phlawz

Your Brain on God

2009-05-21T00:10:00.005-04:00

The NPR website has an article and interactive page on some of the most recent findings in neuroscience, including short videos from various experts on the study of consciousness. It is a summary of Barbara Bradley Hagerty's research that has just been published in the book, Fingerprints of God:

More than half of adult Americans report they have had a spiritual experience that changed their lives. Now, scientists from universities like Harvard, Pennsylvania and Johns Hopkins are using new technologies to analyze the brains of people who claim they have touched the spiritual -- from Christians who speak in tongues to Buddhist monks to people who claim to have had near-death experiences. Hear what they have discovered in this controversial field, as the science of spirituality continues to evolve.

Neuroscientists have become the priests and witch doctors of our society, explaining the hows and whys of mysterious human experiences by using language and imagery that most of us barely understand. (For instance, does anyone know how to interpret an EEG readout with all its jagged lines that track the electromagnetic activity of the brain, or an fMRI image with different sections of the brain colorfully lit up like a Christmas Tree?) It is interesting that these new authorities on consciousness are increasingly focusing their efforts on spiritual experiences like near-death experiences, epiphanies, ESP, and the power of prayer. Even if no conclusions are reached, it is encouraging that Science is finally treating the metaphysical as a valid field for research and developing new models to "measure" consciousness and spirit.

Although i am a spiritual person by nature, i tend to believe that neuroscience provides a more reasonable explanation for many of our most hallowed "spiritual" experiences than religion or even psychology. It makes much more sense to me that Paul's life-changing experience was an epileptic seizure so awesome and inexplicable that he interpreted it as the voice of God rather than encountering the actual voice of God. Neuroscientists have discovered that a certain kind of epilepsy, temporal lobe epilepsy, is often accompanied by religious hallucinations. While this is not proof that Paul had epilepsy, it does make more sense than the Biblical explanation.

Even though i am excited about some of the findings in neuroscience, the spiritual side of me remains skeptical about the scientific attitude that all human experiences can be measured, quantified, and verified through scientific means. This belief seems to be reinforced with every discovery and breakthrough so that we now turn to science to conclusively answer all the big questions in life. The scientific method has proven itself to have immense applicability but it is important to recognize the limits of scientific knowledge. Perhaps science can enlighten us about the nature of God, but how much does it have to offer us in the realms of art, love, and peace-making? I like the insight that science brings to religious matters but i sometimes wonder if it is becoming a new kind of religion in the process.

Paul Hawken's Commencement Address: Healing and Stealing: "You are Brilliant, and the Earth is Hiring."

2009-05-20T14:59:00.006-04:00

Paul Hawken - the entrepreneur and environmentalist who wrote Blessed Unrest, How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No One Saw It Coming and who is at the forefront of the movement to make business practices more ecologically sustainable - gave a rousing speech at the University of Portland on May 3rd, 2009.

The complete speech can be found on Real Talk World. Below are some of my favorite excerpts. (I'll post video if and when it becomes available.)

"Hey, Class of 2009: you are going to have to figure out what it means to be a human being on earth at a time when every living system is declining, and the rate of decline is accelerating... Basically, the earth needs a new operating system, you are the programmers, and we need it within a few decades."

"There is invisible writing on the back of the diploma you will receive, and in case you didn’t bring lemon juice to decode it, I can tell you what it says: YOU ARE BRILLIANT, AND THE EARTH IS HIRING."

"Don’t be put off by people who know what is not possible. Do what needs to be done, and check to see if it was impossible only after you are done."

"When asked if I am pessimistic or optimistic about the future, my answer is always the same: If you look at the science about what is happening on earth and aren’t pessimistic, you don’t understand data. But if you meet the people who are working to restore this earth and the lives of the poor, and you aren’t optimistic, you haven’t got a pulse."

"Ralph Waldo Emerson once asked what we would do if the stars only came out once every thousand years. No one would sleep that night, of course. The world would become religious overnight. We would be ecstatic, delirious, made rapturous by the glory of God. Instead the stars come out every night, and we watch television."

Bodhisattva on the Subway

2009-05-20T14:08:00.010-04:00

A wonderful short film called Merci! by Christine Rabette. It will bring a smile to your face - if it doesn't have you rolling with laughter!

Plastic Bags

2008-05-30T00:29:00.003-04:00

I recently became a member of the Park Slope Co-op, here in Brooklyn. It is the largest and oldest member-owned food coop in the US. All the major decisions are openly discussed and voted on by the community of members. It is ironic, then, that the Coop has developed a reputation among some of its ex-members for being a "fascist" organization – as if the authoritarian structure of corporate grocery stores is more democratic!

Because of its member-governed system, the Coop has often been at the forefront of social change. This was evidenced again this week as the Coop passed a proposal to eliminate plastic shopping bags from the store. After a passionate discussion that felt like an old-fashioned New England town hall meeting where everyone knows the eventual result of the vote but still take the opportunity to speak their mind and voice their opinions, the proposal received overwhelming support and the Coop became plastic-bag free.

The enthusiasm for this proposal was especially encouraging to me. I recently joined the Interdependence Project’s initiative “Back to the Sack: No More Plastic Bags”, which is an attempt to employ the ideas of Integral Activism to the real world of political change. The goal of the initiative is to eliminate plastic shopping bags from New York City. It will require persistent effort and a strong commitment to the principles of nonviolent activism (we expect vigorous opposition from plastic bag lobbying groups) but it is good to know that, when left to choose for themselves, people do want to get rid of the bags.

Interestingly, the ubiquitous shopping bags that are quickly filling up our landfills – not to mention our sewers, parking lots, empty fields, and bushes – may not be as difficult to decompose as we think. This week, a young scientist was honored for discovering a way to reduce the decomposition period of plastic bags from 1000 years to… about three months! He is Daniel Burd from Waterloo, Ontario. And he is 16 years old. Basically, he figured out how plastic naturally decomposes and then created the conditions to speed up the process. His idea won top honors at Canada’s biggest science fair and earned the teenager $10,000 plus a $20,000 scholarship.

Jill Bolte Taylor

2008-05-29T18:59:00.012-04:00

There is a neuroscientist who has been creating quite a stir lately. Her name is Jill Bolte Taylor and she had a stroke eleven years ago, at the age of 37. What is remarkable about her story is not that she survived the stroke but that she remained conscious through most of the ordeal and describes it as “nirvana”. In a talk given at the TED conference – a sort of think tank for creative nerds – earlier this year, Dr. Taylor describes in emotionally vivid language what it feels like to lose the rational, analytic, and verbal functioning of the brain and experience euphoric oneness with all of life. Her recent book, My Stroke of Insight, describes her experience of having a stroke and the spiritual lessons that she has learned from it.

Dr. Taylor is uniquely positioned – as a brain scientist, a stroke victim, and someone who has directly experienced a mystical state of consciousness – to act as a bridge between modern science and ancient mysticism. And there is hope that her work will lead to a more scientific understanding of spiritual experiences. However, i think there is reason to believe that this may not lead to the scientific validation of mysticism that many people expect.

One problem is that Dr. Taylor only experienced “nirvana” as a result of the malfunctioning of her body. A blood clot in the left hemisphere of her brain caused her left lobe to shut down so that her brain was operating with primarily the right hemisphere during her mystical feeling of oneness. She was basically working with half a brain. This is especially relevant to a scientific understanding of enlightenment because the traditional explanations of nirvana are almost always associated with right-brain functions: holistic; non-linear; intuitive; simultaneous; visionary; etc. In other words, by explaining her mystical experience in scientific terms, Dr. Taylor’s work may eventually consign mysticism to the abnormal development of the right lobe (and the underdevelopment of the left lobe, which governs analytical, linear, verbal, temporal, and numerical activities). It may be decided that mystical experiences are the result of cognitive deformity, not mental health. It is a common religious conceit to vilify the functions of the left brain but it is important to remember that the two hemispheres are mutually dependent and that mental health depends on their cooperation.

The Joy of Used Books

2007-09-10T18:56:00.000-04:00

Don't you just love used book sales?! One of the best things about living in New England has got to be the plethora of used book sales. Last weekend my local library had their annual used book sale. It was a big event. It was scheduled for two full days but when i got there - ten minutes after it started - there were already over 300 people in the room! I spent about half an hour looking at my favorite categories - philosophy, biography, science, self-help, etc. - and walked away with almost two dozen nice additions to my library. Here is a selection of some the gems:

The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman
Work as a Spiritual Practice by Lewis Richmond
The Treehouse by Naomi Wolf
The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies
The Art of Happiness by the Dalai Lama
The Artist's Way by Julia Cameron
Wisdom Energy by Lama Yeshe
Tuesdays with Morrie by Mitch Albom
an English translation of Einstein's papers on Relativity
Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich
The Secret by Rhonda Byrne
Faster by James Gleick

Not bad for $20!

The Side Effects of Religion

2007-09-05T19:53:00.000-04:00

I met an interesting woman a couple weeks ago. She is an environmentalist in Boston who understands how our religious beliefs not only affect the world around us but actually create our earthly existence. We talked about how the prevailing Christian belief system has led us to an ecological crisis. As long as we believe that the afterlife is more important and a more worthwhile existence, why should we be concerned with the destruction of this world? When it comes time to make the hard choices and personal sacrifices needed to help the Earth recover from environmental damage, will we be able to wipe away the mesmerizing image of Heaven and get our hands dirty? Only time will tell…

I am intrigued by this relationship between our idealistic beliefs and the material world that we live in. Often we think that these two worlds are completely separate: that our beliefs are merely ideas that have little to no effect on the flesh and bones of reality. But more and more scientists are coming to understand that there is a very close relationship between the body and the mind, and between our beliefs and the world we live in. Our thoughts can make us physically ill. Our convictions can make us see things that nobody else sees. And our devoted belief in life after death can make us neglect life here and now.

It is no longer feasible for our religious beliefs to be hidden in the secrecy of our souls. The world just won’t survive. As the global community becomes more and more closely interconnected, we need to expose our so-called personal beliefs for all to see and evaluate in terms of the common good. Religion is not simply a personal matter anymore.

My friend in Boston said that of all the religions she has encountered, the most promising one for the future is Judaism because Jewish cosmology is the least concerned with an afterlife. This allows Jews to focus almost all of their energy on the immediate circumstances – something that we, as a species, will have to do if we hope to address the threat of global warming. I think that she has a very good point.

In God We Trust

2007-08-26T23:03:00.000-04:00

I recently went to a family reunion and reconnected with many relatives who i hadn't seen in ten years. During a late-night discussion on God and the meaning of life - in which more than one person was drunk - my cousin remarked that believing in God is an essential part of being American.

I was amazed. I know that many conservative Christians hold the belief that the US is "God country" but it was surprising to find this view so close to home. And, to be honest, i found it a little disturbing that a well-educated person could so carelessly blur the distinction between being a citizen of the United States and being a faithful believer in God. But, of course, this is the whole problem: people like my cousin see their religious beliefs as self-evident truths, not one set of beliefs among many, equally acceptable beliefs. Sincerely maintaining the right of religious freedom implies accepting that there is more than one viable religious view - something that many Christians seem unwilling to accept.

To be fair, i think the fear that many Christians feel when faced with the challenge of allowing freedom to other religious views is prompted not only be sectarian protectionism but by a genuine desire for moral harmony. They feel that if we abandon Christian beliefs we will lose the moral cohesion that has provided our country's shared value system since the very beginning. They think that the loss of Christian ethics will result in the loss of all ethical sensibility.

To a certain extent, i think this is a valid concern. I don't think we need to fear complete moral chaos but as more and more Americans embrace atheism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and other belief systems that do not rotate around a Creator, there will be less and less of a shared religious foundation. This will open up room for more religious freedom but it will also permit the growth of morally questionable behavior. (If there are fewer socially agreed upon "rules" of conduct, there will be more instances of impulsive and selfish behavior.) In order to preserve public peace and protect the needs of the many against the whims of the few, we will be forced to find some common values across religions that will function as moral guides in a secular society.

In an interesting sidenote, one of the reasons that my cousin used to support his argument that being American implies believing in God is that the phrase "In God We Trust" is printed on every dollar bill. Although this is true, i was surprised to learn from last week's Newsweek article on Billy Graham that this phrase has only been printed on our money for the last 50 years:

It is in part thanks to Graham that Eisenhower inserted "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance and stamped IN GOD WE TRUST on our bills.

Questioning Democracy

2007-08-26T15:07:00.000-04:00

Nothing is perfect. This is especially apparent in human systems; every system has its faults and problems. Yet, in today's world, we constantly hear the virtues of democracy extolled with hardly any mention of its defects. Intellectually, we may know that democracy cannot be a perfect system... but are we aware of the specific problems of democracy? The Greek philosophers often wrote on the demerits of democracy but do we - proud democratic citizens - understand the weak points of our own system??

TV Links

2007-07-22T20:03:00.000-04:00

My sister hooked me up with this great link:

http://www.tv-links.co.uk/

It's a website that offers thousands of documentaries, TV shows, anime, movies, and other stuff - all for free!! I don't know who owns the site or how they are able to survive without advertisement or how they are able to get around copyright infringement... but i am happy to utilize their services!

If you are interested in educational films, check out these mind-expanding gems: The Power of Nightmares, Walmart, Super-Size Me, Zeitgeist, The Trap, America: From Freedom to Fascism.

Keith Schwalenberg & Ross McBride

2007-07-21T14:19:00.000-04:00

If you are interested in film, remember these names: Keith Schwalenberg and Ross McBride. They are two young and talented filmmakers from Connecticut who will soon be popular names in Hollywood. Last night they were on hand for the east coast premiere of their latest creation, Evidence, shown at Cinestudio in Trinity College in Hartford.

Evidence is a short film (28 min.) that captures the frightening events experienced by a police officer and a cameraman during one night of routine duty. The film is based on the popular technique of COPS, and other similar television shows, that document the daily events of police officers. But, as Keith mentioned in a Q&A session following the screening, most Reality TV shows portray an edited version of actual events in which some scenes are cut out to present an image and a story that has been predetermined by the studio. Reality TV often fails to show the audience what really happened but instead shows an artificially created, marketable version of real events. This motivated Keith and Ross to make a film that would provide footage of events that is normally omitted from so-called “reality” shows.

Although an attentive viewer will recognize that Evidence is scripted, it conveys a very real sense of being genuine documentary footage. This effect is the result of the most remarkable feature of this film: it is all one take! The entire 28-minute film is one continuous shot from a single camera. There are no breaks, no cut footage, no jumps from one scene to another or from one time to another, and no switching from one camera’s perspective to another. Considering the logistical difficulties that this presents, it is an amazing accomplishment that the film is able to maintain a storyline that is coherent, well paced, dramatic, and suspenseful. It is an impressive work of art.

Keith, 21, and Ross, 19, went to school together in Hartford and then moved out to Los Angeles to pursue careers in film. Keith is the quintessential director who oversees all aspects of a film’s development – from formulating the initial idea with friends to coordinating the details of filming to attracting investors for future projects. Ross is a very talented writer whose easy-going demeanor is a complementary fit with Keith’s drive to succeed. Evidence is the second film that they have collaborated on – they worked together to create GunPlay in 2006 – and i expect that they will work together on many more projects. Keith, Ross, and some of their friends have formed Cinescape, a production group that will likely breed many successful projects in the years to come.

For their next project, Keith and Ross plan to make a feature film about Quarter Midget racing – to be filmed at the Silver City raceway in Meriden, CT. Meanwhile, they will be submitting Evidence to film festivals across the country. Look for it at Sundance!

Selflessness & Capitalism

2007-07-17T17:45:00.000-04:00

Last weekend i had a philosophical breakthrough that helped me overcome my resistance to capitalism. The new perspective emerged from my long-standing struggle with the Buddhist concept of selflessness.

