peaceful turmoil

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

The wages of hysterical xenophobia: Greek Orthodox priest beaten and accused of being a terrorist in Florida

Tampa police: Marine reservist attacked Greek priest he mistook for terrorist
By Alexandra Zayas and Demorris A. Lee, Times Staff Writers
In Print: Wednesday, November 11, 2009

TAMPA — Marine reservist Jasen Bruce was getting clothes out of the trunk of his car Monday evening when a bearded man in a robe approached him.

That man, a Greek Orthodox priest named Father Alexios Marakis, speaks little English and was lost, police said. He wanted directions.

What the priest got instead, police say, was a tire iron to the head. Then he was chased for three blocks and pinned to the ground — as the Marine kept a 911 operator on the phone, saying he had captured a terrorist.

According to the cited article from the St. Petersburg Times, the police report says that Bruce made up several stories about why he attacked the priest. They reveal the man's insecurities and prejudices, including:

The man tried to rob him.

The man grabbed Bruce's crotch and made an overt sexual advance in perfect English.

The man yelled "Allahu Akbar," Arabic for "God is great," the same words some witnesses said the Fort Hood shooting suspect uttered last week.

"That's what they tell you right before they blow you up," police say Bruce told them.

The official version goes like this:

[T]he visiting priest got lost Monday after ministering to the elderly in a nursing home... The priest's GPS gave him the wrong directions, leading him off Interstate 275 and into downtown Tampa. He followed a line of cars into a garage at the Seaport Channelside condominium to ask for help.

He found Bruce, whose back was turned, bending over the trunk of his car, and he tapped his shoulder before saying, in broken English, "please" and "help."

That's when Bruce reached for the tire iron. Police say that by the end of the chase, he had hit the priest four times.

The priest has declined to press charges and has forgiven Bruce, but the latter remains unrepentant and continues to assert that the priest sexually assaulted him. On behalf of the United States, my apologies to the Greek Orthodox and Muslim communities for this ignorant soul's prejudicial violence.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Self Portrait

A recent post of mine included a quick sketch of a good friend of mine which was painfully honest. It doesn't cast him in a negative light at all, but it does include a few traits that some might consider unflattering. He has read it and doesn't disapprove, but, I think turnabout is fair play. So I will give a sketch of myself and allow others to add to it as they will.

I grew up being open and sensitive to the people around me so I was inordinately honest, which started causing me trouble when my family moved and I got closer to my teenage years. My pacifism,combined with my tall height, didn't help. So, I became fairly isolated and guarded with an inward self-esteem deficiency and an outer disdain for inane group think and shallow fads (and those who subscribed to either). But I was intelligent, so I inadvertently became ensnared by the image of being intelligent -- taking hard courses, getting degrees, etc.

I finally regained my social footing, but at the same time I was losing my religious footing. It was ultimately a positive thing, in that passing through agnosticism and atheism was necessary for me to have an honest, reflective and robust re-engagement with spirituality and faith, initially through a somewhat secular version of Buddhism.

While I continue to grow and mature, I find I am often overly timid, sometimes masking timidity behind even-handed deliberative patience. Even I am not sure at times of whether I am exhibiting thoughtfulness or avoidance. I am much more clear-headed and fair than I was either in my original religious period or my agnostic/atheist period, without having something to prove or an axe to grind in terms of seeking validation from others through argument or debate.

On the other hand, I can still be socially awkward, and I find moving forward in a committed religious path. Partly this is because of a sense of impropriety. That is, if I had been Catholic for years and years, or Pure Land Buddhist, or a member of the ECLA, then I might feel that having matured in this or that tradition, I could be comfortable not conforming to every single statement or interpretation put forward by the main clerical body of that tradition. But being a newb, to use a popular term, it feels much more awkward.

While I may occasionally come across in my online communication as pedantic or even condescending, this stems from my desire for accuracy and understanding. So moving from a play-it-safe non-committalism to finding the things worthy of resolve is a big part of my current journey, in which I have gone politically from an Eisenhower-esque Republican to a vague independent to something more like a Teddy Roosevelt progressive with a penchant for the peace living and loving form of liberation theology.

Sunday, November 08, 2009

Information systems, ambiguity, diversity, grammar and the Divine

In any information system, there is a direct relationship between complexity and risk for error. Another way to think of it is that diversity requires ambiguity. Imagine you want to attach meaning to a signal. The only signal is a continuous monotone.

Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep...

Image via Wikipedia

So you have one possible meaning or message for this signal. That is it. Because the signal has no variation in tone or duration or anything else, it has a very low information content. It could stand for something that make take 100 years to say, but it can only stand for that one something. The upside is that no matter how much interference you have, if even part of the signal is received, the full content of its meaning is received with zero miscommunication. Let's change it up, so that it is still continuous but now we have two possible tones. We have increased the potential information or meaning conveyed slightly and increased a risk of miscommunication slightly. Now let us add 100 new tones. We now have many more potential meanings, more information content, but also more chance of being misunderstood. We could also add diversity and allow for new kinds of variation by allowing the signal to be non-continuous and differ in length of duration. We could add more by allowing the different signals to change meaning.

We can also phrase it this way: You need ambiguity in order to have diversity. And this isn't just true for communication. It is true for every system based in information (and can we think of any that is not?). For example, it is a prime feature of biological evolution and quantum theory. It is also true for discussing the Divine. When we refer to the Tao, or Shunyata, or the Ground of Being, there is the idea that it is the foundation of existence itself. That is is ineffable because it is the source of all potential. This makes perfect sense that the Source of phenomena would, from the perspective of the phenomenal world, appear to the be the ultimate in ambiguity and indescribability

Staying with the communication analogy, if we open the system too much -- if we allow too many signals to change meanings too often -- we will be overwhelmed by the vagueness, also referred to as openness, and things will be too random to makes sense. We need to have rules that allow us to attach and retrieve meaning from the signals. These rules, called grammar, provide limitations, and hence structure, to all information systems. The more complex the system is, the more nuanced the grammar needs to be. If we are thinking in a cosmological sense, we can also say that meaning is the pattern of connections existing between and that which is allowing the existence of various phenomena. What we call meaning is often our attempt to interpret these patterns and our assumption that they can or should be interpreted. As an example, science could be compared then to studying the grammar of nature.

Taking it back to an attempted discussion of the Divine, one aspect correlates to ambiguity and the "space" or potential necessary for (a diversity of) phenomena to exist. This is the part that is beyond analytical comprehension and cannot be described. Another aspect correlates to the grammar and allows for coherence, allowing for a non-random existence. This is the part that can be broadly observed by the qualities of existence/being. It is still beyond our full comprehension or detection, but it does correlate to logic. Both are necessary for the full mystery and coherence of God.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Friday, November 06, 2009

What can interfaith really look like? What should it look like?

Image via Wikipedia

There is an episode of South Park you may have seen in which in order to not offend anyone, the Christmas program at the elementary school becomes a totally generic, bland and meaningless performance. Some (notice the hedge) Unitarian Universalist congregations have this technique down pat, except that it's often OK to be a bit more explicit about non-Abrahamic elements. In the urge to focus on the symbols -- the words, the icons, the images, etc -- as a potential source of conflict or antagonism, interfaith efforts are especially prone to blanitizing (sanitizing something so much any value it might have had is completely scrubbed away leaving it bland) its efforts. Jim Wallis recently shared a story about a community worker who regularly says a prayer to a group of volunteers of varied and no faith, adding this insight:

For some, interfaith work and worship means the minimization of differences until all of our religious traditions become barely indistinguishable from one another — a kind of common denominator inter-religious politeness with little appeal for anyone. Prayer at an interfaith service is pared down to saying only those things upon which every one in the room can agree. It often makes for a service that’s boring instead of exciting, and for words more mushy than inspiring.

Mary Glover prayed week after week at our community center in the presence of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and those who held no faith at all. Never once did I see anyone hesitate or feel insulted by this prayer with its unapologetic appeal to Jesus as her Lord. It was able to bridge gaps between those of different faiths not because it obscured differences, but because it clarified a compelling vision. It reached out because of the depth of its sincerity, not because of a carefully worded attempt to be doctrinally non-offensive.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Thursday, November 05, 2009

So are atheists getting worse, more numerous, or just more vocal?

Image via Wikipedia

You will forgive me, right? Because you know I am not putting down atheism or atheists as a whole. So I know the title might read to some like an insult, but bear with me a bit before you make up your mind.

I have a friend who is very educated and passionate about philosophy, theology, and the history of ideas who went online over a decade ago to challenge and be challenged by people of differing views. Having been an intellectual 1960s/70s kind of highbrow atheist, he became a Christian with a far-left political leaning and an experience and understanding of God that is ancient but yet often missing from modern discussions of theology - a view of God as the foundation of existence, beyond but not less than our conception of a person yet as intimate as can be. Simultaneously transcendent and immanent. This friend, however, has a quick temper and dyslexia, and like anyone who has been fighting battles for a long time, he can quickly become defensive and project past experiences from the internet war zone onto current events.

