The holiness of the mountain

“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

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

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:

1. We will meet every Wednesday to go over progress, questions, thoughts, etc.
2. 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.
3. Begin work immediately, don't send three emails to your fiancé and a long blog entry - oops, well...
4. Create an outline with chapters that looks something like this:
1. Literature review (what's been written in the field already, see esp. JBE)
2. Methodology (the how, what, and why of my project)
3. What Is Buddhist Ethics:
1. Is it Utilitarian
2. Aristotelian
3. Other
   
4. What Is Kantian Ethics:
1. The Caricature (rigid/vapid)
   
2. Neo-Kantians (Onora O'Neill, Allen W. Wood)
3. Other uses and interpretations
   
5. Is Buddhist Ethics compatible with Kantian Ethics
6. Conclusion
5. Keep a research journal/diary: ideas may come up any time - keep track of them
6. After one year be prepared to submit a chapter to upgrade from MPHIL to PHD.
1. Easy, just 10-15000 words (n.b. half of this may come from revising my MA dissertation from Bristol)
   
2. Or it could be the Lit. Review
   
3. Viva would likely just be DK and Howard Caygill (likely to be my other advisor)
   
7. Alright, some more specific questions/issues:
1. Are there Moral Absolutes in Buddhism? - DK thinks yes, so do I.
1. How do we show this?
2. Where might apparent exceptions lie?
   
2. 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).
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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?
   
1. 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.
   
2. 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?
8. 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

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)

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

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

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!

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...

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

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

1. transparency in government,
   
2. the rule of international law, or
3. 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...

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

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

[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.