My complaints about capitalism are not your standard Marxist critiques of private ownership and personal greed but are based on the presumed view of the self that capitalism is predicated on. Capitalism is based on the premise that each person has an individual self, a self with the power to buy, sell, own property, and make a profit. This leads to the rationale that whenever a group of individuals coexist in the same area, a conflict of interest will arise between the different selves resulting in competition and a self-regulating, free market. The seemingly obvious and undeniable existence of a unique self is something that almost everyone takes for granted but it is a belief that i have spent years questioning. Do we really have a self? If so, what is its nature? And what does it mean to be selfless?

My quest has been nourished by Buddhist teachings on "selflessness" but now i realize that i often misinterpreted those teachings. Buddhist teachings, and other deconstructionist philosophies, demonstrate the logical incoherence of a concept or theory, sometimes giving the appearance that the idea has been completely rejected. In reality, this technique is meant to break down our belief in the absoluteness of an idea so that we can recognize its interdependence and interconnection with the rest of the world. The lines of reasoning that refute the idea of a self, for example, merely show that this idea is logically inconsistent; they do not dismiss the self as completely nonexistent.

This is where i misunderstood the teachings. I assumed that the logical refutation of the self was an outright denial of the self, and then proceeded to believe in the supposed nonexistence of the self. This led me to believe in a world where beings could exist without a self and to criticize any systems of thought, like capitalism, that were informed by a self-centered philosophy. I now realize that we cannot deny the existence of the self. The self exists and is as real as anything else in our world. The teachings on selflessness are not meant to negate the self but to help us understand how the self exists. Where does the sense of self come from? What are all the conditions that contribute to the creation of a self? By understanding the complete network of conditions that support the appearance of a self, we will understand the true nature of the self.

Capitalism presupposes the existence of a self. Although i used to find this presumptuous and incorrect, i now find it acceptable because it is a belief that we can all agree on. We all feel a sense of self and we all have individual needs and desires. This will sometimes lead to a conflict of interest and to competition but, nevertheless, we accept that everyone has an personal self.

However, this doesn’t mean that i fully subscribe to capitalist philosophy. Although i accept the existence of the self, i think that capitalism’s particular view of the self is dubious. Capitalism assumes individuals to be completely isolated and independent from each other, each one abiding in his own world, scheming to find the best way to profit from his dog-eat-dog relationships with the people around him. Capitalism recognizes our individuality without accounting for our commonality. It accentuates our differences while ignoring the things that hold us together. It fails to appreciate our shared culture and shared humanity. Basically, it assumes that individuals will always act to maximize their own advantage and never sacrifice their own resources for the benefit of others. Of course, we know that this is not true.

I respect capitalism’s dynamism and the relative freedom that it grants to business. But the human image at its core is extremely one-sided and inadequate for our society. If we identify too closely with this economic theory, not only will it have an indirect effect on our lives but we will start to perceive ourselves according to its limited model of humanity and lose sight of our potential.

Globalization

2007-07-16T21:07:00.000-04:00

I strive to embody the virtues of a free and independent thinker. I try to consider all sides of an issue, try to understand the perspective and presumptions of a commentator, and base my conclusions on sober reasoning rather than on biased emotional persuasion. However, most important issues are complex dilemmas that refuse to yield to the clarifying simplicity of the intellect. By analyzing big problems we don’t find unanimous answers but more and more questions to consider.

In the last several months i have been trying to figure out where i stand on the issue of globalization. And, frankly, i find it all a bit confusing. In America, most people hear nothing but praise and promise for globalization. From increased trade between nations, to enhanced communication systems based on satellites and the internet, to talk of a “global economy”, to the explosion of global organizations like the World Bank, IMF, and WTO, we are offered many examples of the unifying force of globalization. Combined with the growing pressure from biologists and ecologists to address the global warming issue on a global scale and the universal spiritual desire for harmony and world peace, it would appear that everyone has signed the petition for globalization. We can’t wait to be one big happy family!

But there is a significant amount of dissent for the process of globalization. Critics point to the exploitation of poor countries by the globalizers, the subversion of democracy in the name of a “free market”, and the attempt to establish a New World Order that will ensure that the Western countries maintain their economic and political superiority when the planet inevitably goes global. And if one investigates these claims in the writings of Chomsky, Michael Moore, Greg Palast, Naomi Klein, and others, it is clear that globalization has some dark secrets beneath its glossy cover.

I think one of the main reasons that the concept of globalization has become such a hot topic is that the term can convey such a wide variety of meanings. For the corporate businessman, globalization means expanding the free market to third-world countries so that his company has access to more customers. For the diplomat, globalization means eliminating barriers between countries so that there is more open communication. For the economist, globalization means the creation universal currencies that will allow more and more transactions to speak the same language. For the sociologist, globalization means that diverse cultures will be able to meet and interact more directly with each other. The globalization concept seems big enough to accommodate just about any interpretation.

I think few people would argue with the theory of globalization. We all recognize the needs and benefits of becoming an integrated, global community. But it is the current practice of globalization that is causing alarm for a growing number of people. So far, it has principally been the wealthy and powerful countries – especially the United States – that have profited from globalization. And i wouldn’t even say that the US, as a nation, has benefited. Overwhelmingly, the benefits have been realized by international corporations and their elite executives. The corporations have taken advantage of a reduction in the laws and taxes on trade, cheap labor (in countries with intolerable working conditions), and foreign subsidies to outsource jobs, avoid paying American taxes, and pressure American politicians into giving them preferential treatment. And the leaders at the frontier of the globalization movement are structuring the playing field so that they will be de facto managers of the new global economy.

For example, The Best Democracy That Money Can Buy explains that many third-world countries are offered financial aid packages from the World Bank and IMF that will put them in debt for a very long time. They are pressured by political and economic policies into accepting high-interest loans that are loaded with conditions that the country has to follow to remain in the bank’s good graces. These conditions give the World Bank effective control over that nation’s economy and this control is often used to manipulate internal political policy, determining the outcome of world events.

The globalization that is sold to us in the mainstream media paints the picture of an inevitable process of free-market capitalism that is spreading across the globe, liberating states from the restrictions of totalitarianism and promoting free choice, free trade, and the free flow of money. This image is fanciful, if not deliberately deceptive, but it has a lot of believers and is not easy to dismiss. It can be debated whether the spread of free-market capitalism is inevitable or not but the fact is that it is a powerful force in our world. Capitalism has shown itself to be a dynamic and flexible system able to adapt to the contemporary morals and beliefs of any culture that it is found in. And, in principle, it is a fair and democratic system.

The problem that free-market missionaries don’t seem to understand is that capitalism is not a complete system. It has limitations and those limitations must be maintained if it is to serve its purpose. Capitalism is an economic system that exists within the larger context of a socio-political nation-state. If the methodology of capitalism is seen as a universal truth that applies to all aspects of a society’s functioning, the practice of capitalism ceases to respect it’s own limitations; it overreaches, tries to be more than it is capable of, and will eventually collapse under the weight of it’s own gluttonous activity.

The successful practice of capitalism depends on many forces and controls that may appear to be restrict or oppose the free expansion of the free market. And if those restrictions are weakened or eliminated, capitalism loses its defining boundaries – eventually causing it to spin out of control. For example, over the course of our country’s relationship with capitalism we have implemented many laws regarding minimum wages, working conditions, rights to unionize, monopolies and antitrust practices – basically all dimensions of doing business. These laws serve not only to keep the field of business honest and fair but have defined exactly what we mean by capitalization. In other words, these restrictions and regulations that are so often criticized by free-market zealots are essential to the very practice of capitalism. Without these regulations, there would not be a fair playing field and, therefore, meaningful competition would disappear.

And yet, this process of “deregulation” is precisely what is driving globalization. Corporations are going overseas looking for the most “business-friendly” (cheapest) places to operate. These are often poor, third-world countries that have few, if any, laws defining the practice of business and protecting the rights of workers. Using the threat of moving to these cheaper third-world countries, corporations are able to pressure western governments into offering subsidies and loosening legal restrictions.

This is the ugly side of globalization. Corporations are taking advantage of the fact that there are poor, desperate nations that are rather naïve about the complexities of capitalism and exploiting them to make a profit. This is pressuring western countries to soften some of their cherished human rights laws in order to compete for corporate investment. This facet of globalization is not much more than a greedy search for profit wherever it can be found, regardless of the social side effects.

I am certainly against this money-hungry side of globalization but i don’t think it is appropriate to frame the issue according to only one side. The growth of a global economy is a worthwhile objective so, in theory, i don’t think there is a problem with the spread of capitalism. However, when capitalism is introduced into a society that does not have the laws and the democratic ideals that we have, it is bound to lead to injustice and exploitation. In short, a capitalist economy needs to be exported along with the legal structure that gives it shape and meaning in order to avoid creating a grossly unbalanced system. The reason why our current brand of globalization is unfair is because there are great disparities of wealth, political power, and citizens’ rights & freedoms between the countries of the world. We can’t expect to have a coherently functioning global society until these disparities are somewhat equalized.

The irony of the situation is that the corporate dash-for-cash is actually contributing to this equalization process. But instead of bringing the third-world up to the democratic standards of the western countries, it is bringing western standards down because we are being forced to compete with the desperation and struggle for survival felt by third-world workers.

Wireless Hitchhiking

2007-07-08T17:11:00.000-04:00

I had an interesting discussion with my brother this morning during Sunday brunch. We have two neighbors that have wireless internet access and the range of their network reaches into our home. So there is the possibility of using their service without their knowledge. And the question of whether this is stealing or not came up. My brother, Chris, adamantly maintained that it is stealing to use someone else’s wireless network without their permission. I am not so convinced. Without committing myself to asserting that it is definitely not stealing, i tried to argue that the issue is complex and debatable. It is not a clear instance of theft because nothing is being taken away from the "owner" of the service.

In our normal concept of stealing there is an owner who possesses an object which is then taken away by a thief. However, this concept is primarily based on the ownership and transference of physical objects, objects that have a clearly identifiable owner. This theory of stealing breaks down when the goods in question are not physical objects but services and non-material resources like time and space. It is obvious when someone steals my car but much more nebulous to say that someone stole my time.

When someone pays for internet access, they are paying for a service, not a tangible object, so what does it mean to say that the service has been stolen? If a thief hijacked that service and thus prevented the customer from receiving the benefits of the service that they paid for, it would be easy to agree that the service had been stolen. The customer paid for a service and that service was taken away from her. But that is not usually the case in wireless hitchhiking. The hitchhiker who gets a free ride on his neighbor’s wireless network does not prevent the paying customer from using the service that she paid for; he uses that service in addition to the paying customer. The hitchhiker gains something but the customer doesn’t lose anything. Is that stealing?

One of the reasons that we find wireless hitchhiking unfair is that the tenets of capitalism have inculcated us with the ideas of ownership and economic value. We believe that everything is owned and that everything has a price. If i own something and have to pay for it than it seems only fair that everyone else has to pay for it too. There are no free rides and charity is unacceptable. If internet access is something that i have to pay for then you should too. And if you don’t, it must be stealing.

In a country where 5% of the population controls 90% of the wealth, we have lost touch with the attitude of sharing, helping out the less fortunate, and donating the resources that we don’t need. When someone piggybacks on their neighbor’s wifi, they are not taking away what their neighbor uses but making use of their neighbor’s excess. They are taking advantage of the extra, unused service which, in the big picture, is the most economical approach: the least amount of service is able to supply the most clients. Instead of each internet user paying for their own individual service – thereby creating excesses that are left untapped – a system in which multiple users share a single line of service would provide for maximum access at minimal cost. Of course, the problem is that "maximum access at minimal cost" does not serve the interests of the companies who supply internet access. They are not interested in seeing clients share service; they want everyone to pay for their own service.

If we adopt corporate values as our moral guide then it is logical to conclude that wireless hitchhiking is stealing. But do we really want to do that?

Unemployment

2007-06-27T21:06:00.000-04:00

I do not have a job, which means that i am classified as "unemployed". Although i am eager to make some money so that i can pay my own bills and live on my own, i am relatively comfortable with being unemployed for a little while. It allows me the space to spend more time with family and friends and to build relationships that may lead to interesting and creative job opportunities.

But "unemployed" has become a dirty word in America. It stirs up ideas of poverty, laziness, and free-loaders who do not contribute to society. We have come to believe that one of the principal characteristics of responsible citizenship is getting paid to do a job. The type of work that one does, the integrity with which that job is performed, and the job's effect on the overall quality of life are all of secondary importance; the most important thing is that one is working. The economy must continue to expand and everyone must do their part. One gets the sense that we can label ourselves anything except unemployed: student, artist, freelance writer/consultant, intern, self-employed, etc. What's wrong with being unemployed?

I suppose a lot of it comes down to presentation and semantics. The only money i have earned in the last two months is from participating in scientific research studies (and a couple of dollars from this blog) but i could justifiably call myself an artist or a freelance writer or a spiritual advisor or a research assistant or any number of other things. But this doesn't change the fact that i am unemployed because nobody pays me to work for them. Even participation in paid research studies is considered voluntary with "compensation" taking the place of a working wage. (Wouldn't it be great if we reframed "work" as volunteerism with compensation? On second thought, that doesn't really evoke the capitalist spirit, does it?)

I am enjoying my period of unemployment. I like exploring the many avenues of opportunity and envisioning myself as a writer, teacher, waiter, stock broker, accountant, computer consultant, or university student. But, at times, i feel overwhelmed by the emphasis on specialization in the job market and in American culture generally. It seems that in order to be successful one has to demonstrate expertise in a particular field. And if your expertise is not commonly recognized then you are encouraged to create your own field: a field where you specialize in being yourself!

I have mixed feelings about the move toward ever-increasing specialization. On the one hand it is a perfect parallel to the growth of a decentralized and pluralistic society. Everyone is different and our differences should be reflected in our culture and in the marketplace. How wonderful it is that there are so many ways in which people can earn a living instead of having to conform to a few standard career models! With specialization, people can find job opportunities that are best suited to their age, education, health needs, family demands, transportation access, and many other highly-specific conditions. More and more we find that instead of structuring our lives around our job, we are finding the jobs that best fit into our lives.

The downside of specialization is that employees are hired only to perform certain tasks or fulfill certain roles with little or no consideration for the general impact that they will have on their working environment. The maturity, integrity, and sense of responsibility of a prospective employee is not as important as his or her punctuality. His ability to work well with others is not as important as her ability to type 100 words a minute. With specialization we tend to reduce people to their "marketable skills", ignoring their more human qualities and forcing them to work in a robot-like capacity where the only real concern is the completion of the set task.

Ideally, i would like to find a job where the quality of my character is valued as much as my intelligence and expertise. But how many employers are looking for workers with "good character"?! Isn't there something wrong with that??

Barack Obama's Call to Conscience

2007-06-26T00:59:00.000-04:00

I read an article in the Hartford Courant that gave me hope and encouragement. The front-page article was simply an account of Barack Obama’s visit to Hartford on Saturday, where he spoke at the United Church of Christ’s annual conference. However, the article detailed some of the things Obama said and his thoughts stirred me with optimism and inspiration.

I do not follow politics closely and i don’t know much about Senator Obama but it is clear that he is a man who has some important things to say. Like many people, i feel that there is way too much attention being given to potential presidential candidates this early in the election cycle and i am not eager to add to the media orgy by commenting on Obama but i think that his remarks reflect a deeper truth and that they are worth considering even if they are offered in the context of a political campaign.

The focus of his speech at the UCC in Hartford was “the link between faith and politics”, a subject that has captured my attention for several years. Indeed, this has become more and more of a hot topic in America as it has become evident that the Bush clan has deliberately attempted to capitalize on the religious sentiments of Middle America and transform that into political power. The convolution of religion and politics that we have witnessed over the last seven years is perhaps most symbolically represented by the religious and moral undertones that pervade US aggression in the Middle East. Like God, the President stands before us and announces that we have been harmed by a group of “evildoers” who must be punished. The details are unimportant; his moral authority is all that matters.