Those just looking for an easy target to mock and provoke seem drawn to my friend like flies to honey, and it is true he does bring a lot of that attention on himself in the quest for a good debate. But that doesn't mean he lacks insight. And while his rants about the atheists he often encounters are often over the top and sometimes inexcusably insulting, that doesn't mean there isn't something valid to his complaints and observations. So taking away the hostility and over-generalizations, does he have a valid point?

It is hard to quantify anecdotal observations about the education, temperament, and behavior of such a broadly defined group, even when limiting it with qualifiers like "those on the internet", "those on message boards", etc. There is no doubt that the books and articles by the so-called New Atheists have energized a segment of the population who identify as totally irreligious, but that still doesn't help to describe or explain the aptitude or attitude of "atheists who read books on God and religion by folks like Hitchens and Dawkins and post anti-religious/anti-God material on blogs and message boards". Characterizing a group with a broad brush hides the very details necessary to the aforementioned task.

That said, if we simply take one example, we can use it as a starting point. There is a forum that I have been to on and off for over a decade. I have visited as an ineffectual sort-of-Christian-kind-of-Deist, as an agnostic/weak atheist, as a strong atheist, as a secular Buddhist, as a spiritual Buddhist, and as whatever it is I am now. I have also been to other forums. There have always been some places online where some atheists go to run their mouths and stroke each others egos and sense of intellectual superiority while revealing their profound immaturity and ignorance. This isn't surprising. You can find the same kinds of places for Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, etc. But on our example forum, which is has consistently high traffic, and which tends to mirror trends on similar forums, there has been a definite change.

Some things are the same, with newly minted or newly emboldened atheists working through the same things others have done for generations before them, the same kinds of questions and challenges to non-atheists, the same kinds of arguments and assumptions. Yet there does seem to be a shift. There appears to be less respect for academia, especially the social sciences and humanities, including philosophy and history, and more misunderstanding and misattribution of scientific principles and discoveries. There appears to be less struggling with important readings and issues and the ambiguity they present and more black and white regurgitation and borrowing of ideas. There appears to be less interest in respect and the notion that all sides are struggling in their own way for the truth and more interest in demagoguery and polarization. I have observed some of these folks using the same kinds of quote mining, quote and concept distorting, unfair generalizing, etc that some of the especially disreputable Young Earth Creationists have been using for years to try to shake up or discredit the science of evolution. Apparently they believe it's OK to use such cheap tactics so long as you completely disdain and despise your opposition and know for certain in your heart that they are wrong, Wrong, WRONG!

Now, I have and continue to know too many atheists online to believe this is typical of atheism, but it does seem to fit some of the "new" folks who have been popping up over the past 4-6 years and especially the last year or two. Not all or even most -- I can't make that claim. But this new pattern does seem to be on the rise. So, if that is a fair and accurate observation, what is up with this? I know in my atheist days we used to school the newbies when they embarrassed us with their poor attitudes or immaturity, but now it seems like these traits are becoming more acceptable. So what is going on? Are some minority of atheists just taking a dive into the mud? Is there an increase in atheism with more of the new "recruits" being pulled from the shallow end of the critical thinking and personality pool? Or are more of the ruder, cruder folks now feeling more emboldened to pop up and be heard (or read)? Something else?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

"Be Now", "Just Be", "Open Up", "Let Go" and Other Western Buddhist Cliches

It's not that these kinds of cliches are all bad advice, but they aren't teachings. They are just comments intended to guide us to the teaching, which is (the) unfiltered and naked experience itself. But the more we hear and repeat these cliches, the more we comfort our preferred self-image with which we hide ourselves rather than afflicting it with the pain and shock of our extraordinary ordinariness on full display for not just others but for ourselves to see. Oh the shame! Toss me a cliche quick to cover myself and my misplaced and misidentified sense of dignity.

**BLUSH**

What is the big appeal about wondering/debating over what does or doesn't "make you" a "Buddhist"?

Image via Wikipedia

Have you noticed how often this comes up on blogs or in podcasts, books or magazine articles? Apparently the folks pondering such a thing are hung up on the notion of Buddhist "authenticity" and have a set of expectations that they identify with being a "good" or "proper" Buddhist. Are there common beliefs and practices and imagery that are part of the cultural legacy and sacred tradition collectively referred to as Buddhism? Of course. But what does that matter? If being a fake or inauthentic Buddhist were to make you a more fulfilled, actualized and awake being whose existence benefits all sentient beings, is that a problem? Is this not as good as "genuine" Buddhism with the right ideology, the right robes and beads, or whatever it is that we think makes us Buddhist?

What does it say to have such notions? About the motives for identifying with Buddhism? Why does it seem (and if I recall some surveys confirm) that a large percentage of so-called convert Buddhists mostly read books about Buddhism and have a sloppy, irregular or non-existent practice? Why do so many others have such rigid and neurotic adherence to practicing all the time in just the right way -- not like the seemingly implied "posers" who only have a superficial experience of Buddhism? Are these two groups really so different? For who are what are they really identifying with Buddhism? If everyone else was doing it, especially poor people of their ethnicity or nationality, and they were just like everyone else, with most people in town wearing malas and going to meditate or chant at the First Pure Land temple down the block or maybe the old Southern Zendo congregation a couple of streets over, would the idea of "being Buddhist" be such a big deal?

If these folks had grown up with it, and it was in politics, the culture, etc, how might they react to some cool new thing like Christianity? Or Islam? Or something else exotic and non-traditional, especially for people of a certain educational level or social class? I mean, hey, dig that rosary. And people could know you were hip, worldly and wise by the way you put your hands together and intone that Lord's Prayer in a foreign language.

I am not suggesting all religions are really the same or equally valid, although many are very similar in big picture and small practice ways and some may be more valid for one group than another. Nor would I suggest that tradition isn't relevant or important. I respect and greatly value those who faithfully carry out and pass on such things. But to what end? Why are some folks so enamored with staring at fingers? How can such hardcore wanna-B-uddhists actually think they are benefiting from the important lessons of Buddhism when they are so unhealthily attached to the idea and image of "Buddhism"?

Doesn't (Mahayana) Buddhism talk about the limitless Dharma doors and learning/following the paths of all Buddhas and enlightened beings? Or is it just when they are styled in an Asian motif and speak Sanskrit, Tibetan, Japanese, etc? Or did I get that all backward?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Monday, November 02, 2009

Thirty Republican Senators who should get 0% of the vote from women, good fathers, good brothers, good husbands, etc

"Vile" and "reprehensible" don't quite seem adequate. The following is an excerpt from The Pap Attack...

Republicans For Rape

Saturday, October 17, 2009

How do you know if God is telling you something?

Interesting question. One could flip it ("How do you know God ISN'T telling YOU something?"), but that then begs the question "What is the nature of God's communication?" Everyone has an opinion. Atheists must if they are going to try to explain such a phenomenon away, and theists must if they believe God reveals anything at all to them.

So what works for you? Ecstatic visions? Physical voices? A sense of being directed or led? Something similar or totally different?

Here's a possibility upon which anyone who is genuinely interested in the question and not their own certainty nor simply being argumentative can reflect. I offer it with no expectations or defense:

Perhaps (merely perhaps) this is what God is saying...

The birth and death of stars and galaxies. The spark of life appearing on various worlds. The fire of chemistry and biology spreading across these worlds, changing and diversifying. The emergence of forms of this blazing process that are self-aware and able to perceive in new ways like their ancestors who developed photosensitive cells. The sun rising and setting. The song of the bird and the whale. Emotion, cognition, and reflection. The way parents are always parents in every culture. The smell of a happy puppy waggling its little tail. All thirty one flavors. The people and events in your life. Your reaction to reading this. The part of you that is constant no matter how you change physically, mentally, or otherwise. This moment, eternal yet ever new.

(To borrow from the UCC, "God is still speaking...")

Monday, October 12, 2009

The wages of sin, the consequences of karma

The concepts of sin and karma are very complex and often times complex concepts become reduced to a simplification of a single aspect of their nature, which makes some people uncomfortable with the term. Some theists say sin is disobedience to or separation from God, but this depends on how we understand God. What does a connection with or following God mean? I have written about my views on this numerous times, but it boils down to everything being sacred. Sin isn't just about list of naughty behaviors and hoping some Big Guy in the Sky doesn't catch us and punish us for being bad, it about choosing a lesser life. It is seeing God as the source and substance of reality; sin in that sense is delusion, a failure to appreciate or accept our fundamental interdependence with all phenomena and seeing ourselves at intrinsic and autonomous beings of primary or exclusive value. This selfishness keeps us from actualizing our full potential, short-selling ourselves and cheating others who might have benefited from our lives.

