o' shit,
  When you look at it,
  Life's a laugh and death's a joke it's true,
  You'll see it's all a show,
  Keep 'em laughing as you go,
  Just remember that the last laugh is on you.
  And, always look on the bright side of life,
  Always look on the right side of life,
  Come on, Brian cheer up,
  Always look on the bright side of life,
  Always look on the right side of life,
  Worse things happen at sea, you know,
  Always look on the bright side of life,
  I mean, what do you have to lose?
  You come from nothing,
  You go back to nothing.
  What have you lost? Nothing!
  Always   look    on    the    bright    side    of   life.

Wisdom can be found in the strangest of places, ya know?

Me, the world, lately...

My life lately has been fairly consumed with dissertation work - see posts below. And with a beautiful Spanish girl... so... what can I say? Things are well.

I am almost positive now that I will go back to Montana for a Masters in Philosophy, to add to my Masters in Buddhist Studies, en route to a Ph.D. in something (maybe zoology?) . So, only one more month in England (for now at least). Maybe I can come back for that Ph.D.

Some interesting things in the news that more of the world should know about:

This, a sad and very powerful article with two letters from loved one's of US soldiers who have died in Iraq. After the Downing Street Memo, which has hopefully been read by everyone out there, more and more Americans are waking up to the fact that we were given lies to justify this war. But where do we go from here? What can people do? Here are some suggestions.

More less-than-happy news: Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy party in Burma, has been under house arrest by the military government there for most of the last 15 years. This week she turned 60, celebrating her birthday in an empty house, cut off from the world. Michael Stipe, of REM, this week sent his well-wishes, along with President Bush, and many more.

In good news (!), humanists have been granted the ability to legally perform weddings in the UK. One of my good friends back in Montana , Lori Gilliland, is a certified Humanist Celebrant, which means she can officiate weddings and the likes. It may be a double-edged sword in the sense that many people think atheism or humanism is a religion of its own (which it isn't!), and this may add fuel to that thought. For me, and I think most who would call themselves humanist or atheist, these are simply labels which are useful to express a coherent body of ideas/beliefs about the world. They are not religious because they believe in no supernatural, they hold nothing on 'faith alone', and they do not prescribe rituals or practices to be performed. Some people want to twist the definition of religion to include atheism and/or humanism, but this is more a matter of self deception than real argument. The fact is that religion is difficult to define, but amongst the majority of experts, Humanism/Atheism simply do not fit the criteria (namely those above). hmm... maybe a topic for another post. :)

In other happy news, again dealing with a wedding, is the first gay military wedding performed in Canada. Not much to comment; it's just nice that homosexuality, which could have gotten you killed (and still can in certain places) in the past, is now openly part of the celebrations of life.

So while things aren't so rosy in the US and Burma, England and Canada are taking steps forward toward openness, inclusiveness, and freedom. God bless 'em. And DOOOOO contact your senator about the Downing Street Memo - it will only take 2 seconds and they do take such personal contact an eentzy-teenzy-weenzy bit seriously, which is infinitely more than you get otherwise.

Artists. Art. Life.

Having dated an artist, (and interested in all things philosophical) I found this passage from Thomas Merton's The Seven Storey Mountain, amusing:

[of his parents, both artists], "They were in the world and not of it, not because they were saints, but in a different way: because they were artists. The integrity of an artist lifts a man above the level of the world without delivering him from it."

The philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer, which resembles and borrows from Eastern wisdom, culminates in the aesthetic as the overcoming of the will. The will, for Schopenhauer, is none other than the Buddhist 'thirst' (trṣnā), driven by ignorance [of the ideal]. But Schopenhauer lacks the practice, so central to Eastern wisdom, of meditation/yoga. It is through meditation that a transcendence is experienced. Transcendence is at first merely glimpsed, soon firmly grasped, and ultimately made one with the being.

The Beautiful turns us toward the transcendent without providing us the tools to experience it directly. Thus, for the Buddhist, the aesthetic is sublime but not ultimate. This is the same recognition as Thomas Merton makes - art may lift you up, but it alone cannot quench your thirst eternally.