This clumsy confusion of religion and politics has naturally sparked outrage among liberals and among all people who value a secular society. People feel a justified sense of concern that the conservative Christian politicians are leading us backward to a place where only one religion and one set of moral beliefs are accepted by the State. However, in their effort to counterbalance the extremism of the neo-conservatives and maintain the separation of Church and State, i think that many liberals have gone too far in their rejection of the union of religion and politics. They have taken the pragmatic slogan “the separation of church and state” and interpreted it as an absolute mandate: religion and politics should never be mixed.

This idealistic separation of powers would certainly make life easier if it could be achieved but it is too simplistic and impractical. The fact is that we will never be able to completely separate our religious beliefs from our political action because they are interrelated: our spiritual beliefs inform the hows and whys of our action in the world and our political actions create conventional norms through which our spirituality expresses itself. There are political considerations in every religion and every politician’s decision-making is influenced by his spiritual beliefs. The separation of church and state is an axiomatic principle in any secular society but this simply means that any particular religious view is not endorsed as official state policy; it does not mean that lawmakers must refuse to be religious.

Enter Barack Obama. For the last few years he has been making a name for himself by advocating the integration of religion and politics, not by condemning it. Unlike many other Democrats, he has realized that religion cannot be completely separated from politics and that the conservatives who have gathered support from their religious followers have hit upon a truth that liberals cannot ignore any longer: religion and politics are related. With this understanding, and with the knowledge that many liberal voters have strong spiritual beliefs that will influence their voting behavior, Obama has been appealing to religious believers – just like Bush did during his campaigns.

Of course, the big difference is the brand of religion that Obama endorses. Although they both devoted Christians, Bush and his conservative friends demand an unquestioning type of faith based on unwavering conviction and submission to the omniscience of authority. On the other hand, Obama promotes a faith based on reason and free choice.

"Faith doesn’t mean that you don’t have doubt," he said in 2006. Saturday, he described his conversion to Christianity at the age of 26 as a "choice, not an epiphany," and said "the skeptical bent of my mind didn’t suddenly vanish."

Like many people, i often get suspicious when politicians start talking like prophets at just the time when they need votes. So it is hard to tell whether Obama is really in touch with the heart of America or if he is just a shrewd campaigner who knows how to say the right thing at the right time. But, either way, his understanding of the relationship between religion and politics is perceptive and timely and i think many of us could benefit from it.

Parents Just Don't Understand

2007-06-14T19:54:00.000-04:00

I often feel like i come across as negative and pessimistic when talking about the state of America with other people, especially with my parents and their friends. When discussing politics and current affairs, we often end up presenting very different pictures of the world and my view is usually seen as the more negative and bleak of the two. Naturally, this causes me to question whether my perspective is accurate or whether my general outlook has perhaps become biased, antagonistic, and misinformed. This question may not be answerable – as everyone’s view is subjective – but it has made me realize that Americans (especially older generations) don’t like to acknowledge the many pressing problems in our country. And when someone like me points out a problem that had not been considered or that is believed to be unimportant, they react by labeling me “negative”.

Of course, if i do not believe that a problem exists and you repeatedly bring it up, i am likely to feel that you are focusing on the negative aspects of the situation, that your view is not fair and objective, and that your analysis is being driven by emotional attachment to a particular issue. But is the perception of negativity a result of your “mistaken” attention or a result of my refusal to relinquish my own naïve and overly optimistic beliefs? Our perception is not only a record of objective facts but equally represents our subjective beliefs. Not only do we see what is there but we see what we believe is there.

It is easy to conclude that my parents’ generation is out of touch and ignorant of the many problems (and their causes) that will soon be the biggest challenges for the 21st century. However, i am prevented from taking this leap because it implies that my perspective (or the perspective of my generation) is more accurate than their generation. And this is simply not true. I may see some things that they have not yet seen but there are also things that are important to them that i take for granted and ignore. Our attention is focused in different places so we naturally notice different things, but this does not mean that one or another perspective is more accurate.

For example, the threat of Communism is still very real for my parents’ generation. Lou Dobbs insists on referring to China as “Communist China” every time he mentions it on his TV show and Cuba is still perceived as a Communist threat despite its small size, its poverty, and the fall of its biggest supporter, Communist Russia. On the other hand, few Americans under 40 share the same fear of Communism as it does not seem to present a problem as, say, global warming, corporate hegemony, or domestic political corruption.

The resolution that i have come to accept is that the perception of both my generation and my parents’ generation is equally responsible for shaping the current state of the world we live in. Although i sometimes feel that my perception is more correct, i also recognize that my view has evolved from their view. Thus, to deny the validity or accuracy of their perspective would be to negate the foundation for my own perspective. The trick to maintaining a balanced view seems to be to acknowledge and appreciate the important features of my parents’ view while also being able to identify the blind spots and deficiencies that have led to today’s problems.

The Need to Write

2007-06-14T19:52:00.000-04:00

I need to write. I have many great ideas pop into my head from time to time but when i try to put them down on paper (or computer screen) it is often a torturous struggle to get them out. And, once expressed, they never say exactly what i had intended to say. Sometimes i think that i can improve this creative deficiency by thinking harder and more coherently, by studying the subject more thoroughly, or by increasing my vocabulary. But now i recognize that i just need to write more. I need to practice self-expression. With the help of The Artist’s Way, i have realized that i am out of touch with my own creativity. We are all creative people – one might say that creativity is what makes us spiritual beings – but we need to practice and train our creativity.

I have always felt like a deeply creative person but the artistic side of myself has been stifled in the last several years. In my search for truth i have tended to focus excessively on analyzing and understanding objective truth, which has caused the subjective nature of my self to become distant and passive. My creative faculties have been ignored and have atrophied due to lack of use. Also, having engaged in lengthy periods of meditation, solitude, and deconstructive analysis, i think i have simply forgotten how to be creative. The creative impulse is certainly vibrating in my soul but i have lost the ability to share it with the world.

I am going through a period of transition from silent observer to active creator. I need to take all the things i saw and learned in retreat and put them to work. I need to transform the things that i know into things that i am. I am reminded of a Chinese proverb that Ralph Nader quoted when i saw him speak last month: “To know and not to act is not to know.”

I need to write. I need to write not only to share what i know but as a practice of creative action.

Learning from Retreat

2007-06-07T14:31:00.000-04:00

Since returning to the United States after spending five years in Spain, people are naturally curious about what I have been doing. I find it difficult to offer a satisfactory response because 21st century America does not seem to have the cultural context to understand a life dedicated to the pursuit of truth, peace, and integrity. The most accurate description of my time in Spain is that I engaged in a Buddhist retreat. But most people don’t know what this means. In conversation, sharing this information is like dropping a bomb: either it stirs up a mixture of awe and excitement, or it creates a social dead zone, leaving the listener dazed and confused, unsure about how to reply.

In America, someone who spends five years living on a mountain meditating every day conjures up images of hippies, eccentric hermits, and fanatics: people who are either admired for their rugged individualism and rejection of social norms or dismissed as irrelevant outcasts—dropouts of the “real world.” But, for me, solitary life was neither an attempt to assert my independence nor to abandon the world I grew up in. For me, living in seclusion was simply the most effective way of learning about life and about myself. It was a means to an end, a path to spiritual growth. I wanted to understand the world and this meant understanding my own experience of the world. Why is it that my brother and I can look at the same thing and have a completely different reaction? Why do my thoughts and feelings sometimes fail to reflect the reality that everyone else seems to experience? What is the nature of the self who is perceiving the external world? It was the insistence of questions like these that pushed me to find a quiet place where I could concentrate on finding some answers.

Most people feel that there are more pressing matters than analyzing philosophical problems and resolving existential predicaments. They just don’t seem all that important in the midst of crying babies, rising gas prices, celebrity gossip, and the general struggle for food, shelter, health, and happiness. But I have always felt that the biggest questions are the most important ones. How can we attend to the details if we don’t understand the big picture? How can we attempt to describe our self to others if we can’t answer the most fundamental of questions, “Who am I and why am I here?”

My work in Spain can be accurately described as a “spiritual” search. But I think this term is misleading because it carries a connotation of work that is unimportant and unrelated to our ordinary material lives. We feel that spiritual work is secondary to the demands of our corporeal existence, that it is a luxury that should only be indulged in when all of our other more immediate concerns are satisfied. However, this view fails to appreciate the immediacy and relevance of our spiritual nature. Although we rarely question our deepest beliefs and attitudes, they have a pervasive influence on all of our thoughts, words, and actions. Somehow, a person’s spirit shines through all the layers of habit, preconception, and culturally ingrained behavior. Our soul vibrates just beneath the surface of everything we say and do, informing and guiding our every movement. Spiritual experiences are not distant glimpses of transcendental truths but our most immediate contact with Life. Everything we do is a spiritual experience! How can the spiritual quest be considered irrelevant?!

In retreat I was motivated by profound questions like, “Who am I? What happens after death? What is our purpose? What is ultimate truth?” These thoughts served more as guidelines for directing my focus than problems that needed to be conclusively answered. As I probed and investigated I slowly started to realize that there were no definitive answers—to any question! A question exists in a context of meaning and interpretation and its answer depends on how those blanks are filled in. A question as simple as “Is it raining outside?” can have a multitude of meanings depending on how the terms ‘raining’ and ‘outside’ are defined. In everyday usage, the particular meanings of these terms are assumed to be mutually understood by the speaker and listener but it is only this common assumption that gives any question the pretense of a conclusive meaning.

The implication of this insight is that questions contain their own answers. There are no universal answers and no ultimate truths. An answer is simply a reflection of how one interprets the question. However, I also found that there is great value in searching for ultimate answers, despite the fact that they can’t be found. Its like going out for an evening stroll: you know that you will just end up back at home but that fact doesn’t negate the benefit of walking.

It is hard to convey the import and meaning of this understanding. It is well known in Eastern philosophy as nonduality, emptiness, or Tao but it is hard to translate into a Western perspective. Our tendency is to conceptualize it and confine it to a precise definition, but any definition is deceptive. It is a truth that cannot simply be known but must be experienced and lived.

People often ask me if I accomplished my goals in retreat. This is a difficult question to answer because there is not a clear “yes” or “no”. On the one hand, I did not experience all that I had originally expected to experience. (But when does life ever correspond to our expectations??). On the other hand, the retreat was successful because the process of looking for solutions (which weren’t found) led to a fulfilling inner peace and wisdom. It is like an explorer who attempts to sail to the other side of the world and, upon arriving, realizes that he has landed on the same continent from which he departed. He has not reached the destination that he expected to find and yet the journey was successful because it provided him with valuable experience: he learned that the world is round!

Like the earth, our subjective world is round. But knowing this is not enough; we need to directly experience it by earnestly seeking answers to our questions. It is not the answers but the seeking that causes us to learn.

Ralph Nader

2007-05-08T10:20:00.000-04:00

I met Ralph Nader last Friday. He came to a local bookstore to give a short talk and sign copies of his latest book, The Seventeen Traditions. I haven’t read the book but he told us it is about his parents and what they did to raise four children who are socially engaged and politically active. He said he wanted to write the book to provide today’s parents with a guidebook of how to raise children in a way that instills them with the values of activism and social change. The title is the result of seventeen traditions that Nader identified in the methods of his parents’ nurturing. (The book's website encourages people to submit traditions that their own family has initiated.)

His talk was very good. For the most part he simply told stories about his childhood and painted a picture of a family life that was molded by the integrity of his parents and the vibrant life of an active, small-town community. These stories of post-WW2 America – when the country was infused with optimism, vitality, and the sense that everyone had a place in the political discussion – provided an illuminating contrast with 21st century America. Nader was able to deftly demonstrate how things have changed since then and offer a few ideas about what needs to be done to improve the current state of the country.

I found his talk very inspiring… but i can’t quite put my finger on why that is. I think a lot of my appreciation came not from any particular thing he said, but the manner in which he presented his message. In between the words he seemed to be saying, “Look, i am just an ordinary guy like everyone else. We are all ordinary. But ordinary people can change the world. So let’s look at the problems and do something about them.” He seemed to convey a sense of encouragement and steady hopefulness without the overenthusiastic idealism that many activists seem to suffer from.

One of the first stories that he told had a surprisingly Buddhist flavor and immediately attracted me to him. He was talking about how his parents firmly believed that they knew better than the children, in contrast to those present-day parents who give their kids whatever they want and allow themselves to be manipulated by their children. And to illustrate this point Nader told us how he once refused to eat some vegetables saying, “i don’t like them.” His mother then asked him who was the “i” that didn’t like the vegetables. “Is the ‘i’ your stomach, or your tongue, or your brain? Where is this ‘i’ that you mention?” When little Ralph was stumped, his mother clarified the issue by explaining that his tongue may not like the vegetables but his brain and the rest of his body did like them so he should eat them. In the face of this silencing logic he was forced to do as she said.

I waited until everyone had had their book signed and their picture taken with Nader and then approached him. I didn’t have the money to buy his book but i wanted to shake his hand and thank him for his talk. Because there was no one else waiting for him, i was able to talk with him for 20 minutes while he signed some copies of the book for Barnes & Noble. He was interested in my retreat and said that he has adopted several Buddhist practices of mindfulness, such as consciously chewing his food 100 times. He directed me to some places where i might be able to find like-minded people and perhaps find work with a socially-engaged organization and said that he would send me more information.

In the end, i bought a copy of his book Civic Arousal because it was the title that most appealed to me (and because i could afford it!). It is a booklet that merely contains two letters written to Nader with his long replies written in 2004. The book is dedicated to “the young people of America” and, from what i can tell, the responses summarize Nader’s views on how activists can work to improve social-political conditions in the United States. Just before i left, he signed the booklet and inscribed it with a personal message:

For the spirit and the secular justice that it must reflect. For justice as a way of life. Ralph Nader

[By the way, there is a film that has been recently released about Nader’s life called An Unreasonable Man.]

At Home in America

2007-05-03T11:02:00.000-04:00

Tuesday evening our freighter arrived in New York. The first sight of land was the outer regions of Long Island just before sunset. Unfortunately, by the time we go closer to New York City, it was completely dark and even the city lights were obscured by clouds and rain. However, we were treated to a beautiful lightning show which covered the whole New York/ New Jersey area. Not only were there breathtaking streaks of all shapes and colors but, at times, one burst of light would illuminate the entire sea offering a brief glance of the vastness that had become hidden by the darkness.

While we were still several hours from the dock i went to sleep – only to be woken up at 6am when the immigration officers had boarded the ship and requested to see all the passengers. By that time we were securely docked in the port of Elizabeth, New Jersey. I could see the City from my cabin window and i felt strangely comforted by all the familiar sights of America industry. I had returned home and it felt good. After saying goodbye to the ship’s crew and the other passengers, i disembarked from the boat (with all my stuff) and made my way to the port’s gate where my dad met me to take me to my family’s house in Connecticut.

Overall, the freighter experience was interesting but a little disappointing. For more than half of the trip i was bothered by the uneasiness of seasickness. It never got so bad that i wished the voyage would end but it was often disturbing enough to prevent me from fully enjoying the journey. I spent most of the time lying down, trying to pacify my stomach. I feel like i wasn’t able to fully participate in the freighter experience and i wasn’t able to do as much reading and writing as i had hoped. The few days that i felt healthy were very enjoyable, however. And being laid up did provide a lot of time for contemplation so i was able to consider the various possibilities for my new life. (These daydreams led to some interesting ideas… but no decisions yet.)

Now i am at my parents’ house listening to the wind chimes on the back porch while their cat monitors the birds and squirrels in the yard. I am enjoying a brief moment of peace and tranquility in the suburban storm of activity that is the Battos home. Later today, all of my aunts will be here and visiting with them will be an appropriate way to start the process of reconnecting with family and friends.

I am back in America; a new chapter begins…

Life Aboard a Freighter

2007-04-28T14:39:00.000-04:00

Life on the Ibn Sina is an interesting mixture of regimented routine and casual friendliness. In some ways, things are quite formal, almost as if we are in the military. We are encouraged to address the officers and crew by their titles (captain, chief officer, steward, etc.) instead of their names and they prefer to address us passengers by last name (as in, “Good morning, Mr. Battos”), instead of the more informal first names that we use amongst each other. We eat in the officers’ mess hall, which is a bit more elegant than the crew’s mess hall, and we all have an assigned seat, which presumably prevents us from unknowingly sitting in one of the officers’ seats. Meals are prepared for us three times a day but are only available during a one-hour window. I find the meal times to be quite a bit earlier than i am accustomed to. Not only is breakfast served at 7:30 but lunch is served at 11:30! Coming from Spain, where lunchtime typically starts around 2-3pm (and sometimes later!) it is hard to get used to starting lunch before noon.