Karma is refers to cause and effect and the fact that we cannot escape the consequences of our actions. The seeds we plant will sprout and grow when they meet the right conditions in our lives. If we have sewn the seeds of suffering and we react poorly to the activation of those seeds, we simply sew additional seeds for the future. It's like telling off a judge at your sentencing. You are just making things unnecessarily hard on yourself. This line of thought isn't irrelevant to the concept of sin. In fact, it reveals an often overlooked aspect of the nuance of the concept and reality of sin. While it is an ancient idea, it is often overlooked. We refer to this aspect of sin its social dimension.

The personal dimension tends to receive most of the emphasis, especially in Protestant Christianity. It focused on the consequences of a person's choices on that person and those immediately affected. Some say (and I agree) that sin contains its own punishment for the sinner, and I agree. Even if someone doesn't realize they are hurting themselves. And it may have consequences for a proximate victim. That is why we have punitive laws - to discourage the harming of others. But what about the social dimension? It refers to the fact that we are responsible for each other. So it isn't just the fault of the person committing a harmful or destructive act, it is also the fault of those who allowed that person to get so far-gone that they would behave in such a fashion. Both the personal and social dimensions are important for acts that hurt others, but what about those that we think only hurt the sinner?

The answer is -- there is no such thing.

Again, the idea that we can sin in a way that only harms ourselves comes from the preoccupation with the self. But the social dimension of sin is larger than that. It also includes what we could have thought, said, or done but failed to think, say, or do. What would we think if a firefighter sat by while a family perished in a burning home? What would we think if a social worker ignored a pregnant mother who was trying to apply for assistance to get out of a bad neighborhood? How about an employer not hiring any employees at all for an empty factory in town with many qualified candidates but few jobs. Or someone who could save or greatly improve the lives of thousands or millions withholding an idea or invention? Are these individuals not responsible for those they failed to help?

What if someone couldn't volunteer as a firefighter because he had a drug history? What if someone didn't become a social worker because she committed suicide? What if someone never started a successful business because she couldn't get investors because of years of frivolous spending and defaulting on payments? What if someone never invented a revolutionary way to cheaply and simply purify any kind of water anywhere because they just decided to drink their life away? Aren't these supposed to be personal sins? Other than friends or family, who else is really affected? Isn't it their own business? Isn't it their life to do with what they will? Or what they won't?

Yes, it is a choice. They are free to make it. But their are consequences. What if the family perishing in the fire caused a distraught and distracted relative to fail at a safety inspection, allowing a major disaster? What of the child of the pregnant mother could have found the key to curing cancer? What if the poverty of the families in that town doomed their children to lives of hardship? What if the water purifier would have brought peace and stability to certain parts of the world and prevented conflicts over access to potable water? Even if these people wouldn't have gone on to some grand future, they are still human being who suffered or perished because of the "personal choices" and "private sins" of others. Just as Clarence explains to George after granting George's wish for a world in which he had never been born in a pivotal scene from "It's a Wonderful Life":

Clarence: Your brother, Harry Bailey, broke through the ice and was drowned at the age of nine.

George: That's a lie! Harry Bailey went to war! He got the Congressional Medal of Honor! He saved the lives of every man on that transport.

Clarence: Every man on that transport died! Harry wasn't there to save them, because you weren't there to save Harry.

How many have suffered or died, are suffering and dying, or will suffer and die as a result of our selfish delusions, our hatred (born when reality doesn't match our desires), or our greed? How many people might I have touched, directly or indirectly, because of the smallest of gestures, the most modest of words, or the simplest of ideas? What about you? Don't settle for that lesser life, no matter how successful or unsuccessful you are according to conventional standards. May we all live lives worthy of ourselves and each other.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

The myth of Democrats waffling on the public option because of 2010/2012

For weeks pundits have been saying that Democrats from conservative areas have to consider the repercussions for re-election. That is ridiculous. Conservatives who are not open to the public option will not vote for these Democrats anyway. They will side with Republicans who are abstaining from or obfuscating the process and who see defeating any real reform as a defeat for Obama. Those who are open to reform will respect those who stand their ground and make the case for what they believe in and why it is right and just for America.

If they want to play to the anti-Obama crowd among the conservatives, they could always try rambling incoherent speeches invoking 9/11, a connection to Saddam Hussein, and keeping America safe by fighting "them" and doing it "over" there, mushroom clouds, 9/11, and 9/11. Just update it for the "war on disease". Or not. Might work better than way.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Christian and Buddhist vows of peace and nonviolence

In case you are interested...

A Vow of Nonviolence

Recognizing the violence in my own heart, yet trusting in the goodness and mercy of God,
I vow to practice the nonviolence of Jesus who taught us in the Sermon on the Mount:
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons and daughters of God...You have learned how it was said, "You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy"; but I say to you, "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you. In this way, you will be sons and daughters of your God in heaven."
Before God the Creator and the Sanctifying Spirit, I vow to carry out in my life the love and example of Jesus

* by striving for peace within myself and seeking to be a peacemaker in my daily life;
* by accepting suffering in the struggle for justice rather than inflicting it;
* by refusing to retaliate in the face of provocation and violence;
* by persevering in nonviolence of tongue and heart;
* by living conscientiously and simply so that I do not deprive others of the means to live;
* by actively resisting evil and working nonviolently to abolish war and the causes of war from my own heart and from the face of the earth. God, I trust in your sustaining love and believe that just as you gave me the grace and desire to offer this, so you will also bestow abundant grace to fulfill it.

(From Pax Christi USA and John Dear's Disarming the Heart)

The Buddha's Discourse on Good Will

May all beings be filled with joy and peace.
May all beings everywhere,
The strong and the weak,
The great and the small,
The mean and the powerful,
The short and the long,
the subtle and the gross:

May all beings everywhere,
Seen and unseen,
Dwelling far off or nearby,
Being or waiting to become:
May all be filled with lasting joy.

Let no one deceive another,
Let no one anywhere despise another,
Let no one out of anger or resentment
Wish suffering on anyone at all.

Just as a mother with her own life
Protects her child, her only child, from harm,
So within yourself let grow
A boundless love for all creatures.

Let your love flow outward through the universe,
To its height, its depth, its broad extent,
A limitless love, without hatred or enmity.

Then as you stand or walk,
Sit or lie down,
As long as you are awake,
Strive for this with a one-pointed mind;
Your life will bring heaven to earth.

Sunday, September 06, 2009

Obama needs to find his resolve and his voice (on the public option in health care reform)

Posted on my message board on August 20th...

Recently an anonymous administration official was baffled as to why the political left saw a public option as essential to real healthcare reform. This came after Obama and other prominent figures representing the administration appeared to back-peddle on the inclusion of a public option. Republicans in Congress, especially those in the Senate, have made it clear that they will smear any kind of reform as socialized medicine and oppose it. They see the issue strictly as a political issue - defeating a bill will mean a major win against Obama and the Democratic Party. Even today Obama was talking about the hope for bipartisanship and naming Democrats who have been clearly stalling and rejecting efforts to reach a deal.

Under his leadership with a majority in the House and super-majority in the Senate, the Democratic party appears to be stumbling and tripping all over themselves with a long-winded and inconsistent message that fails to clearly and strongly refute insanely false claims by the opposition or drive home simple and effective messages countering the opposition: pointing out that Fed Ex and UPS thrive with public competition (USPS) as do private schools, etc; pointing out the inconsistency of conservatives whining about competition when they always argue that it improves quality of product and service while lowering cost; pointing out that there are already bureaucrats, from the insurance industry, coming between you and your doctor and deciding who should receive what service and doing so based on a bottom line of profit not the public welfare.

Obama doesn't need to be a friendly professor or kindly neighbor in this debate, he needs to be a strong leader and prophetic voice dropping the truth on the people by framing the legislation against our moral obligations to society as well as cost effectiveness by reducing the incentives and opportunity for an increase unnecessary tests and procedures and raising the prices for these things.

This was a key aspect of the primaries - whether Obama would be ready for the political reality he would be inheriting as the post-Bush president. Whether he would be able to navigate the political landscape effectively to push forward the agenda on which he campaigned. I realize he hasn't completed his first year in office, but the current health care reform debate is going to be his proving ground and may determine the tenor of the rest of his presidency. If he continues to attempt to appease an opposition that is seeking to obstruct his efforts at every turn and to cooperate with those who will brook no reasonable compromise on this issue in order to score political points, he will find he himself increasingly seen as being walked on by not only the Republicans but by members of his own party.