Cyclists get naked for the environment

Good news. Worth sharing. It may be one of those events that 'preaches to the converted' and sparks ridicule from everyone else, but I (being of the converted) appreciate it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4083580.stm

Why Kant and Buddhism are comparable and why you should care

I'm starting my MA thesis comparing Kantian and Buddhist ethics and have already been told by a couple people that Buddhist ethics is really more like Aristotle (the mean between extremes, cultivating virtues, and all that). And for most people, the response when they hear what I'm writing is a kind of blank stare. So... I think I should formulate, briefly, why Kant and Buddhism are comparable and why you should care.

They are comparable because of the enormous stress laid by each on REASON. Reason, for Kant, is a move away from the ever-changing and uncertain realm of the senses and desires, toward something deeper, more true. It is this ability to overcome urges/desires that gives rise to autonomy (true self-governance) and dignity. Reason in Buddhism is a method of discerning true perceptions from those clouded by greed/aversion/ignorance. Most of the time, though we gaze upon reality, what we cognize is a mistaken image - like the experiences of a dream, we are so caught up even in waking experiences that we cannot discern the real from the unreal. Therefore reason plays a central role for both. For Kant it is through the 'rational will' alone that we act morally and in Buddhism it is only by reasoned analysis that reality, and with it true morality, can be ascertained.

Now.. why you should care: imagine any difficult subject in your life: a foreign language, math, philosophy, other people... Now think about it: when you reason out an answer and it works - as in it pulls together a great amount of disparate parts into a unified whole - you feel good. Of course you may screw up (a lot perhaps), and it will take time for any real accomplishment, solving a large calculus equation or understanding Kantian ethics, but when it does happen there is a very real shift in perception and overall understanding of what had hitherto been mere parts. All of those words you had hitherto just looked at and/or memorized suddenly fit together and make sense. Now imagine doing that with the nature of reality itself! Imagine shifting your perception of everything you experience in the world for the rest of your life. THAT IS PHILOSOPHY - That is the power of reason fully utilized. That is why you should care.

Leibniz and Buddhism?

(concerning the comment made on my June 2 post) Thank you for your suggestion. I don’t think I will be able to follow it, as I have already started work on my thesis, but I am intrigued by it and would like to hear more. I hadn’t even considered Leibniz as a source of comparison to Buddhist thought, and, reading about his thought now, I do not see much that would suggest comparison. In what follows I will simply pull out points from my reading (in “The Oxford Companion to Philosophy” Honderich ed., pp.477-480) on Leibniz and comment on their difference from Buddhism. Obviously then, I will just be pointing out prima facie problems, and hope that you will correct me in any misinterpretations.

1. His ontology (monads) at first glance resembles an Abhidharma ontology of dharmas (basic building blocks of existence), but Leibniz allows (even necessitates) God as the creator of each monad whereas Buddhism argues that each dharma is necessarily the result of a beginningless chain of prior dharmas.
2. Leibniz also denies the possibility of intersubstantial causal relations (ie. a monad of one type could not interact with monads of another type) whereas in Buddhist thought dharmas of one type must interact (ie. a moment of eye-consciousness [a mental dharma] is the result of an object [a physical dharma] and awareness [a mental dharma]).
3. Leibniz also posited a thesis that individual substances “differ with respect to their intrinsic, non-relational properties”, whereas Buddhist thought universally denies intrinsic properties (the three marks of existence in Buddhism are: non-self, change, and unsatisfactoriness), all things which exist in Buddhism do so only by virtue of their causes and conditions.
4. Leibniz denied that space was an entity existing beyond material entities within it, whereas Buddhism asserts that space is itself a dharma, hence separate from other (material) dharmas which may interact within it.
5. Leibniz, arguing against Locke, argues that “concepts of self, substance and causation, are innate” in the human mind, whereas Buddhism, would side with the empiricist here that all of our ideas (especially the idea of ‘self’ which is fundamentally misconstrued according to Buddhism) are derived from experience.

There is no section on the ethics of Leibniz... I should have mentioned that my thesis focuses on Kantian ethical theory and that of Buddhism (probably specifically Tibetan Buddhism). I am intrigued though, as always with such novel ideas, with your suggestions. So if you (or anyone for that manner) have more comments, I would very much welcome them.

Thanks and best wishes. jw

Wisdom from my all-knowing tutor

Well he's not quite all-knowing... but we'll forgive him that today. Because today he gave me a lovely little gem of advice concerning writing papers (I'm about to embark on a 15000 word journey into comparing Kantian and Buddhist ethics).

He said, "words on paper are the essayists equivalent to a potter's clay. If you haven't actually started to write, you don't even have the material to start moulding into your final product."

khalu bhagavaan tatsatyam | Indeed, oh wise one, this is true.