Despite the formalities, the officers and crew are quite friendly and engaging. They are happy to engage in conversation whenever the opportunity arises and they are eager to answer questions and provide assistance whenever it is needed. The principal job of the officers is to “drive” the boat, which mostly consists of monitoring the various computer data and modifying the ship’s course when necessary. They work in “the bridge”, which is basically a lookout tower that contains all of the ship’s computers. We, the passengers, are almost always allowed to visit the bridge and observe the workings of the ship’s brain. And usually the officer(s) on duty are very happy to explain how things work, or talk about their job, or talk about anything. One feels as if we are welcome to participate in the entire operations of a freighter. Everyone is open and friendly. No one seems to have “security” fears, like keeping passengers away from sensitive and sophisticated computer equipment.

The ship’s course is a beeline from the straights of Gibraltar to New York City. So far, we have been fortunate enough to encounter mostly clear weather and calm seas, allowing us to proceed full speed ahead. We are usually traveling at 18-19 knots (when the engine is working!), which is more or less the boat’s “full speed” based on these weather conditions and on the weight and ballast of the ship’s cargo. I was surprised to learn that this means we are only traveling about 25 miles per hour (or less) according to land speed measurements.

Not only my eating habits but my whole living pattern has been disrupted by the schedule of the boat. In addition to adjusting to new meal times, we are constantly changing the time of the clocks. During the 10-day voyage we are passing through six time zones and in each new zone we rewind the clocks one hour. This gradual time change is much more pleasant than the jet lag that one experiences after flying but it has contributed to my inability to settle down to a comfortable rhythm on the ship. Also, i have been buffeted by waves of seasickness throughout this first week at sea. Although i have managed to avoid vomiting, the recurring feelings of nausea that mimic the non-stop rolling of the ship have left me an underlying sense of unsteadiness. Hopefully, the last couple of days will be better.

On the Open Sea

2007-04-24T10:13:00.000-04:00

It is Tuesday morning. After being stalled for several hours last night, i woke up this morning to find that we were moving again. We are now out into the wide-open Atlantic and it feels like we have left our troubles behind. It is a clear day, the ocean is calm, and our course will follow a straight line to New York.

There are six other passengers on board, all of whom boarded in the last few days either in France or in Spain. There is a French couple, a Frenchman who emigrated to the United States 45 years ago, a couple from Atlanta, and a man from New Jersey. We are all disembarking in the US. All the other passengers are at least 25 years older than myself, which among other things means that there won’t be any Titanic romance for the young American!

With the possible exception of the French couple (who i haven’t spoken to much because of a language barrier), all the other passengers are veteran seafarers. I think they have each been on at least 50 cruises/freighters. The Atlantans said that they go on four cruises a year! The general consensus is that sailing is a much more pleasant way to travel than flying (and, so far, i would have to agree) but one gets the impression that they have lots of money that they don’t know what to do with and are spending it in search of “the good life” offered by travel, comfort, and service.

The passenger that i find the most challenging (and in some ways the most interesting) is the husband from Atlanta named Gordon. He seems to represent the complete opposite of my beliefs so i am intrigued by how he has come to such a different view of the world. In a few brief conversations he has identified himself as staunchly right-wing, a supporter of the military, a sympathizer of the KKK, the owner of a gun collection, and someone who does not value self-reflection. Not only does he espouse the common reactionary policy of dealing with terrorism by “killing anyone who helps terrorists in any way, even their family” but he admitted to being “traumatized” by the de-segregation of the South. And when he heard that i have been doing a meditation retreat for five years, his first response was, “I believe that thinking is dangerous.”

Among the many things about people like Gordon that pique my curiosity is why they are so forthright and adamant about their violent and racist views. Why does he feel the need to share such deep-seated and out-dated beliefs with someone who he has just met? Is he looking for a co-conspirator, someone who will encourage his fantasy of righteous violence against all the evils of the world? Is his frankness a subconscious confession intended to draw out some consoling grace from the holy man he has just met? Or is he simply trying to establish an honest friendship by saying clearly and bluntly, “This is who i am; who are you?”

I would like to take Gordon at face value and try to have an honest conversation with him in which we both share our beliefs and debate the meaningful points of contact but i sense a lot of fear in his heart and this causes some concern about how he would interpret my views. Fear creates so many imaginary monsters in our mind that eventually we lose the ability to trust people. We may listen to them but we see all kinds of hidden agendas and dark motives behind their words so we stop believing them. We assume that our interpretation of their words and actions is more reliable than their own but, since our interpretation springs from the darkness of fear, what we see merely reinforces our monstrous expectations. We are trapped in the haunted house of fear, with monsters and ghosts around every corner.

How do we rescue others from their personal nightmares of fear, hatred, and loneliness? If they project their deluded perception of the world onto us, how can we gain their confidence to help them experience a different world?

Travels and Tribulations

2007-04-23T20:28:00.000-04:00

Its Monday night, April 23rd, and i have been on the freighter boat Ibn Sina for about 24 hours. The last few days have been eventful, to say the least.

On Friday night my friends in Granada took me out for Indian food for a farewell party. It was wonderful to see everyone together and say my last goodbyes. However, the joyfulness soon dissolved when i woke up the next day with some kind of gastric-intestinal flu. Instead of spending my last moments in Spain with friends, i was bed-ridden, assuaged every two hours by fits of vomiting and diarrhea. Fortunately, the departure of my boat had been delayed from Saturday to Sunday so i didn’t have to suffer the six-hour car ride to the port in such a sickly condition.

The next day (Sunday) i felt better so Mike and i headed off to the port in Valencia with all my stuff in search of the Ibn Sina. It was a relatively smooth and pleasant trip, although in my weakened state i wasn’t able to provide Mike with much conversation.

After reaching the huge port for container ships and getting lost, we found a port agent who informed us that the Ibn Sina had already departed! Upon further inquiry he told us that it had not yet left but that it was due to leave at any minute! So we were rushed through the security gate and followed an escort to the dock where the boat was preparing to leave. We unloaded my twelve boxes of stuff as quickly as possible and within 20 minutes of getting on board the boat had left the dock. What a close call! After spending weeks preparing to travel on this boat i was able to get on it by pure chance. They were ready to depart an hour earlier but were held up by a last minute glitch. And freighter boats don’t wait for passengers. So, in the end, my presence on the boat was determined by nothing more than dumb luck.

It was sunset and we were being pulled out of the quay by two little tugboats. Before settling in or gathering my stuff i just went to the back of the boat to watch the land drift away. There was a soft sunset behind the hills of Valencia and it felt like my life in Spain was fading into the darkness. Within an hour, land had disappeared and night had descended.

I had not completely recovered from the flu – my stomach still felt unsettled – so i took a pill for motion sickness to prevent any nausea that might arise from the rocking of the boat. Whether from the medicine or exhaustion, i slept well and today i have not experienced any nausea or seasickness.

Today, i spent most of my time familiarizing myself with the boat: becoming acquainted with the routine; meeting the crew; walking around the decks; chatting with the other passengers; etc. The highlight of the day – and the most exciting “event” of the trip – was passing through the straights of Gibraltar. This is the narrowest waterway that we will travel through: we could simultaneously see the European continent (Spain) on one side and the African continent (Morocco) on the other. It is the last piece of land that we will see until we get to New York and it is full of shipping traffic.

As we were coming out of the straights of Gibraltar… we got stuck! Or rather, we stalled. There was some problem with the engine and it just stopped working. Any attempt to make it work caused the exhaust chimney to emit big clouds of ominous black smoke. The boat came to a full stop as if it were anchored to the spot. The captain hung out two black circles on the mast to indicate to nearby boats that he was not able to maneuver the ship. Ships approaching from behind were requested to divert their course to avoid us. Since we were not quite out of the straights, it was a very bad place to be stuck. There is an extremely high volume of traffic, traveling both east-west through the straights and north-south between Spain and Morocco. (However, as one passenger noted, it was a fortuitous place to be stuck from the perspective that we were in sight of land and therefore able to obtain assistance relatively easily, if need be.)

As the sun went down the engine came back to life and we started moving again. After an hour of steady progress, however, we stopped again. This time it could be more serious: it is dark and land is not so close. It is almost time for bed and i wonder if we will wake up parked in the same spot on the fringe of the Atlantic…

Memories of Spain

2007-04-22T14:20:00.000-04:00

The old men on the corner.
The Spanish passion for life. This is most characteristically symbolized by things like flamenco and bullfighting but it reveals itself in all of the everyday details of life. For example, a casual discussion about the weather between two old friends can often have the pitch and flavor of a life-or-death argument. Spanish people do not have conversations to convey information (like so many of the mechanized citizens in other countries); they have conversations to demonstrate their vigor and passion for life.
Sitting on the edge of a gorge, utterly alone, in the deserted mountains of an unfamiliar country, soaking up the vibrant melancholy of sunset. How sad, yet inexorably authentic, it feels to be completely alone!
Drunken Brits.
The widows who continue to wear black dresses everyday as a tribute to their husbands who died decades ago.
Spanish time. Andalucian people have a unique relationship with time; for them, time is inexhaustible. From the carefree procrastination of “¡Mañana, mañana…!” to the un-capitalist tradition of taking a three-hour siesta in the middle of a workday to the Spaniards’ notorious lack of punctuality, the Spanish attitude towards time is that there is always more of it available. So, it does not need to be “saved” or acquired or given a value – something Americans could learn a lot from.
The Dakini Mountain.
Summer nights when everyone comes out of their houses, where they have been hiding from the brutal sun, and create a spontaneous block party – every night!
The shepherds and their flocks. There is something romantically heart-warming about a culture that continues maintain a place for the nomadic life of a shepherd. And my heart would secretly cheer every time traffic came to a standstill because goats and sheep were crossing the road.
Hurricane Emily.
The noise. Spanish life is noisy. Sometimes the noise is identifiable (like the horrendously loud motos) but often it seems like the noise comes from nowhere, as if it emanated up from the pavement or materialized from the walls.
The mountains. I will never forget the view of the Sierra Nevada from west of Granada: snow-covered peaks in early spring… against a clear blue sky… majestically overlooking the city… painted with the pastel pink-orange light of sunset… Spectacular!

Looking Ahead

2007-04-13T13:04:00.000-04:00

As i look forward to living in America again and rebuilding a non-retreat lifestyle, i wonder about the challenges that i will face. Although my general attitude is one of dealing with situations as they arise in order to approach each set of circumstances with a fresh perspective, i do wonder about how i will be tested and what i can do, if anything, to prepare for my new life.

As Mike has mentioned to me, one of the biggest changes between life in retreat and life “on the outside” will be a sense of lost freedom. Although it may surprise people who are unfamiliar with retreat, one of the quintessential characteristics of the retreat experience is a sense of freedom. Even though the retreater may have a very strict meditation/prayer schedule and may in many ways live a life of confinement, there is immense scope for freedom within those apparent restrictions. Indeed, unless those boundaries and limitations are happily accepted and fade into the background of the meditator’s experience, he will not be able to taste the boundless joy and freedom that are sustenance of retreat.

After five years i have become quite accustomed to this sense of freedom. Although my lifestyle has been structured by the lack of money and physical amenities, within that infrastructure i have experienced an almost absolute freedom. I was free to do whatever i wanted whenever i wanted and very little effort was required to sustain myself. That extreme sense of independence was helpful in showing me the limitations of freedom. Perhaps most significantly, it helped me understand that everyone is naturally free but that our freedom is always conditioned by practical considerations. If we feel trapped or bound by a situation we need to understand how those particular conditions have trapped us but we also need to understand that it is not merely the existence of those conditions that binds us but the surrendering of our innate independence which causes us to believe that those conditions dominate our personal freedom.

When i get to the States i also expect to have difficulties adjusting to all nitty-gritty details of normal American life: having a credit card that i can’t afford to use; driving a car that is killing the planet; calling the bank and spending half a day trying to talk to a real person; dodging the media’s ubiquitous celebrity gossip; trying to persuade people that the last five years of my life has not been a waste of time. But i think that these are difficulties will be relatively easy to accept and overcome. More challenging will be the personal mandate to maintain a spiritual perspective in a materialistic world.

When i think about what feels most daunting about moving back to the US, it is not the prospect of any specific physical change – living in a new place, working at a new job, owning new things, etc. – but the question of how to maintain a life of peace, love, and wisdom within that setting. How does one live a life of honest integrity in the heart of a materialist culture? Although i feel like retreat has provided me with some insight and preparation for the next stage on my journey, i also know that living there will be very different than observing it from the safe distance of my present position. Who knows if i am ready to face the future that awaits me? Who knows if i am capable of living a life up to the standards that i have set for myself?

What concerns me most is not the potential of failure but the uncertainty about how i will respond when confronted with hardship and crisis. Will i maintain a commitment to Truth and Love when everything around me seems to be encouraging selfish deception? Will i maintain faith in the value and purpose of my path even when no one else does? I think the main reason why this is such a concern to me at this point in time is that i feel like my path is changing, internally as well as externally. My physical move is the manifestation of a significant psychological change – and i don’t know where it will lead me. I feel that my new life will demand a new form of practice; the beliefs and practices that have taken me to this point on the path may not serve as reliable guides for the coming stage. Thus i feel like i am going back to America empty-handed: with no demands and nothing to offer.

This openness, itself, is a wonderful feeling; it feels natural and true. But it exposes one to infinite possibilities, any of which could be embraced. The worry i feel stems from a wish to wholeheartedly embrace one or another of these possibilities – to throw my whole self into it – without betraying the spiritual principles that have carried me this far. I would like to embrace the future without abandoning the past and this seems to require a very delicate touch. Perhaps the trick is just to remain continuously in the present – the most delicate trick of all!

Stuck in Paint

2007-04-10T08:25:00.000-04:00

My friends Mike and Carmen are moving into a new house and i went to visit them over the weekend. I helped them paint the windows, which meant painting one side and then leaving them to dry until i could turn them over and paint the other side. And while the paint was drying things would get stuck in the paint: dirt and leaves blown by the wind, hairs, insects, etc. At one point, a fly landed on the drying paint and got stuck. At first, i didn’t realize that it was stuck because it didn’t show any signs of struggling; it was just standing motionless in the same place. After a while i thought it was unusual for a fly to remain in the same place for so long so i checked to see if it was stuck in the paint. And, sure enough, some of its legs had been immersed in the thick, quickly-drying paint so that now they could not be removed. The fly had become pasted to the window frame and there was nothing it could do to release itself. It was doomed to die in that position like a person stuck in quicksand who can do nothing to free himself from the slow approach of death.

I found the fly’s predicament to be quite symbolic of our human condition. Like a fly who innocently lands on a window frame, by following our instincts and natural inclinations we often end up in situations in which we become stuck, unable to continue on our way. There seems to be no explanation for how we arrived in that dilemma and no way to release ourselves from its constraints. And sometimes we feel that the whole of human existence is such a trap. We are thrown into this chaotic world without choice and without any hope for escape. We are here, in this world – whether we like it or not. And we are faced with the fact that we are going to die. Regardless of whether we struggle to be free of our human limitations or gracefully accept our looming death sentence, we cannot avoid the blunt truth of our mortality. Like all earthly creatures we are stuck in paint. But what makes us special is that we know that death is our destination.

When i realized that the fly was stuck, i was moved by compassion and i wanted to free it. So i took a fork and used one prong to lift its body and pull its legs out of the paint. Since the paint was still semi-wet and viscous i thought that its legs would easily slide free. But, unfortunately, when i pulled on its body its two hind legs detached because they were so firmly held in the paint. The fly was then free and able to fly away but it had lost two legs which would certainly make its life much more difficult.