I have no doubt that Obama has a strong core of principles upon which his policy is based, and I am all for this attempts to seek bipartisanship, but when you hear that the opposition is simply not going to support any bill on an issue, there is no point to being dragged down by obstructionism. There needs to be a strong central message being clearly and consistently broadcast by the White House. He needs to be seen as standing tall and leading on this issue, working with those who will stand with him by negotiating in good faith, but not waiting on or being deterred by those who simply wish to get in the way. This is where we will see if we elected someone who is really ready to take the reigns and help guide the country toward the vision on which he campaigned.

Posted today...

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration's bottom line on a government health insurance option blurred Sunday as White House officials stressed support but stopped of short of calling it a must-have part of an overhaul.
As President Barack Obama prepares for a Wednesday night speech to Congress in a risky bid to salvage his top domestic priority, no other issue is so highly charged. Obama's liberal supporters consider the proposal for a public plan to compete with private insurers do-or-die. Republicans say it's unacceptable. It's doubtful the public plan can pass the Senate...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32714404/ns/politics-health_care_reform/

This reeks of monumental inexperience, profound miscalculation, weak resolve and inexplicable ignorance of/lack of will to deal with the reality of partisan politics in Washington. The Obama administration practically gave away most of any public option to start and has been obstructed by an extremely unpopular minority party with no effective leadership and arguments based on outright lies and shouting, then is stunned that the majority of Americans want a public option and that the voters who went door to door for him expect him to do more than talk about change. Who are disappointed in a strategy that is squandering his political capital while trying to appease those whose goal is for any and all of his agendas to fail.

A simple majority is necessary for a bill in the Senate. A 60 member majority gets over the filibuster hump. The Democrats have both. But none of that matters without strong leadership. The fact that Republicans, who decried the filibuster when they were in power, have been the most obstructionist group in the last few decades, won't deal shouldn't be a hindrance. Bush, of all people, managed to get enough votes and push his legislation through Congress. Republican Senate leaders threatened the nuclear option. They made impassioned pleas. They played every card in their hand, and played to win.

Where is the fight from the Obama administration? It's one thing to have you butt kicked if you actually confront a bully, but we haven't seen any passion or fight out of Obama at all on this issue. If he would stand up with a clear and firm message, that the public option is an issue of fiscal responsibility and moral obligation, and give some fiery and unambiguous speeches blowing apart the ridiculous claims of the extreme right and calling on the nation to do the right thing, he might not only get enough Dems but a few Republican defectors. Even if he fails and then has to compromise, at least we know he gave us his all to fight for what he says he values. To capitulate in this way is a vivid illustration of "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory." If this mess is indicative of how Obama is going to govern, it's going to be a loooong three and a half years.

UPDATE: Well, this is a promising start.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Sorry for the hiatus

Feel free to chat amongst yourselves.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Truth with words at the expense of experience

"The more firmly people believe they can debate their way to truth with words at the expense of experience, the further astray they go; the more people seek truth through experience, the harder it becomes to find suitable words and the less need they have of them in their search."

-Just Me

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Hang-ups to seeking God, Part 3: God isn't a superior hypothesis

Some assume "God" is an extra layer or texture spread over existence like jam on bread. God isn't an extra or an add-on. Whatever you are aware of is your level of awareness of God. If you are only aware of yourself, don't underestimate that. There are those who plumb the depths of existence through learning, meditation, praise, etc, but they are technically not "closer" to God than you. They may be more appreciative, and that could translate into a greater benefit, but they aren't somehow more "special". Again, if you want to know God at a deeper level, get to know and cherish others:

"Let none turn over books, or roam the stars in quest of God, who sees him not in man."
-Johann Kaspae Lavater, Swiss poet

And the thing is, speaking from my own experience, you could even be given or discover a logical metaphysical system that is better at explaining things than atheism, but that doesn't mean you'll just be like "Oh, OK, I'll accept God now."
God isn't a superior hypothesis or a better idea - (seeking) God is an entirely different orientation to existence. God isn't a thing, a being, or any other phenomena. God is like a shorthand for discussing the totality encompassing existence, its sustaining power and source. That is what some are getting at, like Tillich, when he talks about true Depth of existence, the object of Ultimate concern or the Ground of Being.

What I am suggesting is that if we assume/choose God, then everything is part of that revelation. On the surface, it may appear that "God" and "no God" are identical. This is not so. Let's make you an archeologist. If I give you an ancient bone with marks and squiggles on it but you assume it was before Homo had occupied the area where the bone was found, you might dismiss it as the effect of root etchings. If you think Homo may have been there early, you would be open to analyzing it as potential symbolic markings and do additional tests. In the same way, if you assume "God" then you aren't just going to keep seeing that same old same old the same way.

From a purely philosophical perspective, which is unfortunately where such discussions spend too much time, to switch orientation from "God" to "no God" is no more onerous or burdensome that switching from "no God" to "God". Each adds and subtracts an assumption. One suggests there is a greater depth and interconnection and meaning to existence, while the other dismisses this as wishful thinking.

If we are talking about recognizing a greater depth to our existence than the surface level suggests, an orientation towards a more expansive set of possibilities for experiencing life, then sure, that's something that goes along with "God". The whole "God"/"no God" issue is a basic axiomatic assumption, a metaphysical orientation.

On the other hand, for some, switching to the orientation of "God" from "no God" does add a sense of obligation, a sense that they were born for a purpose, and hence that even if their vocation and lifestyle is humble and modest, they are a part of something grander, something that compels them to love one another and comforts them that there is more than just expediency and cost-benefit analysis underlying ethical and moral decisions. Of course, there are those who claim to be on the "God" side who act as if there is in this sense "no God" (except the petty idol of their own flaws they have made) and there are those who state they are on the "no God" side who act as if there was a God (including that aforementioned sense of depth and possibility).

"Christ does not save all those who say to Him, 'Lord, Lord.' But he saves all those who out of a pure heart give a piece of bread to a starving man, without thinking of Him in the least little bit. And these, when He thanks them, reply: 'Lord, when did we feed thee?' An atheist and an infidel, capable of pure compassion, are as close to God as is a Christian, and consequently know Him equally well, although their knowledge is expressed in other words, or remains unspoken. For 'God is love.' "
-Simone Weil, French philosopher, Christan mystic, and social activist

Hang-ups to seeking God, Part 2: God isn't one of the "gods"

There are some things I would suggest though for the person really seeking God and not just claiming to seek...

1. By using the cliched atheist logic of taking the concept of gods from polytheism and different depictions of God from monotheism and conflating the two and referring all descriptions of the divine as various gods, it may look like you are being culturally relative and theologically impartial whereas anyone objecting to this can be presented as biased. But there is a flaw. Polytheistic gods are seen as manifestations of some higher existence but yet they are represented merely as a super-class of things aside other things. They are the biggest, baddest of the anthropomorphic sentient beings, and collectively they control things like nature, but in the end they have little relevance outside of their sphere of influence. They themselves have origin myths of their birth or creation. They are not trivial, but the question remains, what higher or more expansive existence are they are a manifestation of?

All "gods" in the sense that atheists use the term are in fact human-made. That is no surprise. All terms reflect human mental constructions pointing to some idea or experience. But even the lesser gods of polytheism reflect something humans perceived not only about the world outside of themselves but the world within. Comparative religionists and theologians and philosophers have been through such issues over and over and over. Even the switch to monotheism, which some claim is correlated to a change in food security/means of production/social organization, was a human idea. So what? All religions and descriptions of God are humanity's way of relating their internal and external realities and appreciating the significance of their existence and of existence itself. In animism, ancestor worship, polytheism, and monotheism, these questions are explored and there is a sense of relating back to the whole, to the totality of existence. In animism this totality is reflected in the spirit that is imbued in every object. In ancestor worship and in polytheism is the often unnamed source or creator of the ancestors or the gods - the power and logic that sustains the whole cosmological system. In monotheism, this totality and this sustaining power become the central focus in a unique way.

But other systems in a sense can be thought of as similar to monotheism. For example, in Taoism you have the space or capacity or potential in which reality can rest and from which it emerges and this is the Tao. And the heavens and the Earth are birthed from this. In Buddhism, you have shunyata or emptiness which is in more or less the same role as the Tao and then you have form, or phenomena. Form is really just an expression of emptiness, and emptiness is really just form. In certain "Hindu" systems, there is a similar non-dual duality of Atman and Brahman, the eternal and the individual. In these systems the emphasis is focused on the totality and its sustaining power/source in a somewhat impersonal way, with the Tao being the most impersonal and the Atman/Brahman scenario the least. In each of these systems, however, there are still ancestors and gods. That is because there is still a distinction between certain classes of concerns and how they are represented. The impartiality and integrity of the system is intact as well as sense of humility with such a system being only partially comprehensible to the human mind. Other concerns were addressed by manifestations of this system, i.e. gods and Buddhas and avatars.