Another gem came from a former ethics professor:

"The Buddhism-Kant thesis sounds challenging. It seems to me avoiding Kant is a good way to be free from suffering."

khalu bhagavaan tatsatyam | Indeed, oh wise one, this is true.

I'm in for an interesting 3 months... wish me luck. jw

Why I love England

Well, there are probably many reasons, but this article in the New York Times and on CNN reminded me of how wonderful England truly is. The gist of the story is that some doctors are moving to ban long, pointy kitchen knives because they are the most common murder weapon in England.

It's a dicey topic in the states, but it could only remind me of the murder problem that plagues America (which seems to be a GUN problem, see stats below). But I'm not sure. One thing that came up in the CNN article was that the doctors said that "many assaults are impulsive, often triggered by alcohol or misuse of other drugs...[and the knife is easily available]" So something about impulsiveness and then the availability of a weapon should be considered. Bowling for Columbine, in which Michael Moore went to Canada, an equally gun-toting nation in which people seem to stay on the right end of the barrel, reminds us that it isn't just 'having guns' that causes the violent deaths we see in the US. (here is an interesting site refuting Moore's statistics)

Total homocide rate in England in 2003 was 853. The total murder rate in the US that year, according to the FBI was 14408. Given that the population of the US is about 5 times that of England, we appear to only have about 2-3 times the murder rate per capita.

So... maybe the US isn't so bad after all.. ? :) And maybe the Brits will fight the pointy knife ban with the catchy slogan, 'if long, pointy knives are outlawed, only outlaws will have long, pointy knives.' ...

Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

• 373 people in Germany
• 151 people in Canada
• 57 people in Australia
• 19 people in Japan
• 54 people in England and Wales, and
• 11,789 people in the United States

Romantic love, a spark of Reality

Not that I've actually felt that spark recently, but I have thought about it a great deal over the last few years and thought I'd post my conclusions. First is that romantic love, when it is in a healthy relationship, is fantastic material for philosophical/spiritual progress. This is because the moment of eros (romantic love as it is felt) pulls us out of ourselves in a very real and concrete way. This feeling, if we are able to allow it, will grow into agape (love that is spiritual, not sexual, in its nature). And it is experiencing and understanding agape that opens us, both intellectually and emotionally to the whole of the world.

Think about that first kiss. It almost physically brings you out of what I would call your'self', that thinking/analyzing part of your existence. Thought just stops in that moment of romance. Experience is DIRECT. And think about it. It is one of the most Vivid memories we usually have, exactly because it isn't mediated/muddled by all kinds of conceptual thought. It is direct. The problem is that our analyzing mind creeps in and makes us worry about this or that and we lose touch with the moment; the romance is lost.

It is not that the thinking/analyzing mind is bad. In fact it is essential to our life, our existence, and our happiness. The problem is our controlling it, using it when it is useful, and just living in the perfect, eternal moment when that is appropriate.

That kiss brings us into the moment; understanding the way our mind has come to this moment and how the mind can lose the moment gives us the power to remain 'in-the-moment' throughout our life. This, I think, is enlightenment. It is knowing the experiences of life directly, USING analysis when needed, but not being overrun by it; and likewise being fully aware in every moment, not lost or 'just day dreaming' ever.

Until we've reached that, we will inevitably react to the world, sparks of romance included, with the unskillful emotions of greed and/or aversion; but just knowing that we have a choice in the grand scheme of things is a start.

On a lighter note, I think the first thing I do when I get back to Montana is 'find myself a woman' as we say in Montana - (knowing full well romance doesn't exactly work that way). Until then I'll just try to live in the moment by way of philosophy and meditation... and Beethoven.

A simple post; things for which to strive

In the everyday realm of potentials and imprints, it is important:

- to maintain a positive attitude,
- to be generous,
- to never begrudge others the results of their own efforts,
- to refuse to take pleasure in other peoples' problems,
- to refrain from anger,
- to cultivate gratitude, and
- to avoid wasted talk.

Basic Buddhist principles. I post them in part just to remind myself. Soon I'll post some stuff on meditation, where you get the true feel of how well you embody these... 'till then... jw

Buddhism, ethics, and stem-cells

Stem Cells and Buddhism, an ethics dilemma?