I found this episode, too, full of symbolic meaning. For example, it is a lesson in the importance of sacrifice. When we find ourselves in critical situations we are often required to sacrifice something of value in order to continue our journey. But the lesson that i found most poignant was that our compassionate attempts to help others often have unintended consequences. Whenever we perform an act of love and compassion we have an idea of how our actions will benefit the other person and this imagined result is what gives us the motivation to act. But there are always side effects of our actions that we can’t foresee and often these “incidentals” distort the true effect of our actions. We give money to a homeless woman but she spends it on drugs instead of food; we vote for an inspiring and revolutionary candidate but when he takes power he becomes a tyrant; we raise our children with ethical integrity but they rebel against us and our beliefs by developing an amoral lifestyle. The undesirable effects in these situations may not be entirely our own responsibility but we cannot deny our role in their creation. Our compassionate intention to help others does not always lead to beneficial results. I wanted to help the fly to be free but my efforts led to the severing of its legs.

We need to try to help others, of course, but we also need to understand that our actions may not actually benefit the people we are trying to help. Thus, there is no “right” way to help the world; we are forced to do the best we can within our capacity and hope that things work out for the best.

Metaphors of Truth

2007-04-05T09:08:00.000-04:00

I have spent much of the last several years engaged in an intensive search for Truth. This has not only been an intellectual pursuit of an ideal, objective truth but also a path of practical self-transformation during which i have attempted to embody the fruits of my search and integrate Truth into my very being. My quest led me into the hall of mirrors called “philosophy” but it feels like i am emerging into the real world again. And this change of scenery has brought with it a new set of questions. Instead of asking myself “what is truth?” i find myself asking “what is the best way to express the Truth?” or “how does one share the Truth with others?”

In philosophy, even Buddhist philosophy, Truth is usually described in objective, factual it-language: “It is like this. It is no like that.” After having spent so much time following the labyrinthine trails of this rational approach, i have recently been inspired by the non-rational methods of pointing to Truth such as the use of metaphors and art. A metaphor is such a powerful way expressing truth because one can convey the essential idea of an experience without having it confined to a precise definition. This openness means that a metaphor can be interpreted in a number of different ways depending on the presumptions and past experiences of the listener/reader. While this subjective aspect of a metaphor will frustrate the rationalist, it allows the metaphor to resonate with a much broader range of people and thereby convey Truth to minds of varying levels of understanding. Thus, a metaphor potentially contains many layers of meaning which can only be unfolded by changing one’s perspective and deepening one’s insight into reality.

All religions provide us with illuminating metaphors to reinforce their messages of peace, love, and enlightenment: from Buddhism’s suggestion that life is like a dream to Christianity’s “kingdom” of God to Taoism’s use of water to symbolize the eternal Tao. But religions don’t have a monopoly on the Truth, despite what their doctrines say. Truth can be found everywhere, which means that metaphors of Truth can be found in all facets of life, if one can learn to recognize them. And lately i have felt drawn to the creative capacity of art to speak the language of metaphors.

The myriad forms of art around us – from painting to landscape design to commercial advertising – are both expressions of ubiquitous Truth and a means of directing us to the truth that we desire. This dual nature enables artistic creations to be especially potent metaphors for our human condition. Art is often able to penetrate areas of the human psyche that remain unreachable by any rational presentation of Truth. For example, consider the difference between reading a scholarly paper on the state of American society in 2001 and watching the film American Beauty. While both the paper and the movie may be accurate in their portrayal of American life, there are some insights and experiences that are conveyed through the film which could never be captured in a verbal description.

Another good example of art as a metaphor that reveals some deep truths about human existence is George Orwell’s novel 1984. In that story Orwell was able to say things (with a wink and a nod) that could not otherwise be captured in words. And 1984 is such a great example of a metaphor because it contains many levels of meaning which will be interpreted differently by different readers, depending on their beliefs. This is the beauty of art-as-metaphor: it has the power to resonate with the heart and soul of the audience in a way that circumvents the logical mind.

Ultimately, i think we need to develop the ability to express Truth both philosophically (in objective, it-language) and metaphorically by extracting the essence of Truth and recasting it in different shapes and forms. And i think that this is the aspiration of every true artist: to capture the formless, pristine Truth in a limited form in a way that allows the Truth to shine through.

Green Travel: Ship or Plane?

2007-04-01T08:04:00.000-04:00

I will be moving back to the United States at the end of this month after spending five years in Spain. Ever since i arrived in Spain i have had the wish to take a long boat ride so i have decided to travel back to America on a freighter boat. I have booked a passage on the freighter Ibn Sina which sails from New York through the Mediterranean and the Middle East to India and which stops in Valencia, Spain before returning to New York. It will be an 11-day voyage, non-stop, leaving “on or about” April 21st.

The decision to travel by boat was influenced by several factors. It will allow me to transport all my books and other stuff to the US without having to pay an extra shipping cost; it will be a long and slow journey during which i can reflect on my time in Spain and enjoy a more gentle transition into my new life instead of having a plane zip me from one world to another; and it will help me get to know a part of our world (the ocean) in a way that i have never experienced it before. However, the reason that initially inspired me to inquire about boat travel was the desire to find a means of getting from Europe to America in a way that is more environmentally-friendly than flying. I have been hearing more and more about how damaging for the environment commercial airlines can be so i wanted to find an alternative… but now that i have done some research i am not sure if i made the correct ecological decision.

I naturally assumed that travel by ship is better for the environment than travel by aircraft (mostly because i thought it must take more energy to sustain a plane’s altitude against the force of gravity than to propel a boat along the water) but as some of my friends have pointed out, this is not necessarily a correct assumption. Freighter boats require a lot of energy and are responsible for a substantial amount of the world’s CO2 emissions. Indeed, a recent article in the Guardian opened with the line: "Carbon dioxide emissions from shipping are double those of aviation and increasing at an alarming rate..."

So i did some research on the internet to find some comparisons between boat-travel and plane-travel and try to determine which is less harmful to the environment. And the main conclusion that i came to is that nobody really knows which is better or worse. There have been some studies done on the environmental effects of the aviation industry (for example, see the thorough report, The Plane Truth: Aviation and the Environment) and there are some statistics on the CO2 emissions of the shipping industry but there is very little reliable information that compares the environmental effects of the two modes of transport.

The best sources i could find were the Guardian article, a response to that article on treehugger.com, and an article on planetark.com. But even these articles provide insignificant comparative data; their benefit lies in their attempt to explore an issue and raise awareness in the face of a dearth of facts and figures. Indeed, i found the comments to these articles more illuminating than the articles themselves because they demonstrate how little we know and how the available information can be interpreted in a number of different ways.

Having read a number of articles and opinions on the issue, my general understanding of the situation is: 1) that little attention has been given to the environmental effects of shipping partly because, like the aviation industry, it is not regulated by the Kyoto protocol and because it is difficult to assign responsibility for international transportation to individual countries; 2) that the shipping industry, overall, is responsible for more environmental pollution than the aviation industry (about twice as much) but that this is due to the fact that the shipping industry transports much more of the world’s goods (90%) than the aviation industry; 3) that if we were to transport everything by plane the financial and environmental cost would be exorbitant and therefore that the ecological footprint of flying is more costly than shipping; 4) and that ships and planes produce a different type of pollution due to the fact that "modern jets emit substantial quantities of nitrogen oxides [in addition to carbon dioxide] because they operate at very high temperatures and high pressures" and because planes release most of their emissions in a different layer of the atmosphere than vehicles close to the surface of the earth. (This complicates the attempt to conduct a comparative study of the two industries.)

There is a lot that we don’t know about the specific details of global warming and the effects of our actions on the environment and, until we have more of a consensus, each of us has to make decisions based on our own understanding. Often this will mean that our actions are determined more by our beliefs than any factual data. But the scarcity of reliable information does not absolve us from taking responsibility for our world. We need to make personal changes if we want to improve the conditions of our world – even if those changes turn out to be misguided or misinformed.

So i am going to take a boat to America and i hope this is better for the environment than flying. But, to be honest, i don’t really know if it is.

Back in the World

2007-03-31T06:21:00.000-04:00

For over a year i have been living in an old Spanish farmhouse in the mountains and i finally moved out on Wednesday night. I moved into my friends’ house in one of the local villages, where i will stay for a few weeks until i take a trans-Atlantic voyage back to the United States. The move itself was relatively quick and easy – we moved my stuff and disposed of everything else in the house in half a day – but it is a significant move for me. It marks the end of my retreat and my return to “civilization”; i have been living on the same mountain for most of the last five years and now it is time to leave.

I don’t think the full implications of my change of lifestyle have sunk in yet. Although i have known for a few weeks that i would be ending retreat and leaving Spain, i don’t yet feel like much has changed. So far, the biggest difference between town life and mountain life has been an increased sense of comfort and convenience! It is so pleasant to have a grocery store around the corner where i can pick up just what i need at the moment instead of having to buy and transport a month’s stock of food up the mountain. Not to mention the joys of hot showers, washing machines, television, internet, and landlines, which are now all at my fingertips. It’s almost enough to make one wonder why anyone would willingly adopt austerities and inconvenience for a little more peace and quiet. I can see why so many people might find my retreat lifestyle strange and unnecessary. (But, of course, the call of the spirit cannot be reduced to a balance sheet of conveniences lost vs. pleasures gained.)

I understand in an intellectual way that i am in the midst of a life-changing transition but it hasn’t yet hit me on an emotional level. And perhaps that won’t happen until i am back in America, faced with all the daily challenges that i have been exempted from for the last five years. I think that blunt confrontation with reality will be somewhat painful, deflating, humbling, and confusing but part of me is looking forward to it because i think that the real significance of the last five years will only become apparent when i reflect on it from the perspective of my new life. I have been so fortunate to have been granted this time to devote entirely to my spiritual practice and it has been a rewarding experience which has instilled the pleasant taste of freedom, peace, and love. But the protective conditions that were responsible for allowing me to go deeper and deeper into my practice were also responsible for insulating me from all the nitty-gritty details and hardships of modern life. It is these “mundane” considerations that will serve as the real test of my spiritual development and provide a reliable perspective from which to judge the effectiveness of my period of seclusion. My only wish is that i will somehow be able to retain – and convey to others – the essence of my retreat experience within the context of ordinary life.

But, for the moment at least, it feels great to be back in the world – if you can call a small, quiet Spanish village “in the world”.

Homelessness

2007-01-26T11:45:00.000-05:00

I recently returned to my hermitage in Spain after spending a month with friends and family in the United States. At several points during my trip i was drawn to the question of why we designate a place as our “home,” and whether or not this sense of being psychologically settled in a particular location is spiritually beneficial. This question arose because as i was preparing to travel to the US the thought that i was “going home” instinctually arose in my mind. This is understandable because i was headed to my parents’ house—the place where i lived for the first 19 years of my life—and i was expecting to find all the comforts of a New England home ensconced in holiday celebration. And yet, despite all the external indications that i was “going home,” somewhere inside i felt that the place i was going to was no longer “home.” I was going home to a place that didn’t feel like home anymore.

This is not to say that any big changes have happened in my family’s home; it was the same warm, happy home that i had remembered. What had changed was my feeling of where my home is. Although that house continues to be my home in the sense that it was where i grew up, it no longer felt like my home; it no longer felt like the place where i am rooted and settled. This was not a new feeling (i had experienced it at other times since i moved out of my parents’ house) but what i found interesting was that no other place felt like home. My childhood home had ceased to be “home” but nothing else had replaced it. I felt genuinely homeless.

It is illuminating to reflect on our deep emotional need to feel like we have a home. Not the physical need for shelter but the psychological desire to have a place that feels safe, secure, and reliable. We almost always have a strong but subtle innate feeling of being rooted, based, or settled in one place and this psychological base is what we consider our “home.” This sense of Home may or may not correspond with the place that we are currently living. We may spend years living and working in a place and yet never feel like it is Home, like athletes who live in their team’s city but who consider Home to be their childhood playground. Indeed, in our transitory society many people live and work away from their Home for the sake of education, a job, a relationship, or an opportunity to learn more about the world. Although many of us in this rapidly changing world would say that we are living in a “home away from home,” almost all of us would admit to feeling that there is one special place that we call Home.

Why do we hold onto this sense of Home? Why do we need to feel that there is some place that will always provide us with comfort, care, and nurturing security? Often, this sense of Home is a fantasy either because the Home in our memory has ceased to exist in reality, or because when we return to the place that we consider Home it no longer provides the soft, loving warmth that we associate with it. Is it possible that our need to have a Home is just an emotional residue of childhood, a kind of subconscious craving for the womb? Is it possible that the feeling of having a Home is spiritually restrictive, holding us back from living a truly free life?

Personally, i believe that the feeling of having a Home is a natural effect of human development and that it is something that we can outgrow, or evolve beyond. The feeling of having a Home instills in us the courage and optimism to go forth into the world with an adventurous spirit because we feel like we have the reliable support of a comforting home to return to when life gets difficult. Without this support system our forays into the outside world would be less bold and we would likely develop the tendency to seek safe, secure situations to compensate for the felt absence of a safe Home. There is an emotional evolution from having a healthy sense of a loving and nurturing Home, to using that feeling of Home as an emotional foundation for exploring the world, to leaving Home and living in the world, to eventually becoming emotionally homeless—the feeling that one has no Home (or that one’s Home is everywhere!). In the context of this natural progression, the spiritual effects of attempting to either hold onto or abandon a Home will depend on the stage of one’s emotional evolution. Although we may all be heading toward the eventual experience of emotional homelessness, that experience depends on the healthy cultivation of the previous stages. In other words, we have to develop a genuine sense of Home before we can grow out of it; we need to have a Home before we can leave it.

It is interesting that Buddhism—and Indian culture in general—has a long history of extolling the virtues of homelessness. In the modern version of Buddhism, adapted to our Western lifestyle, this recommendation for homelessness may seem like an archaic remnant of more primitive times. It may even appear to be an irrelevant form of religious extremism that has nothing to teach our more “intelligent” society. And yet, the spirit of homelessness has remained alive in Western Buddhism because we intuitively recognize the truth hidden within it: we are homeless. We are all travelers visiting this life for a short while and we will someday move on. We were born into a family, and grew up in a home, but our family members will all eventually die, our home will disappear, and we ourselves will leave this life. Any feeling that there is a stable Home that will always be there to comfort us is an illusion; it is an emotional lie that we tell to console ourselves.

Not only is homelessness our true state of existence, it is a more enlightened manner of being in the world because it allows us to openly embrace and engage the world instead of retreating to a private emotional bunker when things don’t happen according to our demands. We are not talking here about physical homelessness but what Mu Soeng calls “psychological homelessness.” Physical homelessness may or may not make one’s life simpler but it does not necessarily reduce one’s attachment to having an emotional Home. Indeed, even people who live on the streets in cardboard boxes often have strong feelings of possessiveness, territorial rights, selfishness. Even though we may call them “homeless,” they strongly feel that their box is their Home or they cling to the memory of a Home that they would like to get back to. In contrast, psychological homelessness is a state of emotional freedom in which one has outgrown the need to be emotionally sustained by any group (e.g. family), place (e.g. one’s hometown), or thing (e.g. a child’s blanket). It is the epitome of emotional detachment but it is a healthy detachment, not a cold rejection of the world. It is a balanced embracing of everything rather than a biased preference for those things that stroke us and make us feel good. Someone who practices psychological homelessness does not confine himself to loving one family and one home but treats everyone as his family and everyplace as his Home.