In some ways this is similar to ancient Judaism, where angels were often sent from God to be his messengers or to enact his will in the world. There is a sense of a huge gulf between the totality and its sustaining power/source, which is now conceived of us as God (not as "a god") and humans. And yet we keep seeing prophets and others writing that this isn't the case, and that God is near us always, and that God loves us. Monotheism, then, takes down certain ontological barriers and merges what had been separate. The system is more than a "just a person", but isn't less than a person. In fact, what we consider personhood would be reflection or aspect of the divine Person. Yes, the Source is in many ways inscrutable, but it is is not aloof or unapproachable. Jesus took this aspect of Judaism to its fullest flowering, calling God by the term "Abba", which some say in modern parlance is akin to the term "Daddy" - the reference of a little child to a loving father.

Now it might seem that I am suggesting these Asian forms were a middle step to monotheism and not quite as developed, but let me clarify that this is an ignorant, wrong-headed view. If you ask children in the West "Where is God?" they will point outward to the sky, whereas if you ask the same of Eastern children they will point inward toward their hearts. Buddhism, which has a couple millenia on Christ, says that the highest state is experienced as a consciousness of boundless compassion and wisdom, and in the similarly ancient (Hindu text of) the Chandogya Upanishad, we read: "In the center of the castle of Brahman, our own body, there is a small shrine in the form of a lotus-flower, and within that can be found a small space. We should find who dwells there, and we should want to know him. And if anyone asks, 'Who is he who dwells in a small shrine in the form of a lotus-flower in the center of the castle of Brahman? Whom should we want to find and know?' We can answer: 'The little space within the heart is as great as this vast universe. The heavens and the earth are there, and the sun, and the moon, and the stars; fire and lightning and winds are there; and all that now is and all that is not; for the whole universe is in Him and he dwells within our heart.' "

In other words, these traditions (East/West) were coming at the issue from different directions and if we appreciate and make allowances for that in terminology and context they seem to have been coming to many of the same kinds of conclusions. Cultural studies show that in the East perspectives tend to be shaped by a holistic perception and cognition while the West is characterized by a tendency to see things piece-meal, so we can appreciate such differences in approach. And other traditions seemed to have been on a similar track as well. Here is an example from Black Elk, a Holy Man of the Oglala Lakota of the Sioux: "The heart is a sanctuary at the center of which is a little space wherein the Great Spirit dwells, and this is the Eye. This is the Eye of the Great Spirit by which he sees all things, and through which we see Him. If the heart is not pure, the Great Spirit cannot be seen... In order to know the center of the heart where the Great Spirit dwells you must be pure and good... The man who is thus pure contains the Universe in the pocket of his heart."

So, then, just because person describes God as a vengeful, wrathful being that is immature and judgemental and another paints a picture of God as loving and kind, these are not "two gods", but two different depictions of God. Remember, we are talking about the totality and its sustaining power/source. So for polytheism the entire pantheon and its attendant parts and accessories would be that "whole". In monotheism, this "whole" is God. So Zeus versus Yahweh is an inappropriate comparison. In atheism, this "whole" is (as many have described it) a cold impersonal fluke that is bereft of any meaning other than the subjective impressions we project onto it, a system of phenomena and their tendencies that are not in need of any explanation other than causal descriptions.

This is why some folks refer to atheism as a religion - because it is based on a set of metaphysical assumptions that, intentionally or not, by commission or omission, by affirmation or negation, make a claim about the nature of this "whole". Even agnostics either live like there is a God or like there isn't one. The point isn't to argue whether or not atheism should be called a religion, but to properly frame the question of what is being sought or rejected. With that out of the way the other suggestions will go faster...

2. Hence, it isn't really about seeking God, or Buddhanature, etc - at least not with your feet or your intellect. It's about getting to know God. If God creates and sustains all of existence, then you don't have to go anywhere. If, as many traditions hold, we are a part of/participate in the divine, then God can't ever be far from us. That is, the difference between a world with God or without is whether you expect to find God or not. We all know the importance of expectations and other assumptions in shaping how we look at things, at how we perceive reality. We tend to see what we expect to see and ignore or explain away the rest. No one can debate you into making that basic choice to really try living with God.

3. Many people are hung up on why the nature of God or Enlightenment or whatever isn't so obvious to everyone. First, I would send someone back to #2 to think about that a bit more in relation to this question. Let's face it though, with our big brains and imaginations and capacity for self-deception, is it really any wonder that we could over-complicate things to the point that we can't just do what so many traditions advise and sit in peace a just KNOW our connection to all things and that which sustains all things? The general idea expressed by karmic entanglements and by original sin can be reframed for those hung up by the terms. The basic idea is that sentient beings have the capacity to imagine and communicate real and false views and to create choices based on such views. We can be distracted and misled by these views and the feelings the generate.

By not seeing ourselves as being part of an complete, interdependent whole, we A) have a sense of incompleteness deep in our being that we try to fulfill, which can lead us to B) unhealthy cravings for that which we think can fill that hole, and in turn we C) continue to seek fulfillment in ways that in the long run are ineffective. Also, if we fail to see our (the value) of our connections to others, it is that much easier to ignore, abuse or manipulate them in our quest for wholeness. Some even resort to charity, because it makes them feel good about themselves. But their shallowness is exposed when they don't receive the gratitude and recognition they believe they deserve. In the end, it is recognizing we ARE a part of a complete whole and that we are not isolated that is the key to what various traditions label as liberation or salvation. But this requires humility and gratitude.

4. Liberation/salvation - removing the barriers to knowing or fullest selves (and hence a greater appreciation of/insight into God) - is intertwined with true humility and gratitude. If you are seeking humility and gratitude, think of everything that has to happen every day just for you to exist, let alone survive or thrive. Think of all the people that are involved in getting the various items you eat to your store, from the earliest cultivators and hunters to the guy who unloaded the truck and stocked the shelves. Many traditions also tell us to love others as much or moreso than ourselves. That is bound up with humility and gratitude. But for some of us it doesn't get through. Which is why some taught to seek God in the least - that is, among the poor, the sick, those with bad reputations, criminals, and outcasts. It isn't that the rich and privileged don't suffer - some of them may suffer more than the poor! But being among the rejects, not as a savior, or helper, or charity-giver, but as an equal, as a fellow human being, and really getting to know these people. It can turn your understanding of how thing are or how you thought they are on its head. It can screw up your priorities. Some think that such people show us God because they are desperate and need to believe (the old "crutch" argument), but you may just find that this gets things backwards - that because they aren't blinded by many of our distractions they have a clearer view.

*Note, my use of "complete" here, as in "complete whole", doesn't complete as in having exhausted itself or finished some goal; rather it means complete as in meeting our most fundamental needs which can include offering us the challenges necessary for our growth and development.

Monday, August 10, 2009

Hang-ups to seeking God, Part 1: What does it mean to know God?

Series inspired by past and taken from excerpts of present conversations on the issue...

I suggest there is more to what it means to "know God" or to "find salvation" than the construction that is so often passed on - if you "believe" (give intellectual assent) the following set of propositions about the nature of Jesus as well as the literal view and historical validity of the events of his Earthly existence as recorded in the Gospels, "confess" your need for God's grace, and "ask" for forgiveness, then you will continue in some form after death in a paradise. So, the requirement to for afterlife in Heaven is seen primarily as believing. No belief and confession, no reward. Some Christians probably couldn't imagine why they should give two farts about Jesus or the Bible if they aren't going to get to "live on" after they die and spend that time in bliss. I think this construction is fatally flawed and presumes a view of our existence, the nature of our being, and of the Kingdom of God that is too limiting and too formulaic... At the time of the early Church and for centuries thereafter embracing the possibility of magical-sounding supernatural interventions was much more common and easier to accept, so it wasn't so much asking to believe that someone could touch you and heal your physical illness (i.e. "belief" as giving intellectual assent to what to us today may seem like an absurdly improbably event), it was more like asking to people to believe that Jesus (and by extension his presentation of God, love, acceptance, etc) was genuine (i.e. "belief" as trusting or being faithful to Jesus and what he represents/offers)...

I don't think truth here should be reduced to a set of doctrines, especially when that implies strictly Christian article of faith and that thinking about the Source is only valid in the terms and descriptions built up in the Christian tradition. In as much as such articles and descriptions help move on toward a pure heart and a greater awareness of Being, that's great, but too often the means are seen as the end and such doctrines are viewed an exclusive means of access to the Divine as the one true and real tradition... If one makes "God" into a "thing" this implies there must be "testable" correlates to the attributes of this "phenomenon" upon which one can rationally make a decision to either "accept" or "reject". Any God you can "accept" or "reject" is the Divine; it is a caricature, an imperfect model, a placeholder - something which runs the risk of becoming an idol. Whether it is an icon or a description, it must by default be imperfect. The "God" of ones intellect must always be treated with suspicion and perhaps even subjected to some humor, lest we take that image too seriously. (I)f God is love and Christ is peace and the Holy Spirit is comfort, then any place where these things are manifest how can they not be of these aspects of the Divine? Unless one simply views these aspects as avatars of these virtues, promoting them and generating them but not actually of one accord and substance with them. And if God is present whenever anyone has a pure heart, and if Christ is present in everyone we meet, then what does that say about the nature of the Gospel and what it really means? It would mean the "Trinity" must be active in Hindu shrines and Buddhist temples. It means that the Divine must be present at atheist and humanist meetings.

