Awake in This Life

Sensors up, heart open.

Even if these people did “scuttle” his meditation, imprisoning and beating visitors is not the most Buddhist of behaviors. Maybe he’s rebranding as Nepal’s “Buddha Bad Boy.”

PATHLAIYA: Ram Bahadur Bamjan, 20, popularly known as Buddha boy, thrashed 17 locals after holding them for nearly 24 hours in Bara district on Friday.

The injured locals from Manaharwa VDC said they were thrashed at Ratanpuri forest where they had gone to collect wild vegetables on Thursday afternoon.

via The Himalayan Times – Buddha boy shows wrath – Nepal News

I can’t quite do this as well as Bruce Lee did, back in the day. Give me a few more decades… and some nunchucks.

Hat tip: elephant journal

Interesting op-ed from Van Jones in yesterday’s NYT. As with many, I was bummed by the knee-jerk responses so many had to the Shirley Sherrod situation. Jones offers some interesting insights relating her situation to his own.

The worst of the partisans will get their comeuppance and become cautionary tales for others. Public leaders will learn to be more transparent. We will teach our children not to rush to judgment. Technology will evolve to better expose fakers.

But the big breakthrough will come not when we are better able to spot the lies. It will come when we are better able to handle the truth about people. We are complex beings; no one is all good or all bad. And people do evolve into better people over their lives — just look at Senator Robert Byrd, who died this month and who entered politics as a segregationist and left as a statesman.

via Op-Ed Contributor – Shirley Sherrod and Me – NYTimes.com.

The most recent flap over whether or not to put a mosque near NYC’s ground zero has struck a chord for many. Although its okay for a strip club to be located nearby, a mosque crosses the line.

Robert Wright does a nice job in his essay on the topic for the NYT, and Shambala picks it up here:

The irony is that the mosque project is spearheaded by one of the most liberal and ecumenical Muslim clerics in the US, Feisel Abdul Rauf (pictured), a good friend to many Buddhist, Christian, and Jewish progressives and contemplatives.

The irony, of course, is that he is exactly the kind of person that those who oppose religious extremism should be supporting. But in this age of neo-McCarthyism, the cynical find it useful to tar all Muslims with the same brush.

via Shambhala SunSpace » What’s Right—and Wrong—with Islam.

To be fair, I’ve cracked up during meditation plenty of times. Still it’s funny to see Daisy Duke lose it in front of a Thai monk.

It’s hard to take much of this too seriously, but I still think two things are amazing:

1. Brit Hume’s views on what Buddhism does and doesn’t offer speaks to a significant lack of understanding, and
2. He does his best to play the martyr here even though an apology might have been the most “Christian” thing he could have done, allowing him to embody his faith.

And the tragedy continues for the elephants of Thailand:

Once the revered symbol of Thai culture, the backbone of industry and the protector of the country’s sovereignty during war, elephants now wander the streets of Bangkok, reduced to providing rides for tourists and helping their owners beg for their next meal.

With their drivers — mahouts, they are called — the elephants dodge Bangkok’s chaotic traffic and the feeble attempts of the government and the police to push them out of the city.

Many elephants were put out of work when logging became illegal in the 1980s, making it difficult for their owners to feed them. Wild ones have been hunted and driven from their natural habitat. It is estimated that there are now 2,500 domesticated and 1,500 wild elephants in Thailand, down from around 50,000 in 1950.

Bows, Tricycle

Stuart Davis offers us a nice piece of writing that confronts what many might see as fundamental flaws in the Rationalist’s arguments against religion.

I just finished reading God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. He’s given us another powerful work in the vein of Sam Harris (The End of Faith), Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), and Bill Maher (Religulous). Team Rationality is ushering in a long-overdue examination of religion in the modern world. They make a strong case that religion is sick and dehumanizing. I would say more specifically, sick religion is dehumanizing. And we do have a global pandemic of sick religion: billions of believers stuck in low levels of consciousness, riddled with pathologies. ‘S called Samsara where I’m from.

However, reading these best-sellers has inspired me to make a wish-list. Here are five things rational religion-haters should know:

Read on…

Got Twitter?

The folks over at Integral Life are making a show of things.