In the Spring 2006 issue, Tricycle interviewed Mu Soeng, co-director of the Barre Center for Buddhist Studies, about the commercialization of Buddhism in the West. In this controversial article, “Dharma for Sale,” he suggests that many American Buddhist teachers may be guilty of distorting the Buddhist message in order to make it more saleable to the public:

One of my personal benchmarks has always been the question, “Why did the Buddha choose to live the life of a homeless person after his awakening?” He did not return to his palace to live a life of luxury as a philosopher-guru. I’m not suggesting that Buddhists go around half naked today, but it is still crucial to look and investigate the levels of greed, hatred, or delusion in our psychological lives. A lot of what goes on in Buddhism in America is about creating a personal story and an identity. Dharma centers can become social clubs that allow people to process an identity, allowing them to feel good about themselves for a short period of time. I meet people who tell me, “I am a Theravada person” or “I am a Zen person.” But this is just another process of commodification, of packaging oneself. It has nothing to do with Buddhist practice.

In response to questions about our presumed need for Buddhist centers he indicates the dangers of a center that is founded on a teacher’s wish to promote his or her brand of Buddhism rather than growing organically from a person’s authentic spiritual realizations. Soeng then suggests the value of psychological homelessness as an antidote to the mass-produced Buddhism that is so common in our culture:

Is it necessary for a teacher to have a center? Why can’t a teacher be happy as a hermit? Granted, one will still need a few basic necessities to survive, but I have seen plenty of self-aggrandizement when teachers rationalize their teaching by saying that they are teaching the true dharma. The story of the Buddha meeting his five former colleagues after his awakening experience is quite instructive, I think. The Buddha was not hustling to find disciples. It was his inner radiance that convinced his hearers that they were in the presence of something transformed. When this radiant presence is not there, a dharma center is in danger of becoming another business shop.

In my reading of Buddhist history, I have always been struck by how the tradition was kept alive in each generation by a handful of practitioners. The pursuit of liberation was never a mass movement.

The Buddha advocated the homeless life for his own community. You could not stay in the same village for more than three nights. You could not stay under the same tree for more than one night. Buddha was completely committed to the wandering ascetic life. He was aware of the dangers of even an institutionalized monastic life. He understood that human self-interest basically dominates everything else. The point of promoting this kind of community was psychological homelessness.

When asked about the integrity of advocating psychological homelessness while being provided with money and housing by a Dharma Center, Soeng clarified the difference between psychological homelessness and physical homelessness:

Psychological homelessness is not necessarily dependent on physical homelessness. If physical homelessness is full of angst and confusion, it does not serve any purpose. I mentioned that I thought it would be possible to live like a hermit in New York City. I meant that I think there can be creative ways of pursuing psychological homelessness without being physically homeless.

He then briefly explained the philosophical background for psychological homelessness:

It is worth considering that while the broader context of Buddha’s teaching is dukkha [unsatisfactoriness], its resolution is nibbana, or liberation, not sukkha [happiness]. Sukkha is an experience, a by-product, a fruit of letting go. The search for happiness, as some teachers might offer, is not the context of Buddha’s teachings. It does not mean that Buddhists want to be miserable. The context of Buddha’s teachings always and above everything else is of anicca [flux] and anatta [insubstantiality]. I translate them together as “psychological homelessness,” to get out of the trap of empty philosophizing and provide a context for personal transformation. We could, for example, take the Pali word nibbida [turning away] as another layer that informs the context of psychological homelessness. I believe all of Buddha’s teachings are aiming for this contextualization.

Buddhist philosophical thought is extremely sophisticated, and I find myself fascinated by its ideas, but it must be in the service of psychological homelessness as the framework for personal transformation rather than a word game.

Psychological homelessness is not a code of conduct, like some manual that tells us where we can and cannot sleep. Rather, it is an attitude of freedom that allows us deal with any situation without predisposition or attachment and prevents us from becoming spiritually complacent. It is the sentiment of nirvana.

Having looked at it from this perspective, i find the feeling of homelessness to be encouraging. And although this feeling makes my mind more balanced, peaceful, and receptive, it unfolds a whole new set of spiritual challenges. Namely, how to gracefully accept personal responsibility in the absence of personal preference. If one has cultivated psychological homelessness to the extent that he or she feels no preference for any particular home, then how does one decide where to live? How does one reconcile the spirit of homelessness with the physical need to live somewhere?

Christian America

2006-12-06T10:39:00.000-05:00

My Mom sent me an email that she received from a conservative Christian group, American Family Association, that is trying to gather support to oppose the possibility of a newly-elected member of Congress taking his swearing-in oath on the Koran instead of the Bible. The article that was forwarded to me was written by Dennis Prager on the Conservative site TownHall.com. It says that Keith Ellison, a Democrat from Minnesota, is the first Muslim to be elected to the US Congress and that he has decided to take his swearing-in oath on the Koran.

Judging from the undertones of panic and outrage in the article and the number of cyber-comments (1100!) added to it, it seems that this issue has pushed a few buttons—especially for people who associate “American values” with “Christian beliefs.” I think it raises several interesting questions about the relationship between religion and politics which we can either view as opportunities to clarify what it means to be a Christian American (or a Muslim American, for that matter) or indignantly dismiss as threats to ‘American civilization.’ What does it mean to be a Christian living in America? To what extent should the United States of America embrace and adhere to Christian beliefs? What if those beliefs conflict with the religious beliefs of other American citizens? All else being equal, should the US Government favor one set of religious beliefs over another?

It seems to me that first and foremost we need to be able to distinguish between the United States as a country—a politically defined organization—and Christianity as a religious organization. This may sound like an obvious distinction, one that we all take for granted, but i think there are many Americans who confuse the two. There are many historical reasons for this strong association—not the least the fact that our political leaders have developed a predilection for invoking God whenever they need public support for their political agenda—but in these changing times it is necessary to constantly reevaluate the interaction of religious values and political policy. Without discriminating between Church and State, we are led to believe that the US is inherently and necessarily a Christian country, which entails two problematic views: 1) that being an American citizen implies that a person holds Christian values, or 2) that being a good Christian qualifies one as being a law-abiding citizen.

Both of these misconceptions are big problems in the US. The first is perhaps the most pervasive and wide-spread of the two. It is a problem because, if we assume that all Americans share more or less the same Christian ethic, then we feel justified in expecting that all our fellow citizens will share our beliefs and we feel that it is not only our spiritual duty, but our civic responsibility, to ensure that everyone else holds the same set of values—our Christian values. Thus, when someone lives their life according to a different set of values they are not only labeled non-Christian but are branded “anti-American,” even if they are a loyal and lawful public servant! How many Christian Americans believe that this country would be a much better place simply if there were more Christians around? Isn’t this evangelist sentiment lurking behind much of our political action in the Middle East? Isn’t it curious that “bringing democracy to all corners of the world” sounds (and functions) almost identical to the missionary’s work of “converting the natives?”

This belief, that being American implies being Christian, reveals itself as hypocritical when viewed in contrast to how we perceive other countries. For example, we are often exposed to the unquestioned belief that countries which are predominantly Muslim—e.g. Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Palestine—lack the democratic freedoms that we enjoy in the US. Although it is casually acknowledged that these states may have democratically elected leaders, we feel that the overwhelming influence of religion, especially fundamentalist fanatics, distorts and corrupts the process of democracy. We think that it is not proper democracy because religious leaders have too much power. And yet, many of the Christians who voice these concerns the loudest would like to create a very similar situation in the US: a place where everyone has the same set of religious beliefs, where the religious leaders are widely respected and wield great power, where there is one absolute God that everyone fears, and where there is only one authoritative book. Of course, the one difference is that it would be a Christian country instead of a Muslim country—and this difference seems to justify their idolization of the former and condemnation of the latter. What they don’t realize is that an all-Christian US would be essentially the same as an all-Muslim Iran: different music, different dress-code, same fundamentalism, same subversion of democracy.

The second view, that being a good Christian is equivalent to being a law-abiding citizen, has become increasingly visible and prevalent in recent years. This view assumes that one’s legal and social responsibility is fulfilled by having faith in God, attending church regularly, financially supporting religious institutions, and maintaining a good reputation within one’s community. The implicit belief is that God’s law supercedes man’s law and so as long as one behaves in a way to satisfy the high priests then one’s legal obligation to his fellow citizens is inconsequential. This view is exemplified by people like Kenneth Lay (Enron) who believed that he was innocent of conspiring to defraud investors because he was a pious family man and Tom DeLay who seemed to believe that political corruption is legal because all his peers were doing it. Examples like these could be cited ad nauseam, even if we were to limit ourselves merely to the last few years.

It should be apparent that both of these views are destructive, not only for society in general but for the reputation and development of Christianity. (If supposedly devout Christians who are respected as “pillars of their community” are continually found to be subverting the process of democracy and ignoring the laws of the country, how does this reflect on the religious values that they appear to represent?) And both of these views spring from the same source: the confusion of one’s religious identity with one’s identity in society as a legally and politically bound citizen. Thus, in order for our spiritual beliefs to remain relevant and practical in this modern world, we need to ask ourselves what it means to be Christian, what it means to be American, and how these two identities can be integrated in a way that accommodates the needs of both our spiritual aspirations and our earthly commitments.

This is not to say that spiritual values and political action are completely unrelated or that we should attempt to achieve a final separation between the two. Our political decisions—as individuals and as a country—will always be expressions of our spiritual ideals but if we fail to recognize the unique goals and purposes that differentiate religious and political organizations then we will continue to act in ways that damage the effectiveness of both. Conservative Christians may desire an America that is essentially a Christian nation but that would not necessarily make for an effective polity. If Conservatives want America to remain a strong political entity then they need to understand and respect the requirements of effective governance (e.g. open debate, religious freedom, diversity of opinions, etc.) and be willing to concede that the political needs of a healthy State will sometimes take priority over the mandates of their evangelism.

Having distinguished between the United States and Christianity, we can consider the question of whether Keith Ellison should be allowed to use the Koran as the basis for his Congressional oath. First of all, the daily operation of the US Congress is a political matter, not a religious one, so in general Christianity is out of place in attempting to dictate how Congress decides its swearing-in process. It is simply not a religious issue. However, the situation is complicated by the fact that traditionally the government has incorporated religious elements into its secular affairs, even if only for symbolic purposes. In this case, the government has a tradition of verifying the commitment of its elected officials with a pledge that is sworn on a sacred book, the Bible. This ritual probably developed as a result of the founding fathers all agreeing on the holiness and spiritual authority of the Bible. Nowadays, however, it is common for the Bible to merely act as a token representation of the seriousness and solemnity of pledging an oath. For the majority of Americans, whether they are non-Christians or secular, non-practicing Christians, the Bible has lost the authority that it had 200 years ago. I sympathize with those devout followers of Christ who would like America to return to the days when nearly everyone held the same religious beliefs but demanding that we continue to use the Bible as an authoritative symbol in our public institutions—even if it has lost its sacred meaning for the average citizen—is not the way to realize that dream. The Bible’s inclusion in American politics is the effect of a shared belief system, not the cause of it.

It seems to me that a swearing-in ceremony is essentially a request that the elected person demonstrate his or her dedication to the virtues, beliefs, and rights that are held by the institution in which he or she will serve. Such an oath does not necessarily need to be taken on the basis of a religious creed (although, in some cases, a religion-based vow will be the most sincere). Instead of debating what religious text a particular official will swear upon, perhaps we should eliminate the whole question of religion and just create a more pragmatic way of verifying someone’s commitment to their job. For example, we could require politicians to sign a contract—like athletes do—at the beginning of their term. One of the conditions of the contract would be that if the elected official (who is an employee of the public) were to be found guilty of breaking the law, then, in addition to the court sentence, he or she would have to provide the voters with some specified form of compensation. Such a contract might prove to be more capable of preventing political corruption than swearing an oath on the Bible.

Although i disagree with his reasons, i happen to agree with Prager’s main point, that the American people—and not the oath-taker—should decide how politicians take their oaths of office. If each individual public representative were allowed to decide for him- or herself what book to swear upon, it may lead to some legislators taking their oaths more seriously but it would also open up the possibility of deceit and mockery of the swearing-in process—imagine someone reciting their pledge with their hand on a book of The Far Side cartoons or the latest Harry Potter book. While i don’t share Prager’s fear of Mein Kampf—Nazis won’t be sworn in unless we elect them, in which case we will have more important problems than which book they choose to swear allegiance to—i think it is reasonable to apply the same swearing-in process to all elected officials. But if we accept that, i don’t see how anyone could rationally argue that the Bible is more privileged (in terms of its bureaucratic value) than any other religious book. Such parochialism just reflects Christian arrogance and religious sectarianism, which have no place in American government. Prager’s argument that we let “the American people” decide whether or not Ellison be permitted to swear on the Koran seems to be based on a conviction that, given a choice, Americans would surely choose the Bible over the Koran. No doubt this is true, but would he be so eager to appeal to the American public if he felt it were a realistic possibility that they would choose to entirely eliminate the Bible from the administration of government? Somehow, i don’t think so.

Whether Keith Ellison is actually sworn in on the Bible or the Koran, he has already provided a valuable service to Americans everywhere. He has highlighted an archaic remnant of the time when Church and State were inseparable, even indistinguishable, and asked us to consider if this practice is appropriate for 21st century America. More specifically, he has raised an issue that could prove to be invaluable to American Christians if they are willing to face a difficult challenge: the challenge of differentiating between their religious beliefs and the political policies of the US. If we truly want to make the world a better place, it is not enough to point out the faults and inadequacies of other people, cultures, or religions, we must also be willing to recognize deficiencies in our own religion, in our own culture, and in ourself. Only time will tell if Christian Americans are willing to take this introspective step.

UPDATE: Jeff Wilson provides an interesting perspective on this subject in his blog on the Tricycle blog site. For example, he mentions that at the same time that Ellison is sworn in, the first two Buddhist members of Congress will also be sworn in.

This Is Me

2006-11-27T12:22:00.000-05:00

I started blogging a few months ago as an extension of my spiritual practice. Although meditation has always been – and continues to be – the heart and soul of my practice, i felt like i needed more interaction with the world. Even though blogging may seem quite reserved and removed from “real life,” i have found it helpful for sharing my ideas and experiences and learning from how they are received by other people.

I have realized now and again that one of my main spiritual challenges is self-expression. In order to continue growing into a happy, healthy, and more enlightened person i have often struggled with articulating my internal experience in a conceptual, emotional, verbal, or physical form that is recognized by other people. I have almost always felt content and confident in handling my own personal experiences but have often felt clumsy and incompetent in relating those experiences to the people around me.

This has led to me to feel most comfortable when isolated from other people. Deep down, i have always felt an intimate and intuitive bond with people but my inability to express this sense of communion in ways that are appropriate to the particular social situation has caused me to feel alienated and misunderstood. I now think that my desire to engage in retreat has been largely motivated by this unconscious sense of isolation from the world. Living alone in the mountains is, in many respects, an external manifestation of my subconscious relationship with others.

This is not to say that retreat has been an attempt to run away from the world or my relationships. On the contrary, i have always seen retreat as a means of more directly engaging with life in order to face and overcome all of one’s faults. For me, retreat has provided the special conditions that allow for intense self-reflection, which enables one to track problems back to their source and eliminate them at the root. In order for any period of solitude to be beneficial, i think the contemplative practitioner must at least be motivated to become a better person and, ideally, he or she should aspire to complete enlightenment.

My decision to live in retreat has always been supported by a longing for enlightenment. Indeed, my entire adult life has been based on seeking enlightenment and i would say that it is the principal purpose of my existence: I am here to become enlightened. This is a significant declaration because, although i have felt it in my heart for several years, i have often hesitated to share this feeling with other people. However, in light of my need to practice more self-expression, i think this statement needs to be made.

I feel quite determined and optimistic about striving for enlightenment but there are some good reasons why someone would not want to publicly disclose a spiritual aspiration such as this and, until now, these thoughts have convinced me to keep my wish hidden in my heart. First of all, the term “enlightenment” is not clearly understood by most people and it seems that everyone has their own unique interpretation of what it means. So, by expressing a commitment to enlightenment i may not accurately convey how i really feel. However, i think that this risk of miscommunication is inherent in any dialogue, especially when it deals with subjective experiences like feelings, aspirations, and ideals. Although no one may understand exactly what i mean when i say that i am determined to become enlightened, nevertheless most people will get a general understanding.