How many...atheists spend their time spurning and rejecting compassion? How many of them want to tear down and destroy love? How many of them have no desire to forgive or be forgiven...? How many of them write at length about hating their own existence? ... Atheists may reject various intellectual abstractions and empirical claims, but is that really the same as rejecting God? Perhaps it is if, as I've been writing, one presumes that intellectual assent to a series of propositions is the primary substance of belief and the only way to "know" God. Which brings us back to the sentiments quoted from Weil but expressed by contemplatives within Christianity for centuries in varying ways - what is it to know God? I agree with Weil that an atheist of pure heart can indeed "know God" whereas someone with the intellectual and verbal assent to the Christian sinner's prayer and creeds who really thinks they want to be and have been "saved" can be without any genuine awareness of the Divine. Again, it gets back to what it truly means to "know" God before one can really claim to have "rejected" God, and again, any God you can deign to accept or reject is just another idol. I don't really believe it is possible for one to actually "know" the Divine and deny It (as that would be denying ourselves and all that is/was/will be), but we sure as hell can talk a good game about our speculations and our vanities.

There are a million things one might mean by "pure heart"... The heart is a popular spiritual image and a commonality I have noted in the interfaith studies of many sacred traditions is the representation of the heart as the point of conscious awareness of our participation in Being itself. I wrote about it quite a bit in the thread from which this one was spun-off, but the idea is that the pure heart never really "goes away". It may be covered or obscured by hardened layers of psychological baggage, emotional problems, false views/deception, etc wrapped up as conceit, guilt, spiritual numbness, etc, but it is not "gone" and it cannot be corrupted... The resolution of different sacred traditions take various forms and use myriad descriptions ("salvation", "liberation", etc) but a core commonality is finding wholeness and an accompanying deep peace and joy by opening oneself up and returning to that conscious awareness of our participation in reality-as-it-is. Hence anyone at any time is capable of "tuning in" to that sacredness even if only for a moment. It isn't so much about trying to be "holy" as about getting out of one's own way by doing that which takes us beyond our typical limiting mindset and self-preoccupation (for example thinking about the welfare of others). In this, one does not need to invoke any particular symbol or name and there is nothing "less perfect" about it even if one uses other language, even secular language, or none at all.

Any God that can be accepted or rejected is not God. What is accepted or rejected are images, depictions, and descriptions of God. To use similar language, the "deep heart" cannot reject itself. Which is why I return to the question, "Does our notion of the Divine bringing us closer to a greater awareness of that Source and a deeper appreciation of our participation in and as an aspect of It?" If [particular terms or images are unacceptable] because of their baggage, drive people away, then reject! Reject! Go for something you can appreciate. Make it totally "safe" and secular sounding. Even just calling it Reality or Truth. Fine. Because even if one is not formally looking for "God" or even "Truth", a part of us is seeking that wholeness. It may seek it through ultimately futile ends, but none of (can) really reject that drive. [Of course, eventually healing and growth should allow most people to get over their conceptual hangups and allergies to "God-talk".]

(For clarification, when I talk about accepting or rejecting God, I am talking about a specific depiction of God, not the orientation to/of God. Nor am I suggesting we should have no views at all, but that we shouldn't be arrogant enough to think our conceptions are able to completely contain and explain God. Such efforts are simply idolatry.)

Sunday, August 09, 2009

Strive to love your neighbors

"Strive to love your neighbors actively and indefatigably. And the nearer you come to achieving this love, the more convinced you will become of the existence of God and the immortality of your soul."

"[L]ove in action is a harsh and dreadful thing compared to love in dreams."

- Father Zossima in The Brothers Karamazov

Saturday, August 08, 2009

The hunch of faith

Image via Wikipedia

"It's very important to understand the difference between religion and faith. Because faith is not about having the right answers. Faith is a feeling. Faith is a hunch, really. It's a hunch that there is something bigger connecting it all... connecting us all together. And that feeling, that hunch, is God."

-Father Brian Kilkenney Finn (played by Edward Norton) in Keeping the Faith

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Friday, August 07, 2009

Sarah Palin's view on the Health Care bill: her logic is sound, her heart is in the right place, but her facts are wrong

Former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin recently gave a statement about the Health Care Reform bill being debated in Congress, and was quoted as saying:

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

When asked for clarification about the grounds for such scenarios in the pending legislation a spokesperson, Meghan Stapleton, replied "From HR3200 p. 425 see 'Advance Care Planning Consultation'." The problem is that despite the pundits and politicians who keep repeating in terrifying fashion that this provision is a means to kill the elderly, in fact (which are in short supply among all the tale tales being spun about this legislation) that amendment to the bill encourages and assists senior citizens in the creation of living wills that allow them to specify the kind of treatment they want should they become incapacitated. It doesn't mandate a requirement to have a living will. Deciding whether you want to be left hooked up to a machine on life support or whether you want heroic measures taken to make sure that your wishes are carried out, is a far cry from the death panel and similarly ominous images being spread. The provision is an attempt to protect patients' rights introduced by a Republican.

So let's try her comment again to reflect a more accurate image of our current health care situation, a situation that people seeking reform wish to change:

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to await the closed-door deliberations of a corporate 'benefits panel' so cost-analysis managers can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' 'quality of life', and overall 'cost per claim ratios' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

In the current system, the richest have the best health care and the working poor and impoverished the least. Health care is emphasized for getting people back to work. If that isn't deciding who gets what level of treatment (if any) based on 'level of productivity in society' coupled some Puritanical analysis in which the wealthy are worth the most in terms of productivity, what is? How is such a system not evil? How it is the status quo just and noble when the decision-makers are private businesses whose bottom line isn't serving human need or compassion, but making money? People suffer and people die from lack of coverage or denial of coverage. Where is Mrs. Palin's outrage over this? How does she justify opposing those who wanted a system based on the belief of inherent human worth rather than greed?

The idol of no form

[I tried to post this as a "diary" entry at Street Prophets as a reply to something written by Clark Strand, which is cross-posted from his own blog, but there is some technical issue with my account and publishing, so here is what I was trying to "say"...]

I can appreciate the problem with idolatry, of seeking the Kingdom of God, the Pure Land, the Gohonzon, etc, outside of yourself. The Buddha, and Christ, and others can themselves be recast as idols, and this is a very subtle problem. But over-correcting and swerving too far the other way can be a problem as well. Ancient Jews were prohibited from making idols and wouldn't allow any graven image, even decorative engravings or paintings or trim, were not permitted. Nor could they speak the name of God. And thanks to the controversy over a Danish cartoonist depicting Mohamed, many of are aware of the prohibition in Islam against producing images of either Mohamed or Allah.

But if we stop and pause, is that not a form of idolatry as well? Idols are made to bring Mysteries and Powers down to a level where they can be contained and constrained by the human will and rendered by the human imagination into something limited enough to be comprehensible. Perhaps even controlled by a magical system of rules. But simply becoming attached (having an unhealthy craving or dependency to fill an unrequited need for to feel whole) to the image of no image can be just as egotistical and just as small-minded.

But if we have a panentheistic view, which at least sounds sympathetic to some of Strand's recent writings, we see why both views - the idol of form and the idol of no form, are equally dangerous. In panentheism, the Ground of Becoming, the Source, is always giving rise to the phenomenological realm, like an ocean gives rise to waves. The ocean (the limitless potential of existence) and the waves (the phenomena) are really the same stuff. And the interdependent web of causality co-determines which waves will arise where and in what form and in what direction, speed, etc. Co-determines? Yes, because of the fact that some of these waves are sentient and have the capacity to choose.

Buddhists will likely appreciate the above metaphor as compatible with the notion of form and emptiness, karma (cause and effect), etc. Many Abrahamic theists and certainly many "Hindu" will recognize the infinite nature of their Creator which encompasses the whole ocean. I have read similar depictions of God from many theologians. And the basic premise then is that we are already connected to God, the Tao, the Dharmakaya, etc. But we have forgotten it as our sentience and imagination and awareness of our mortality emerged. This is, as Strand has suggested elsewhere in other writing, the source of delusion in Dharmic traditions like Buddhism and the source of original sin in the Abrahamic faiths.