So very interesting…

The People’s Daily Online reports:

According to an interview with People’s Daily Online, professor Shen Weirong, director of the Research Center on Han-Tibetan Buddhism at Renmin University of China, and expert on Tibet, said that the Dalai Lama’s wishes to select his successor through “democratic election,” but this procedure neither accords with religious regulations nor historical traditions.

Ross Robertson of EnlightenNext has a nice piece on an interesting pioneer:

Jun Po Roshi—dharma heir of Rinzai Zen Master Eido Shimano Roshi, founder of a lay Buddhist order called Hollow Bones, and originator of a modern form of Rinzai known as Mondo Zen—came to visit us at EnlightenNext yesterday. After a delicious lunch and a delightful afternoon together, I was even more impressed with him than I had been on the phone a few weeks ago when we interviewed him for a “Beyond Limits” feature in our next issue. Jun Po is a remarkable human being, and his presence transmits a unique combination of strength and sweetness, fearless confidence and undefended vulnerability. Immediately upon meeting him, he makes you feel like an old and trusted friend. And he’s filled with stories of a long life richly lived, from his days as a San Francisco “urban shaman” at the center of the LSD revolution to his years in the monastery, his passion for wild mushrooms and the Argentine tango, and his recent “march down to death’s gate” in the clutches of stage IV throat cancer.

A couple of more pieces on the ongoing saga of Osel Hita Torres who recently left monastic life and his tradition:

Over at the Guardian, Victoria Coren offers up an interesting bit of analysis:

…you have to know what you are rejecting. Otherwise, the rejection has no meaning. So my advice to the gurus of Buddhism, who have been drumming their fingers for it, I am sure, is to be hopeful rather than worried. All spiritual leaders need their time in the wilderness. If Osel Torres spends the next five years trying to get into the film industry, listening to Hendrix and watching people bounce desperately around in smoky boxes, then returns to the path of the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition, he could grow up into the greatest lama of all time.

Time magazine has also picked up on this story:

The abdication of the anointed tulku is a significant embarrassment to the group he was supposed to head, the powerhouse Foundation for the Preservation of the Monastic Tradition (FPMT), the foremost Tibetan teaching organization in the West. It also challenges Westerners who have adopted Buddhism to find more sophisticated ways of understanding its magical side.

Time goes on to quote Robert Thurman on the issue:

Robert Thurman, a Buddhist scholar, former monk and friend of the Dalai Lama, recounts that when told years ago that Hita was to receive a traditional Buddhist education in India he expressed concern. Thurman’s argument: “If he wanted Tibetan traditional [education] he could have reincarnated in a Tibetan family in exile.” The result of the misplacement, he says, is that Hita “has broken away in a full-blown identity crisis.” Thurman thinks that after some time in our “busy postmodern world,” Hita may see the value of the Tibetan tradition, “which he will then be able to approach or not, of his own free choice.” And, he adds, “More power to him!”

Ah, reincarnation. Sacred truth or egoic refuge?

I thought I’d share this exchange I just had with a reader:

Michael, for some reason, issues of guru abuse are coming at me from every direction. I just had a good friend call me asking to talk – she has been with a guru here in the Bay Area for 7 years and is thinking of leaving her community. Her community is devotional to this woman named “S.” It sounds like from what my friend says that there has been emotional abuse from her guru. Her community sounds like a confusing jumble of projections and power struggles. I’m confused b/c I know some people (Ken Wilbur?) say that cruelty from gurus is compassionate and done purposefully so that the devotee can wake up. Even though my friend agrees with this viewpoint, her guru has said some things quite cruel to her that she says don’t sound true. So she is losing trust in S. Her guru will also not allow for others in the community to question her correctness on any issue. That does not sound right to me. There are other things as well that I’m confused about…. I realize nothing is black and white, all or nothing. But I’m really questioning what the hell is enlightenment if it can look like what S is teaching.

My response:

For one, your friend should leave if there is abuse. In all cases, abuse
derails the process. While I’ve never once heard Wilber endorse guru
cruelty, if he did, he should reconsider.

Second, confusing “jumbles” of power struggles show up all the time in
community. We, at Infinite Smile, have been lucky so far but should also
be aware of stuff like this showing up as we grow. That said, teacher and
community should work together as a container for radical shifts in the
way students meet the world. So any organization that doesn’t reflect
kindness inherently defiles what’s most important in the process of
awakening.