For those people who have a general idea of what i mean by “enlightenment,” they may believe that such state is impossible or unattainable. This belief usually takes one of two forms. The first is that one may believe that there simply is not a state of existence that corresponds to our idea of enlightenment. In other words, enlightenment is an unreachable ideal. It may be useful as a concept to motivate us to strive to become better people but there is no actual destination at which point we can say “i am enlightened!” This is primarily a question of ontology and philosophy which attempts to decide what really exists. Although i tend to agree that there is no definitive enlightenment, i also think that we need to strive for our spiritual goals (or any goals) as if they are definitive. This paradox of completely committing oneself to the achievement of something that one believes does not really exist is the secret to a successful and fulfilling spiritual practice.

The second form of belief in the impossibility of enlightenment is more subjective. People who hold this view believe that enlightenment definitely exists but its extraordinary qualities have been so exaggerated in their mind that it is seen as effectively impossible to attain in practice. They have pushed the attainment of enlightenment so far away that it seems unreachable. They develop the feeling-belief that they – and anyone else like them – are incapable of realistically attaining the exalted state of enlightenment, which leads to a lack of hope and optimism in their spiritual practice. So, when someone comes along who looks like them and acts like them but who maintains an optimistic conviction in the accessibility of enlightenment, those people are likely to express doubt and pessimism. I have experienced this. Many people who are supposedly striving for enlightenment are happy to talk about enlightenment and their wish to experience it but when confronted with someone who has actually devoted their life to its fulfillment they become skeptical, critical, and even offended that he has the audacity to expect that he can actually accomplish it. Its ok to give the pretense of working for enlightenment but it is unacceptable to really do it.

My reluctance to share my dedication to enlightenment with the people around me – even my closest friends – has mostly been the effect of this second form of disbelief. Rather than subject my deepest aspirations to the fears and pessimism of people who assume that enlightenment is not really attainable (or that it is attainable only by the select few who conform to their preconceived image of holy beings), i have usually decided to keep my beliefs hidden in my heart and to just do it: to just quietly continue to strive for enlightenment without telling anyone what i am doing. And, for the most part, this has been an effective strategy. It has allowed me the mental space to focus on the practice of identifying and uprooting the faults in my mind instead of constantly justifying myself to other people. It has also given me the freedom to discover what i really believe instead of simply adopting the beliefs of my family, my culture, or my religious teachers.

But this approach also has some deficiencies, which have become more and more apparent to me. Perhaps most importantly, by refusing to share my deepest wishes with my friends i have held back a part of my self – an essential part of myself – and thereby prevented our relationships from being as open and honest as possible. This has sometimes created the feeling that none of my friends really know me because i haven’t told them what motivates me. A more subtle but equally destructive effect of my reticence is that it has prevented me from experiencing a fully integrated sense of self. By segregating my self into parts that can be shared with others and parts that cannot, i have imposed unnatural and unnecessary divisions that need to be unified in order to relate to the world as a complete and whole being. Overall, my stoic silence has led to an underlying, imperceptible sense of self-repression and distance from other people.

Having become aware of the detrimental social and psychological effects of this mental habit, i have sought ways to unlearn it. Starting a blog was a step in the right direction because it has provided a venue for self-expression. However, i now feel that i need to express myself more explicitly by verbalizing my deepest dreams and desires, as stated in this post. I believe that enlightenment is possible, i believe that i can attain it, and i am committed to the realization of that purpose. This is who i am. Who are you?

Engaged Buddhism

2006-10-30T11:08:00.000-05:00

Buddhism is well known in the West for its tendency toward renunciation and withdrawal from ordinary life but it is debatable whether our perception of its reserved nature is an accurate representation of what Buddhist practice really is or a reflection of our own culture’s tendency towards external activity. Because we, as Westerners, are so familiar with focusing on the externals of life, one would expect that when our culture is confronted by the values, beliefs, and practices of another, less superficial, culture, that that foreign culture would appear primitive and uncivilized and that its spiritual beliefs would appear ‘ascetic’, ‘austere’, and ‘escapist’. In other words, our impression of Buddhism is not simply an objective and impartial appraisal of a spiritual discipline but also a reflection of our own subjective prejudices and presumptions. When we view Buddhist practice as withdrawn or detached from normal life, this says as much about us as is does about Buddhism.

It is important to recognize that Buddhism (or any religion) can survive in a culture only by completely integrating with that culture’s way of life. It is easy to see that this integration occurred in the East in countries like Tibet, Japan, China, India and Thailand where the influence of Buddhism can be seen in their artistic expressions, social customs, and political decisions. The point being that if Buddhism did truly encourage renunciation from ordinary life that these ‘Buddhist cultures’ would not have been able to synthesize Buddhist practice with normal activities. The fact that these countries were able to develop such rich cultures that incorporated their spiritual beliefs into all facets of human activity indicates that Buddhist ideas are relevant to the particular challenges that our culture faces, even modern problems posed by technology, globalization, and environmental crisis.

If Buddhism is to be woven into the fabric of Western culture it will have to provide some practical, concrete solutions to the unique social, political, and economic problems that we face at this moment in time. In order to offer meaningful and applicable solutions, Western Buddhists have to understand the unique problems of our society which in turn requires our involvement in society. Being a ‘Western Buddhist’ doesn’t mean losing ourselves in an exotic lifestyle but using Buddhist principles to become directly involved with the challenges of our Western lifestyle.

So far, the experiment of Western Buddhism has been largely conducted by individuals seeking solutions to their own spiritual problems. Although this will always be an important part of Buddhist practice, i think the future of Buddhism will be groups of people seeking solutions to society’s spiritual problems. In other words, i believe that Buddhism in the West will not only provide the traditional explanation of individual liberation but will also offer practical responses to contemporary social and political issues such as population growth, technology vs. the environment, stem-cell research, capitalism, terrorism, etc. In order for Buddhism to really flourish in the West it will need to develop the ability to speak to society as a whole, in addition to addressing the individual spiritual practitioner.

This development of socially involved Buddhist groups is most clearly exemplified by the Engaged Buddhism movement inspired by leaders like Thich Nhat Hanh, who has succinctly stated its ethos as:

Meditation is not to escape from society, but to come back to ourselves and see what is going on. Once there is seeing, there must be acting.

And, as Robert Thurman explains in the Engaged Buddhist Reader, social activism is implicit in the philosophy of all Buddhist traditions:

The primary Buddhist position on social action is one of total activism, and unswerving commitment to complete self-transformation and complete world-transformation… Thus it is squarely in the center of all Buddhist traditions to bring basic principles to bear on actual contemporary problems to develop ethical, even political, guidelines for action.

One of the most progressive activists of engaged Buddhism is David Edwards. He has written two books – Free To Be Human and Compassionate Revolution – which provide compelling arguments for the need to integrate social and political awareness with the spirituality of compassion so that we can overcome anger, greed, and selfishness in all its forms. He now works as the co-editor of a UK media monitoring site called Media Lens, which notifies journalists and editors of the liberal media when their work does not satisfy their own standards of objectivity, honesty, and accuracy. (This year, Media Lens published their first book, Guardians of Power, which contains some of their work.) David explains his synthesis of Buddhism and politics in an inspiring interview conducted by the activist site UK Watch in which he says:

Buddhism essentially provides a set of tools based on the conviction that happiness for ourselves and others is achieved through ethical behaviour - through thinking and working for the benefit of others. The idea is that you mix these psychological tools with whatever you’re doing – if you are a doctor, teacher, writer, waiter, the idea is that you incorporate the compassionate, altruistic motivation in whatever you’re doing. How you make use of these tools is up to you. So you can absolutely incorporate Buddhist ideas into activism and live a very active and vibrant existence.

David’s version of socially engaged Buddhism encourages us to work for change in our world not only with a compassionate motivation but by combining altruism with wisdom and intelligence. This means understanding the various social, economic, and political factors that contribute to suffering and deluded behavior in our world. In Buddhist terms, this means clearly understanding the manifestations of samsara that are appearing here and now. He argues that only by understanding the specific causes and conditions that give rise to the actual suffering in our world can we hope to free ourselves and all other beings from the suffering of samsara:

After all, what does it mean to be compassionate but not concerned with understanding the truth about state-corporate power – with its many massacres in the Third World, its systemic poverty, starvation and oppression? To (rightly) focus on increasing our kindness with friends and family, with ethical behaviour, without focusing also on the fact that our government is killing and mutilating hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, right now, doesn’t make sense to me.

His insightful explanation of the relationship between our global problems and the current social, political, and economic institutions that have allowed, or even encouraged, these problems to develop draws primarily from the incisive analysis of Noam Chomsky. In Buddhist terms, he demonstrates the collective karma that our institutions are creating and helps us to see how their actions are pervaded by a deluded motivation:

I think the classic ‘three poisons’ of Buddhism – greed, hatred and ignorance – are entrenched in self-perpetuating and self-reinforcing political and economic systems. These shape our minds and culture to ensure we are serviceable to these greed-based requirements. I think understanding the goals and biases built into a corporate culture helps enormously in extricating oneself from its illusions. For example, if someone thinks it’s cool to smoke, it helps to know that that notion has not simply emerged out of human nature in the natural way of things; it’s an idea that has been endlessly boosted and reinforced by a million moments of ruthless corporate cultural propaganda (Hollywood stars have long been paid to smoke in films, for example).

David shows how we have all been deceived by ignorance; not just by a private, metaphysical ignorance of the ultimate nature of phenomena but by a mundane cultural ignorance of the socio-political factors that lead to real problems in our world. And he persuasively argues that if we truly wish to realize the Bodhisattva vow to free all beings from suffering, we must dispel our ‘worldly’ ignorance of the material causes of human suffering in addition to working to dispel our spiritual ignorance. In this vein, he challenges us to recognize (and awake from) our present forms of ignorance. Rather than simply pointing at others and indicating how we can wake them from their ignorance, David asks us to identify our own ignorance. How am i being deceived? How are my fellow Buddhists being deceived?

Most people in the West have been deeply deceived by the propaganda system - Buddhism has often been incorporated into this deceptive world view. Erich Fromm argued that psychoanalysis quickly became a tool, not for achieving full human sanity, but for fitting industrial man into an essentially insane corporate society. I think one can argue that Buddhism in the West has often been distorted in a similar way.

This raises a very interesting question. If there are social and political structures in our society that benefit from the public's ignorance and selfishness, and yet those structures allow Buddhism some cultural space, isn’t it possible – and likely – that the brand of Buddhism that is recognized as socially acceptable in the West is a Buddhism that is necessarily non-threatening to those oppressive structures? And, if this is the case, doesn’t it mean that our socially acceptable form of Buddhism permits, and even enables, those forms of ignorance and selfishness?

This brings us full circle to the point in the first paragraph that our view of Buddhism is often a reflection of our own culture’s view. As the West develops its own unique style of Buddhism we have to allow for a certain degree of change and adaptation to make Buddhism relevant to Westerners but we also have an obligation to protect the essential meaning and purpose of the Buddhist teachings. This means not only developing authentic forms of Buddhist practice but also attempting to understand the social and political forces that may lead to a distortion or corruption of the Buddhist message. In brief, the survival of Buddhism in the West depends on social engagement. Just as Buddhism socially integrated into all the cultures in which it has existed in the past, it will need to involve itself with all facets of Western culture if it is to take root here.

[Another interesting discussion on the integration of Buddhism and activism – in which Matthew Bain interviews Media Lens – can be found here.]

Evolution & Reincarnation

2006-09-14T04:34:00.000-04:00

In the last few weeks i have encountered several discussions (in print and on the web) of the debate between Darwinian evolution and the ideas of karma and reincarnation found in Buddhism. These two approaches to the existential question of how we got here, which are held up as representative of the clash between Buddhist spirituality and Western materialism, are often portrayed by both sides to be antithetical and incompatible.

There is some degree of similarity between evolution and karma because they share a common foundation: they are both offering a response to the question, “Why are we here?” But each answer interprets the question slightly differently and we need to take their relative perspectives into consideration if we want to understand how they can be integrated. The approach of Darwinism attempts to answer the question of how we as a collective species came to be here, whereas Buddhism attempts to answer how we as individual souls (or minds) came to be here. Clearly, the two lines of inquiry are not addressing exactly the same question and our failure to recognize this has led to considerable confusion.

With the teachings on karma and reincarnation, Buddhism provides an answer to the individual who wants to know how he has ended up as a human being on Earth in the year 2006. It teaches that all of the apparently accidental and coincidental occurrences in one’s life actually have a psycho-spiritual cause that can be traced back to previous lives as a human, animal, or other type of being. Just as our current activities will influence and define our well-being later in this life, our mental actions in this life will determine the quality of our future lives. Thus, one’s present state of existence is seen to be a culmination of all of one’s past deeds – from earlier in this life but especially from previous lives. With this interpretation of the human predicament, Buddhism assumes that each person has his or her own spiritual history and that these individual continuums are responsible for our current status as human beings.

The theory of biological evolution adopts a different perspective. Rather than starting from the point of view of individual subjective experience and then formulating an explanation that accommodates the diversity of personal experiences (as Buddhism does), evolution views human beings as composing one entity – a species – and tries to scientifically explain the history and development of that entity. Thus, evolution is primarily concerned with the history of the human race as a whole instead of the personal history of each of its members. As such, evolution does not deny the possibility of reincarnation and karma for individuals; it simply illustrates the cause and effect relationship between species, based on physical evidence. In Buddhist terms, we could say that karma and reincarnation explain why we, as individuals, find ourselves in the human realm but that evolution explains how the human realm itself has developed.

These two views can be compared to the student body of a school. For example, the current group of students at Yale University can be looked at either individually or collectively. Individually, we can trace each student’s history and discover what led him or her to become a member Yale: their family background, their desire to attend Yale, their prior school record, their unique process of applying and eventually being accepted into Yale, etc. And collectively, we can demonstrate how the current student body of Yale has emerged from last year’s student body and so on back through Yale’s history to the point where we can establish a process of evolution from the first group of students to the current group of students. The admission and later graduation of a single student at Yale does not deny that the University has its own unique history; and nor does the school’s history conflict with the potential for a student to enter and leave that organization. Clearly, these two perspectives – individual and collective – are not contradictory but are naturally unified within the existence of any composite entity, such as a species or a group of students.

So it seems to me that these two views are compatible if we recognize that they are responding to different interpretations of the same question. They are not contradictory because their conclusions each arise from a different set of assumptions and intentions. We may want to argue that one set of assumptions is more correct than the other but that would take the debate beyond the borders of ‘evolution vs. reincarnation’. The main point is that these two ideas are not necessarily discordant, if they are understood on their own terms. That is not to say that either theory is true, as future generations may decide that one or both are false; it just means that they are capable of coexistence.

Buddhists and scientists may both agree that either one view or the other must be correct (and the other false) but perhaps it is this mutually dogmatic belief in dualism that perpetuates the debate…

Drugs and Spirituality

2006-08-10T05:48:00.000-04:00

I just finished reading The Teachings of Don Juan by Carlos Castaneda and i was impressed by the authenticity of the spiritual path that the author describes. The book is an account of the author’s experience with hallucinatory drugs and their role in the spiritual tradition of the Southwest Native Americans. Although i have never used drugs and never been attracted to using drugs as a spiritual path, i have always been curious about the strong association between drugs and spirituality.

I have always been suspicious of drugs because they seem to offer too much insight without requiring the user to develop the maturity and responsibility to handle those insights. In short, drug-induced insights seem too good to be true. I think that many drug-induced experiences or realizations are genuine in the sense that they reveal authentic truths about the user’s mind and his world but if we are exposed to truths that we are not properly prepared for, our insights will be debilitating rather than empowering. We need to develop the psychological capacity for enlightening truths before we can fully receive them. If we artificially generate an insight without first cultivating the appropriate mental environment with patience, discipline, and other virtues, we will not be able to fully appreciate its meaning. The experience has been achieved through deceitful methods, rather than through honest effort, so it will not bring peaceful satisfaction. Its like a stolen car that may provide the thief with some temporary exhilaration but will not provide the more satisfying joy that comes from owning the car legitimately.