Hence the goal is to get past the distraction of our false limited view of self (i.e. "ego") and recall that connection, the universal quality of Buddha nature, that inherent awareness of our wholeness which can enable us to end our attachments and suffering (Buddhist version). It is to die to that false view of self and be reborn to that original connection to God (Christian version). Fill in your tradition here if it isn't already listed.

Hence, we are told, the Pure Land, the Kingdom of Heaven, etc, is within us. In Buddhism there is a saying that samsara (the world we live in because of our delusion) and nirvana (reality without delusion) are not separate places. That is, the Pure Land is here right now for those liberated from delusion, and the Kingdom of God is here right now for those who have been reborn. Two but not two. That is, the distinction is in our hearts and mind. There is also the notion that an ordinary person sees deluded beings, while an enlightened mind sees only Buddhas. This is echoed in the Abrahamic teachings about seeing God in the faces of others and the commandment to love God and to love others as we love ourselves. Why? Because all of creation is of God and hence everything is sacred.

It is the human mind, owing to its capacity for imagination and choice, which can create unreal or false views which can then lead to ignorance, greed, and hatred, and in turn lead to suffering. And if the human mind creates the option for evil, what is in the heart of humans, their insecurity and misery, will in turn be reflected in their actions. Hence we create for ourselves a world of war, poverty, discrimination, etc. Everywhere we build false idols to gain some sense of control. But now we can appreciate why the idol of form and the idol of no form are both dangerous and false. Because God (or whatever you choose to call God) is not any thing nor no thing. God isn't just a superlative form in the realm of form. God is the infinite in the finite and the eternal in the moment.

The idolatry of no form is, as I suggested, very subtle. For example, in Buddhism some have the goal of destroying the self. Self is the enemy, and I will slay it and claim the prize of enlightenment. Muhahaha! Others say no, I will simple ignore the ego and give it the cold shoulder, hence allowing enlightenment to arise. But as a Chan monk instructed me, both notions are wrong and only compound our delusion. Instead, we must learn to live with the ego in peace, neither expending energy to focus on it or to try to push it away. I am sure the Christians here and those of other faiths have similar wisdom about the need to accept and forgive ourselves and God for what we are in order to be open to our wholeness and to truly live.

When we touch the Ultimate, presumably we are touching all that is, was, will be, and possibly even what could have been. But it would be all at once - a totality where linear distinctions like past and present and here and there break down. I am guessing here that this is what is meant by the omniscience of a Buddha. In human form the mind would likely not be able to process all of this properly but I have heard various accounts of mystics who claim to have had such visions in which they could grasp everything but not in relative terms like meters or seconds, hence afterward they couldn't tell you stuff like where Hoffa is buried or the date on which human first entered the New World.

Now, these mystics may have been insane or hallucinating. But it does pay to consider the seeming duality of experiencing life from a limited historical perspective and from an ultimate perspective. From the historical perspective there is an emphasis on dividing things into beginnings and endings, but that might be hard to define in an ultimate view. Still, we hear the the Pure Land is here if we can see it, and that the Kingdom of Heaven is with us already. I have been noticing many account lately in which the exegesis of the crucifixion and ascension are re-examined in terms of history. The idea being that, for example, when Christ says that the one thief will be with him that day in paradise, it doesn't mean until after they die, that it means it starts right then, while they are still nailed to some hunks of wood. I believe Strand has commented on this as well. Many Buddhist masters seem to say something similar. The idea is that we don't have to wait for death to begin eternal life, that we have it and are it and just need to realize that.

I don't have a clue what that does or doesn't mean in terms of an afterlife, though speculation may be fun, but the thing is, I don't think the Pure Land is deathless because it is just some escapist death-aversive pipe dream any more than heaven is the same thing, although I would agree both can and have been used in that fashion. But then, religious wisdom is always open to abuse. I see the Pure Land and similar depictions as a reflecting a Pure Heart and a Pure Mind. In the steps of dependent origination in Buddhism, the first step isn't birth, it is ignorance. Buddhahood is a deathless state because it is a birthless state because it is free from ignorance. It has no beginning and it has no end. It is whole, and perfectly appreciates its participation in the totality.

In a sense then, being reborn into the Kingdom of Heaven or being reborn into the Pure Land is a bit of a misnomer, although it is easy to see why such depictions seems apt. Yes, religion sometimes mistakes the flash for the substance, and the Buddha can be idolized in a certain form, and so can Jesus, the Pure Land, and the Kingdom of Heaven. But I am just as wary of the errors in the teaching of avoiding the Pure Land as much as the errors of seeking it, in the errors of rejecting the Buddha as much as embracing him. Many masters used to rinse and spit after saying words like Buddha as if they were foul words or curses to avoid the risk of idolization, but they kept saying it and passing on the teachings anyway. The idol of no form is as dangerous as the idol of form. The only solution as far as I can tell is a living, dynamic faith that is open to all sources of genuine insight.

Thursday, August 06, 2009

Anger, frenzy, mobs and the politics of hate - how to stop the "game"

Too many people are treating politics like a game that is above life and death, and even when asked for sane responses won't give them because the calculus of the rules say it's potentially too risky and costly (for example, politicians not willing to call the Birther claims outrageous and unfounded). In response to claims of planted thugs trying to disrupt public meetings and in some cases whip folks into hysterical mobs, here was my comment in reply to a Think Progress story about the violence escalating and some people being physically intimidated. I've added some clarifying comments in square brackets..

It's very sad. Moderate Republicans, those who are left anyway, who were of the Dwight Eisenhower kind of mold, must be beside themselves (and whatever you thought of Ike he sounds like an infinitely fair-minded genius compared to the leadership of the GOP today). Even Powell, who shed so much credibility by making Bush's bogus case for Iraq, is considered just too "moderate" these days, which apparently means "not willing to go along with the violent conspiratorial crazies who have taken over conservatism."

Violence betrays a lack of creativity - when you can't make something (of your own), destroy something (someone else made). The current GOP can't come up with any original ideas [cutting taxes on large corporations and the wealthiest citizens doesn't count], so the game plan is obvious. Claim credit for other people's idea while attacking those ideas (cough, stimulus) and then make sure any new opposition ideas can't get a fair hearing [And don't think some Democrats wouldn't try something like this if the tables were reversed].

This is not just the GOPs fault, I fear. It's just the result of a political system in which polarization is fueled by competitive one-upmanship. One side engages in soundbyte politics, and the other side sees it works and follows suit. One side engages in hyperbole, and the other side needs to "win" so they try it too. And so it escalates until each side believes they are the sole possessor of some form of righteousness, looks at the other side, and thanks whatever they believe in they are "not like them." The game continues, polarization increases, and the wingnuts on both sides openly embrace a visceral hatred. It was only a matter of time before this open hatred started moving into the mainstream of one of the parties [The Dems came close with 8 years of "W"].

Isn't this why people were drawn to Obama? Because they wanted to reverse this trend and saw him as representing such change? [He of course can't just give these things like Santa Claus at Christmas but he became a symbol to motivate people.] Caving in to this kind of violence isn't an option, but becoming more divided and divisive isn't the solution either. It is times like these when true creativity is really needed. One example is to take the craziness seriously to expose it for what it is, like the people passing a House resolution which stated Obama was born in Hawaii (no one voted against) or the recent amendment proposed by a Democrat to end Medicare to see if Republicans had the courage of their rhetoric.

Other ideas? Creative solutions?

What if the people being shouted down walked over to the ugliest, loudest SOB in the crowd and gave him a big hug? Can you imagine? Oh now you are shouting again? Hug. And you? Hug.

Of course, there are alternatives to hugs for those with personal space issues, but doesn't hate seem its ugliest when contrasted with love? And doesn't our social justice playbook, a la folks like Dr King, have love as a central theme? [Love is more than a theme in a playbook of course, but it really is quite effective! And it isn't for the cowardly or uncommitted, as I've written before. We need the proper attitude.]

Other ideas?

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

Ditch this witness/exploration blog for a self-help blog?

Funny idea I had earlier: Maybe I should dump my current blog and make one that is an advice column called "Dear Hopelessly Stupid"... I wonder what it would look like...?

Hey Stupid:

I like to write about and discuss theology and intelligent things but I can't find any decent place for such dialog on the internet. What should I do?

Signed, Desperate in Dallas

----

Dear Desperate:

You actually expected to find intelligent conversation online? And you asking someone who goes by "Hopelessly Stupid" what to do? Maybe you'd be better off with my nom de plume, eh? If you do find folks on "the internets" who are halfway bright, cling to them like grim death. That is, if you can pry grim death away from the hopes of your local sports teams this season long enough to get some lessons.