Third, gurus are supposed to be relentless at pointing out clinging. This
doesn’t mean they should ever be cruel. Pushing happens and should. We
shouldn’t feel entirely comfortable with our teachers. They are not our
friends, after all. They are our guides on a treacherous journey and there
isn’t room in this work to lose our balance and either become too enamored of either the heart or the mind; the relative or the Infinite. This is serious business. Hilarious, but serious.

I notice in myself at times that I become aware of impatience
arising and thoughts that center around there not being enough time or
energy to waste on the same old stuff that students keep bringing up over and over again. Then I realize that I didn’t get
into this business for the outcomes. I got into it because I didn’t really have
any other choice.

Having said all of this, 21st century sensibilities help devotional traditions get pretty sticky. It never made much sense to me, but then again it works for some people. Regardless, total devotion to a teacher always brings out interesting qualities in both teachers and students. So what should we be looking for? One quality: trust. Are they firm? Good… this is definitely helpful. Are they cruel? This actually can reify egoic clinging in most of us, which is why I’d say “move on.” Without trust, intimacy can’t flourish. Without intimacy, the entire process becomes a “jumble” of egoic clinging.

Then the follow-up:

I think my friend is just beginning to step outside of her community’s foggy habitat
and admitting to herself that S is absolutely not flawless – and this is when the
problems began. Yikes! S was evidently enlightened through some kind of transmission from
Adi Da, but never actually worked with him. Maybe that’s part of what’s going on. She began teaching when others called on her to do so – is it a teacher’s responsibility then to not heed the call to teach until they know
they are ready? How does one know? And why do you think such a shift occurs when student has committed to one teacher?

And finally:

When is the right time to teach? Well, I’m probably not the best person to answer this as it was never my intention to teach. Short answer, I don’t know. In our situation, what started as a class on uncovering meditative stillness in a suburban hamlet became something bigger. I was fortunate in that both Infinite Smile and I have had lots of guidance from lots of people who’ve done this stuff before. I still call on people all the time for advice and I’m constantly looking at both my practice and the sangha’s “center of gravity” to make sure everything about us is reflecting a deep unity with the teaching as best as possible and thus remaining “fog free.” Of course this fog-cutting takes attention and work. For example, teachers who are surrounded by sycophantic students can easily lose sight of what’s most important, and because they are seen as peerless by all those that are around them, they can fall into the trap of becoming totally devotional to themselves and their work. This creates communities of pseudo-enlightenment, where egos that think they are awake push well-meaning practitioners into the ditch. And these ditch-dwellers simply don’t have the tools to get out even though “getting out” is precisely what is needed if enlightenment is the goal.

I wonder how today’s exchange at MIT will shake up the wider Buddhist community in the US?

Audience member: “Can you give us an example of a leader we should look up to as a positive influence?”

Dalai Lama (after thinking for a few seconds): “President Bush. I met him personally and liked him very much. He was honest and straightforward, and that is very important. I may not have agreed with all his policies, but I thought he was very honest and a very good leader.”

To be fair, after he said, “I may not have agreed with all his policies,” according to one observer, the audience broke out into relieved laughter.

Relieved? Hmm. I’m fascinated by this. What kind of expectations do people put on the Dalai Lama that would lead to them feeling “relieved” once he offers the disclaimer on policy?

What do you think?

Michael Paulson and James F. Smith of the The Boston Globe report on the Dalai Lama’s visit to Cambridge:

After the Dalai Lama slipped off his shoes, crammed his crossed legs into a too-narrow chair, and unceremoniously blew his nose, the world’s most revered and honored Buddhist monk offered a bit of wisdom for the sages: Being smart doesn’t make you happy.

This is a great reminder for both brilliant practitioners and wannabe brilliant practitioners. Still we should be careful. It’s important that we not get anti-intellectual about our practice. Dopey, for all his charm, wasn’t necessarily an enlightened dwarf. At least that’s what I was once told by a rather highly regarded Dharma teacher some years back.

The mind, as well as the ego, afterall, are both divine manifestations of the Infinite. It’s in the getting caught by our minds, brilliant or otherwise, that we find problems. Seeing the mind as a tool rather than getting tooled by the mind takes us to the heart of awakening.