Another reason that i am wary of the viability of drug-induced spiritual experiences is that they are often uncontrollable. Again, i can’t speak from personal experience but from what i know about drug experiences, they are often unpredictable and can change quickly. This may lend a degree of excitement to them, but it also entails a degree of risk and instability.

Having said that, i believe that any valid spiritual path will contain a healthy amount of risk and unpredictability. Spiritual development essentially means becoming a different being than who we are now – a more mature, more enlightened version of ourself but someone different than we have ever been. Because we are attempting to become someone new, we don’t know exactly what it will be like to be that new version of ourself. Thus, there is an element of uncertainty and unpredictability.

One of the interesting things about The Teachings of Don Juan was the way it showed how drug use could be integrated into – and even form the basis of – a life of genuine spirituality. However, as in the case of any spiritual activity, this requires great skill. Indeed, it appears that the author’s five-year quest ends in failure at the end of the book, which underscores some of the dangers and difficulties of any spiritual path. The use of drugs is not, in itself, spiritual, but with the help of a qualified master drug experiences can be utilized as supports for spiritual growth.

What impressed me most about the book was not the psychedelic experiences that the author underwent and described in detail but the presence of several universal truths and virtues that can be found in most spiritual paths. Whether from the ‘teachings’ of Don Juan or from the insights of his student, many profound truths repeatedly appear throughout the book, such as the importance of facing death, the importance of having a qualified spiritual guide, the need for discipline, the importance of overcoming fear, the power of mind and its ability to project the appearance of our world, and the lack of objective reality. It was clear that Castaneda’s drug experiences were simply projections of his mind (like wild dreams) that could be used to learn about himself. Seen in this light, they were the perfect food for spiritual growth. Of course, ordinary reality can perform the same function for someone with a spiritual motivation but, unfortunately, the novelty of drug experiences can easily seduce us into believing that they contain some transcendent wisdom and knowledge.

In the end, the book reaffirmed my belief that spiritual progress depends more on the strength and quality of the student’s aspiration than on the particular methods and models that function as his path. Drugs can be incorporated into a spiritual path if the student is sincerely interested in enlightenment and the teacher is qualified, but drugs cannot be substituted for spiritual virtues and realizations.

My favorite quote comes in a passage in which Don Juan is explaining to Castaneda how to avoid pain:

Anything is one of a million paths. Therefore you must always keep in mind that a path is only a path; if you feel you should not follow it, you must not stay with it under any conditions. To have such clarity you must lead a disciplined life. Only then will you know that any path is only a path, and there is no affront, to oneself or to others, in dropping it if that is what your heart tells you to do. But your decision to keep on the path or to leave it must be free of fear or ambition. I warn you. Look at every path closely and deliberately. Try it as many times as you think necessary. Then ask yourself, and yourself alone, one question. This question is one that only a very old man asks. My teacher told me about it once when i was young, and my blood was too vigorous for me to understand it. Now i do understand it. I will tell you what it is: Does this path have heart? All paths are the same: they lead nowhere. They are paths going through the bush, or into the bush. In my own life I could say I have traversed long, long paths, but I am not anywhere. My teacher’s question has meaning now. Does this path have a heart? If it does, the path is good; if it doesn’t it is of no use. Both paths lead nowhere; but one has a heart, the other doesn’t. One makes for a joyful journey; as long as you follow it, you are one with it. The other will make you curse your life. One makes you strong; the other weakens you.

Look Inside

2006-08-04T09:17:00.000-04:00

Whatever i have learned in four years of retreat can be summed up in one sentence:

Everything we need to learn is inside ourself; all we need to do is LOOK.

Unfortunately, looking inside ourselves is the most difficult thing for us to do.

The Meaning of Names

2006-07-28T10:42:00.000-04:00

I have been reading Naming and Necessity by Saul Kripke and thinking about what names (and concepts) mean. Have you ever thought about this? At first glance it may seem like a silly question because we intuitively know what a word means when we use it. Indeed, we are able to verbally communicate precisely because we seem to know what is meant when a speaker uses words. But it seems that no one has been able to clearly explain why we are able understand the meaning of words. Philosophers have struggled with this question since language evolved.

Two popular theories are: 1) that 'meaning' comes from the fact that words refer to, or point to, actual things; and 2) that the meaning of a word is simply the result of its relationship with other words, that 'meaning' indicates a word's place in its linguistic context. Both of these views of meaning have their advantages and disadvantages. The first theory more accurately describes how we initially understand the meaning of words (e.g. as children). When we first learn the meaning of words, we do so by associating a sound like 'cat' with an actual cat. Through repeated association, the sound 'cat' starts to take on meaning until eventually it seems to automatically represent the cat. We feel that the word 'cat' means a real cat. Clearly this sense of meaning comes from the assumption that a word points to an actual thing.

However, the first theory of meaning breaks down when we consider abstract concepts such as numbers, laws, and other formless entities such as health, beauty, and truth. We understand and use these concepts just as easily as we talk about more substantial things but they don’t seem to conform to the first theory of meaning. For instance, everyone understands what is meant when i say, "That woman is beautiful," but we also know that the term 'beautiful' doesn’t seem get its meaning from pointing to a specific thing in the same way as the term 'cat' does. We have a sense that 'beautiful' refers to something but we also recognize that it is somewhat nondescript and conditional. This has led some philosophers to develop versions of the second theory of meaning.

In the second theory, the meaning of words and concepts comes entirely from their relationship with other words and concepts. This is the view of nominalism and it is shared by some Eastern philosophies such as the Madhyamaka of Nagarjuna. In this view, concepts do not refer to externally 'real' things but are seen to be 'mere names' that derive their meaning from the context in which they are found. So, for instance, the idea of beauty is not thought to point to some really existent beauty but is simply understood by the way it is used in relation to other thoughts.

However, i think that we need to recognize the faults of both of these theories if we want to find a comprehensive understanding of meaning. The first theory has difficulty accounting for aspects of meaning that are the result of an object's context – what we might call a word's implicit connotation – whereas the second theory fails to acknowledge that concepts appear to refer to externally real entities because that is how we initially attribute meaning to words. While it may be true that an abstract concept like 'freedom' does not correspond to an independently existing freedom, we also need to acknowledge that the assumption that the concept does point to something is natural and irrepressible.

This belief that concepts refer to real entities, which is often called 'self-grasping' in Buddhism, is the psychological remainder of learning to associate names with physical objects. As our mind evolves from the stage of non-thinking sense perception, to associating names with sensory experiences, and eventually to the full development of language in which names are granted meaning, we develop the innate sense that a word or concept necessarily refers to something independently existent. This belief is a factual element of our learning process. It is an aspect of our mental evolution that simply exists, whether we like it or not. Any mind that develops the capacity for language and intelligent thought will necessarily adopt this belief in the process.

Although it may seem that once we have reached the stage of abstract thought that this belief that concepts refer to real objects is unnecessary and deluded, it is important not to deny the validity of something which helped us evolve to a stage in which we can question its validity! At the stage of abstract thought it may be correct to say that concepts derive their meaning from their context but we need to recognize that we have not completely abandoned the previous stages of learning. As with any evolutionary process, the later stages incorporate, rather than reject, the earlier stages. Any moment for a growing organism represents the inclusive culmination of all its past moments, not the exclusive suppression of its past. Who we are includes everything that we were. This means that the path to enlightenment does not consist of eliminating old-fashioned beliefs (like self-grasping) but of creating the space in our mind for them to take their proper place as a part of who we are without allowing them an exaggerated role in our consciousness.

9/11 Conspiracy: A Sign of Democracy?

2006-07-24T03:39:00.000-04:00

I have recently become persuaded, through an examination of the evidence, that factions in the US government were complicit in the events of 9/11. This has led to the disturbing conclusion that those atrocities were not carried out by a “terrorist” group but orchestrated by members of the Bush administration. Coming from someone with a spiritual outlook on life, who tries to find the positive qualities in everyone and who is not easily inclined to believe that people can be ruthlessly deceitful, this is a difficult admission to make. However, if there was a conspiracy, although it may initially be a discouraging realization regarding the true nature of our political leaders, i think it also contains a seed of hope.

If we assume that 9/11 was indeed deliberately planned by powerful neo-cons and we assume that it was done with the purpose of instigating a groundswell of support for military action in the Middle East, there are some interesting lessons that we can learn from this method of political manoeuvring. For instance, it shows how dependent modern politicians are on creating a communal illusion that the majority of citizens will adopt as their belief of how the world really is. Rather than allowing their political future to be determined by actual events, today’s politicians feel the need to construct public illusions that pre-define our perception of the world. Once a political group succeeds in instituting a particular illusion as a widely accepted reality, they are able to exploit it in an attempt to mobilize public opinion in favor of their desired goals – much in the same way that parents use the illusion of Santa Claus to get their children to behave in a certain way. The potential mobilizing power and sustainability of these public hallucinations makes them incredibly valuable so it is easy to see why a political group would go to extensive lengths to project and maintain the appearance of such an illusion. For example, a group may justify the sacrifice of 3,000 lives on 9/11 in order to ensure that America (and the world) becomes unified behind its President in the ‘war on terror’.

The extent to which politicians will go to implement their preferred illusion into the public consciousness may be worrying if one does not agree with the politicians objectives and motivations but on a deeper level it is somewhat encouraging. The very fact that politicians must contrive illusions in order to generate public support means that they are still very much dependent on public opinion for their power. Although we may feel deceived, manipulated, and disheartened when we learn that much of our view of the world is the result of political propaganda, we should also recognize that the prevalence of propaganda in today’s world implicitly indicates the fact that the government needs to influence our opinion. In other words, the government is not able to just do whatever it wants without our consent. Although it may sometimes seem like government officials are unaccountable to the public, they still need us to condone their actions. That is why they put so much effort and money into creating grand illusions. If they didn’t need the support of the public, they would simply do what they wanted, openly and directly. The fact that they often have to go to elaborate lengths to artificially influence public opinion shows how dependent they are on our acceptance. They need us – they just don’t want us to realize it. This is encouraging because it means that we do not have to allow ourselves to be deceived by our ‘leaders’. We do not have to be taken in by the illusions that are presented in the media but can reclaim our personal power and use it to influence the world.

This is explained very well by Noam Chomsky (e.g. in Understanding Power) and i think it demonstrates that democracy is alive and well (albeit obscured) in American society. Although democracy has some flaws, it works quite well when it is allowed to operate properly. In a functioning democracy, the voice of the people will be heard and they will be able to create the changes that they want. Nowadays, the voice of the people seems to be heard less and less. This is not the fault of the democratic system but the delusive effect public illusions that are disseminated by powerful interests. We need to see through these illusions by refusing to accept the ‘official version’ of events and learning to think for ourselves. Only when the citizens actively seek the truth will a democratic society fulfil its promise of serving the public’s best interests.

Spiritual Economics

2006-07-19T12:59:00.000-04:00

I have developed an interesting relationship with money: i try not to worry about it and it shows up when i need it most. Our relationship has become similar to a healthy marriage. As the husband, i love and respect my 'wife' (money) by appreciating her presence and allowing her the freedom to come and go as she pleases. In return, she protects me by appearing when i am most in need of assistance. As in most relationships, she does not always help me when i expect her to and our times together are not always as pleasant as i hope, but it has turned out to be a beautiful relationship.

It is an unusual relationship because most people believe that money must be possessed, that we must somehow wilfully control the flow of resources in our life so that they can be used at the moment of our choosing. While i can appreciate the sense of security that this belief provides, i think it also contributes to many of the fears, worries, and stresses that are associated with money. The fundamental belief that we need to possess money can itself be a very stressful burden. Having seen how harmful financial stress can be to one’s mental health, i have explored the possibility of living without being psychologically dependent on money. I am now convinced that this is possible, but it not as easy as one might think.

As a social community we cannot live without the circulation of money. In this sense, money is simply a practical tool for tracking the relative value of goods. But we need to distinguish between the communal need to have money floating around and the subjective desire to possess that money. For most people, these are inextricably confused. We say that we ‘need’ money when actually we just want more of it and we defend our desire for money by claiming that we absolutely ‘need’ it in order to survive. But is this ‘need’ a biological need or a psychologically-created one?

Although we cannot avoid using money if we want to be part of the larger community, we can satisfy all our biological needs without the slightest desire for money. In order to live without any desire for money it is not necessary to reject money – and often this rejection is just a perverse form of obsession with money – but it is necessary to face the possibility of not having any money. This is the hard part, and its what elevates such a relationship with money to the level of spiritual practice rather than simply being an irresponsible denial of our economic existence. If one is always fearfully resisting the possibility of not having money, then one’s attempt to find and save money will always be motivated by a degree of anxious insecurity. This insecurity is what causes the worry and stress that are often associated with financial concerns. To fully uproot this anxiety, eventually we will have to directly address it by accepting (and becoming comfortable with) the possibility of having no money whatsoever.

To honestly face the possibility of being penniless requires great inner strength and courage as it naturally evokes many related fears and worries in the mind of the practitioner. Not only does he have to address the practical concerns of how to survive if he did not have money, but he may be forced to abandon many of the possessions and activities that are used to identify himself. To complete his task, the practitioner must be willing to face the deepest questions of his being such as “Who am i?” and “What is the purpose of life?” Without probing to the very depths of his soul, he will be unable to fully uproot the existential doubt and insecurity that continually abide in our hearts.

As you can understand, such a unique relationship with money is not for the faint-hearted. To live without the desire to save money is not a matter of simply renouncing money but requires penetrating self-reflection. It also requires deep and stable faith. This is not necessarily faith in someone or something but a faith that is peacefully convinced that one will receive just what is needed. To maintain this faith in turn requires that the practitioner relinquish attempts to wilfully control his financial situation and surrender his well-being to the larger context of the society and the universe. He needs to see how his existence is entirely dependent on his environment.

The extraordinary effect of all this self-reflection, discipline, and faith is that money and resources naturally appear, almost miraculously. When one’s mind is liberated from the desire to possess and the insecurity of the future, it is as if the mind transforms into a magnet that attracts whatever is needed. When this is experienced first-hand, it reinforces one’s belief that it is possible to live without financial stress and causes the practitioner to feel loved and protected by his surroundings. One feels enveloped in a nurturing energy of peace and happiness in which all worries disappear. It is a beautiful relationship indeed!

An Experiment: Blogging as Spiritual Practice

2006-07-16T11:45:00.000-04:00

I have created this blog as an experiment, like everything else in life. I am living in retreat and hope to do so for awhile but i have reached a stage in my practice where i need to express myself in a more public and vocal way. I need to embody my spiritual experience in a more personal, more conscious, and less meditative form. In short, i need to practice being someone.

This may sound strange, especially considering how much emphasis our modern culture puts on being 'someone'. We are continually encouraged, in a myriad of overt and subliminal ways, to be a strong personality, to have clearly defined beliefs, and to indulge all of our unique cravings and preferences. But, for the last several years i have been doing exactly the opposite. Having taken up a serious Buddhist practice about ten years ago, i have since been wrestling with my ego and trying to understand the world and myself. This has led me on a deep and illuminating journey into the question of “Who am i?” – as well as other profound queries. My main tool for probing this timeless subject is meditation and so i have felt it necessary to suspend, or at least severely reduce, my activities in the world of society.

As a result of slowing withdrawing from the world i have been able to look under the surface of my apparently real self and investigate its true source and nature. It has been an interesting and insightful experience so far and i can only assume that there is much more to come. I hope to continue my enlightening and meditative lifestyle but i have also realized that i need to emerge, however slightly, from a state of almost pure introspection. I need to express my thoughts, share my experiences, and practice the art of transforming formless insight into forms that other people can recognize and benefit from. Thus, this blog.

I plan to use this blog as a means of consolidating my ideas and learning how to find my ‘voice’. I also hope to stimulate some interesting conversations and to generally interact more with the world. This is not only an experiment, but a temporary one: i expect there will come a time when i will need to again set aside my public persona and focus for awhile on meditation. But, for now, let’s enjoy being alive!