I just came across this article: http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/biz/200505/kt2005052419231011910.htm

This makes for a nice article on how non-dogmatic Buddhism can be: encouraging a person to reason about the motivations of actions, rather than relying on hand-me-down rules. I'm not sure, though, about his claim that Buddhist embryology leaves out the earliest stages of the embryo (immediately following conception).

James J. Hughes and Damien Keown in a paper here, state, "most Buddhist commentators have adopted classical Hindu teachings that the transmigration of consciousness occurs at conception, and therefore that all abortion incurs the karmic burden of killing. Before modern embryology, however, in both Buddhist countries and the West, ideas about conception were scientifically inaccurate, and often associated the beginning of life with events in the third or fourth month of pregnancy (for a discussion of traditional Tibetan embryology, see Dhonden, 1980 and Lecso,1987)."

It would seem that now that we know conception takes place as the instigator of pregnancy, it would seem that 'conception' would begin with simply the egg and the sperm. So it would seem that Mr. Hwang may be off a bit.

BUT... He is right to think that Buddhism emphasizes compassion, wherein compassionate motives are of chief importance. Another consideration, raised in the Hughes/Keown paper, is that there may be 'degrees' of consciousness/personhood. Even though the 'being' has entered the physical basis at conception, it may be a matter of time before 'personhood' is fully developed. Remember that animals have some degree of 'personhood' in that an animal may have been your great-grandmother in its last life, and may be reborn as your child, and so any cruelty toward it is wrong. However, cruelty toward an animal is less wrong than cruelty toward a person. The degrees seem to hinge mainly on the capacity of the animal to suffer, a horse has more sentience (ability to feel pain/pleasure) than a fish; hence cruelty to a horse is worse; and cruelty toward a gnat would be of the least consequence (but still some).

So... letting go of the pro-life argument that every embryo is (if not a person already which has major conceptual problems) a potential-person (every living being in Buddhism is a potential-person, if not one already), we can see that doing experiments on/extracting stem-cells from an embryo is going to be of very little negative moral consequence. Further, the altruistic, compassionate intention (if that is truly his intention) creates great positive moral consequence, more than offsetting the negative.

Meanwhile, that cheese-burger or chicken salad you're eating... :) jw

indecision

I hate sitting still. I hate being unsure about where I will be in 4 months. I hate major life decisions.

I have this uneasy feeling of being cut off from the world. It is completely irrational; I know. (so in some sense I employ here the 'talking cure': talk about what is driving me crazy, realized directly the irrationality of my 'problems' which I already know intellectually, and poof, they disappear.)

[laughs.... not sure where to begin...] Well, I suppose 'now' is as good a time as any to begin.

Why am I 'sitting still'? Well, it isn't that my current life is devoid of projects, things to complete, things to start. It's not that my past has become irreconcilable with my present or future hopes. It is the future that is bothering me. The future, which is, as it should be, not normally something I fret about. But now I am at a crossroad, and oddly enough (perhaps not) this uncertainty about the future has me a bit dazed and confused in the present.

I could go on for another Masters Degree (in Philosophy)... back in Montana... More debt, I don't like debt. But I LOOOOVE philosophy. I could stay here (England) and look for work (teaching Religious Ed. in high-schools seems possible). I could go back to Montana and look for work while looking into Ph.D. stuff or other work (Peace Corps, Japan English Teaching).

All options LOOK good... But none is PULLING me, or so it seems; and hence the stagnation in the present. So this is my stagnation, my uncertainty, my life-decision.

And perhaps the problem isn't there at all, but rather it is my desire for something to pull me. Can I accept this world of possibility just as it is? [cringes] mmm.... rggg... I don't know.

I'm not sure this 'talking-cure' thing is working :) [laughing...]

I suppose I'm not really sitting still, after all. Whether I like it or not, I'm going forward. So I might as well enjoy the ride. And no matter how sure I think I am at any time, I never really know where I'll be in four months. And it would seem that no MAJOR life decisions need to be made now... I'll go back to UM. I'll look at alternatives though, and see what comes along. I have motion again.

I love philosophy, and in truth I shouldn't even have to contemplate passing up an opportunity to study it for two more years. It opens up new universes in thought for me... I constantly walk away from lectures, books, papers, and conversations with peers feeling as though I am nearer to some understanding that beckons me, almost religiously... So... Damn it all... Debt is a burden, yes, but I can carry it... I must. [sigh]

[smile]

Ok... so maybe it has worked... back to Sanskrit studies... jw