I liked this post from Rev. Danny Fisher, about one of my favorite films, The Last Temptation of Christ (now available on Hulu.com):

Speaking about the film, its “blasphemous” qualities, and the international outrage surrounding the project, I think critic Roger Ebert put it perfectly when he wrote:

What makes The Last Temptation of Christ one of his great films is not that it is true about Jesus but that it is true about Scorsese. Like countless others, he has found aspects of the Christ story that speak to him. This is the Jesus of his two most autobiographical characters, Charlie in Mean Streets and J.R. in Who’s That Knocking at My Door? Both of those characters were played by Keitel. Interesting that he choose Keitel this time to play Judas. Perhaps Judas is Scorsese’s autobiographical character in The Last Temptation of Christ. Certainly not the Messiah, but the mortal man walking beside him, worrying about him, lecturing him, wanting him to be better, threatening him, confiding in him, prepared to betray him if he must. Christ is the film, and Judas is the director.

So well said.

At last night’s sitting, I read one of my favorite poems. The intent was to clarify what this Path is really about. So often, deep spiritual work is seen as a way to escape from what is going on when in actuality, awakening involves nothing less than an intimacy with what is going on. The Invitation nails this. I’ll share it here:

The Invitation

by Oriah Mountain Dreamer

It doesn’t interest me what you do for a living.

I want to know what you ache for, and if you dare to dream of meeting your heart’s longing.

It doesn’t interest me how old you are.

I want to know if you will risk looking like a fool for love, for your dreams, for the adventure of being alive.

It doesn’t interest me what planets are squaring your moon.

I want to know if you have touched the center of your own sorrow, if you have been opened by life’s betrayals or have become shriveled and closed from fear of further pain

I want to know if you can sit with pain, mine or your own, without moving to hide it or fade it or fix it.

I want to know if you can be with JOY, mine or your own; if you can dance with wildness and let the ecstasy fill you to the tips of your fingers and toes without cautioning us to be careful, be realistic, or to remember the limitations of being a human.

It doesn’t interest me if the story you’re telling me is true.

I want to know if you can disappoint another to be true to yourself; if you can bear the accusation of betrayal and not betray your own soul.

I want to know if you can be faithful and therefore be trustworthy.

I want to know if you can see beauty even when it is not pretty every day, and if you can source your life from Its presence.

I want to know if you can live failure, yours and mine, and still stand on the edge of a lake and shout to the silver of the full moon,”Yes”

It doesn’t interest me to know where you live or how much money you have.

I want to know if you can get up after the night of grief and despair, weary and bruised to the bone, and do what needs to be done for the children.

It doesn’t interest me who you are, how you came to be here.

I want to know if you will stand in the center of the fire with me and not shrink back.

It doesn’t interest me where or what or with whom you have studied.

I want to know what sustains you from the inside when all else falls away.

I want to know if you can be alone with yourself, and if you truly like the company you keep in the empty moments.

May all beings uncover the truth beyond the matter.

via Infinite Smile.

Okay, not quite, but theworsthorse paints an interesting picture of the reasons behind Mel Gibson’s impending split and it has nothing to do with either interesting facial expressions or beard-tugging.

According to the LA Gossip Examiner:

Apparently, Robin Moore [his soon-to-be ex-wife] was becoming very interested in Buddhism, even attending Buddhist temples. Mel Gibson, a staunch Catholic – but definitely not a model one – became very upset with his wife.

Update: Fellow blogger, Danny Fisher, correctly points out that Gibson

…was a co-producer on Leonard Cohen: I’m Your Man, the 2005 documentary which detailed (among other things) the famed singer-songwriter’s career and Buddhist practice–he even has a blurb featured prominently in the trailer (see here). So…who knows if there’s anything to this story or not?

Indeed, who knows? Then again, this line of questioning doesn’t diminish the fact that Mel Gibson has publicly expressed some interesting attachments over the years.

This should be interesting.

Zen Buddhist-indie rocker Stuart Davis is launching a new comedy series: Sex, God, Rock ‘n Roll. Season One of of this ground-breaking tv show debuts April 26 on HDNet across the U.S. and Canada. Sex, God, Rock ‘n Roll is written, directed, and hosted by Stuart Davis, and features edgy humor from the open-hearted maniac. Each episode follows Stu performing stand up comedy, news, sketches, and his acclaimed music. A twisted mind and a sensitive soul, Davis has made a career out of parsing tricky topics, and Sex, God, Rock ‘n Roll finds this ‘Punk Monk’ at his multi-faceted best.

Bows, kenwilber.com