Best wishes for your fishes, Hopelessly Stupid

What does taking the Lotus Sutra seriously look like?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some excerpts from a discussion on the impact of the message and underlying wisdom of the Lotus Sutra, which is the central text for a branch of Buddhism founded around 750 years ago by the Japanese monk Nichiren. The question is what does it mean/look like to take the idea of universal human worth and potential seriously in a world in which deluded beings have many idea about where lasting fulfillment and joy come from...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Image via Wikipedia

There is always a tension between those recognizing interdependence, that phenomena arise from the ultimate/divine (in the "cycle" of form/emptiness), and the subsequent solidarity with all sentient beings, especially the neglected and abused and rejected, on the one hand, and those obsessed with divisiveness and exclusionism, the quest for a selfish and arrogant version of purity, and the subsequent hollow piety and sadistic judgmentalism on the other hand. We can see this in the struggles of the Hebrew in the Old Testament and the warnings of prophets like Isaiah and Micah, we can see it the New Testament and the visions of the Gospel and early church and how that vision has been betrayed again and again throughout the ages even though a remnant always keep true to that original vision.

And we can see the same pattern in Islam, "Hinduism", Earth-based and small-scale indigenous religions, Taoist and Confucianist traditions, and alas, yes Buddhism. And this is why some are drawn to the Lotus Sutra schools, as the Sutra is revered in large part for this inclusive, universalist message. You are not doomed to a helpless fate of perpetual suffering, you are inherently worthy, and you can make a difference, no matter who you are. Nichiren in particular was concerned with making the benefits of Buddhist wisdom, which really isn't strictly Buddhist wisdom at all, available to even those with jobs or stations in life considered unclean or despicable, much like Jesus was hanging out with the outcasts and the sinners out of his concern for awakening all people to the kingdom of heaven.

Those who are benefiting from the existing societal and cultural conditions are the least likely to care about a message that they contain the seed of Buddhahood, or the Kingdom of Heaven, or anything else that essentially turns conventional wisdom about power, happiness, etc on its head. The rich and powerful are frequently too invested in that system. Such movements don't spread by the greatest, but by the least, in the abandoned areas and among the forgotten people. It is truly a grass-roots kind of model, a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach. People spreading such insights tend to move to such areas and associate with such people not out of pity, but out of the genuine belief in interdependence/emptiness (hence the immense and inherent value of all beings) and because it is at the margins and through the cracks of our shared delusions that we have the greatest chance to spot a glimpse of the truth. Often it is those on the fringes who have something to share with *us* about reality-as-it-is.

People spreading such messages, even if it is just told in the way they live, tend to be considered dangerous. As Dom Helder Camara noted, “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.” Following a tradition that challenges the conventional deluded wisdom can never be complacent or safe (safe here is a relative term, but I am going for danger of physical harm). Shakyamuni's disciples knew that, and a great example of that is found in the Lotus Sutra in the story of the disciple willing to endure taunts, torment, and death to spread the universal wisdom. The early followers of Christ found this to be true as well. And the writing of Nichiren and his early followers confirm the same trend. We could look to other traditions as well, but the point is made: Give lip service and occasional small acts of charity to the poor, the criminals, and the outcasts, and you will be lauded; identify and stand with these people and be lambasted. Speak power to domesticate truth and you are counted as wise, but speak truth to challenge power and you are counted as wreckless.

So, given the nature of the Lotus Sutra and the example of Nichiren and his early disciples, I was wondering how the followers of the truth expressed in the Sutra had reacted to it - how has it affected your life - in what way has your life been "dangerous", "scandalous", or "wreckless" according to the standards of samsara? How has this reflected your conviction and faith in Nicheren's teachings? I am not here to stir anything up, I am just honestly curious how you have been deeply touched by exposure to such wisdom and the manifestation of that connection in your life.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to one reply...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not advocating social progressivism or Marxism in anything I wrote in my post. But this does highlight what I said - feed the poor and you are a holy person, but ask why they are poor and you are a Communist. Since when is living your life in a way that is consistent with true compassion for all sentient beings, identifying with those suffering the most, or warning against the dangers of the conventional values of samsara strictly a political issue or solely liberal/progressive virtues? In fact, many liberals and progressives are just as "stuck" in divisive and deluded thinking as their conservative counterparts.

Christ's followers also wanted him to be a political figure and were initially very disappointed in the fact that he wasn't going to pick up a sword or a banner and march into Jerusalem demanding change. Instead he was in this way like Shakyamuni, who just kept teaching, just kept traveling, just kept changing one life at a time, always struggling to find ways to demonstrate why the conventional wisdom of power, force of arms, elitism, materialism etc, which seemed so "right", were really a path to continued suffering.

Also, I never said Nichiren's teachings were strictly for planting seeds, but yes, that is a first step. If you don't even get people to start thinking or questioning their delusions, how will they ever be freed from them? But the seeds I alluded to in using Jesus as a parallel are like mustard seeds, which grow rapidly in most soils and spread like wild weeds. Obviously for Nichiren we might choose to think of Lotus seeds, and that is fine, since they remind us that cause and effect are initiated simultaneously, and just like death will follow birth, a well planted seed of wisdom will eventually sprout and blossom.

If you think that Buddhism should be outside of politics and economics at all costs, then this suggests it must not truly affect how people live or how they understand their existence, because how we live is interconnected with economic and political systems. Even the Amish cannot completely escape such connections. There are two ways of being involved in economics and politics. One is to jump in with a political party, or a corporation, or a lobby, etc, or maybe all of the above. Another is to simply affect and be affected by how people view and treat each other. In the latter case, the influence is indirect, but it is still there. If you are made aware that product is made with slave labor, and you can buy an alternative, this is still a political and economic impact, even if you don't organize others to do the same (and why not?). What I was writing about was a grass-roots, bottom up change from people who had been transformed, not multi-million dollar campaigns funded by wealthy donors (although if such donors want to spend that money building school, wells, etc I won't object).

Even SGI teaches this, does it not? Like Mother Theresa's admonition that all we can really do are "small things with great love", is this not similar to Soka Gakkai's message that human revolution begins with each person and that it spreads person to person. What kind of human revolution would it be if, after a couple billion people had been "tranformed", the current injustices and cruelties of this world continued on undiminished and unchallenged? In that case all of this is just a feel-good guilt eliminator rather than a catalyst for genuine awakening; a means of supporting the current upside down and wrong-headed priorities of a samsaric system by allowing some to believe that they can exist comfortably within it and yet feel they have resisted or escaped it. Shouldn't we expect more from the liberating power of such universal wisdom?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next part is about Fukyo, known also as Bodhisattva-never-disparaging, who according to the Lotus Sutra always greeted everyone by telling them "I would never dare disparage you, for you are all certain to attain Buddhahood!", and whether he was speaking truth to power...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Of course he is, because most systems tend to divide people into the worthy and the unworthy, the saved and the damned, the haves and the have-nots, etc. He is directly challenging this type of thinking which I described at the beginning of my original post.

2. Wise men are often seen as fools and dullards.

3. There is more to his example than you allow. At that time, everyone knew about Buddhism. It was an official religion in China and eventually in Japan. So he wasn't addressing an audience who failed to appreciate the significance of his words. It would like going around in today's culture and saying "You are a child of God, worthy of respect." And I doubt we are supposed to read his example with a literalist exegesis in terms of how to apply his method. That would be dull and annoying. St Francis of Assisi is often quoted for saying "At all times preach the Gospel, and when necessary use words." I would say the same here. "At all times preach the Dharma, and when necessary use words." In other words, it isn't just about a verbal greeting but a whole attitude towards how we view and interact with others, always keeping in mind "this person I am with is a future Buddha!"

4. Behaving like we take #3 seriously leads to the things I am writing about in this thread.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to another reply...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not suggesting being preachy, I am asking about living our values. I am not presenting that kind of choice [between siding with one group or one limited method against another], I am talking precisely about applying the universal wisdom found in the Lotus Sutra. I am against people focusing on righteousness in terms of judging others or justifying themselves, whether it comes from wealth, might or privilege or whether it comes from being in opposition to these things. One side looks down on the other as filthy, poor, and lazy, and the other side looks back and sees those who are callous, elitist, and judgmental.

What I am talking about is a unifying principle which recognizes the worth of all sentient beings. My point is not to make the wealthy and powerful out to be the enemy, it is simply true that the poor and disenfranchised tend to be more open to this message than those who think they are benefiting and prospering from the conventional view. And yes, the more invested one is in the system of samsara, the more likely to oppose efforts at exposing its flaws. But that doesn't make them the enemy and again, we need to resist the "us"=righteous and "them"=unrighteous mentality. Besides, everyone posting here is in the top 2% on the planet in terms of power and wealth, so obviously I'm not against talking to such folks or having compassion for them.

Note I suggested that cruelty and injustice should be significantly reduced, not necessarily eliminated, with a couple billion transformed people. And yes, cruelty and injustice do indeed come from deluded minds, and so if we reduce delusion, we ought to expect reduced consequences from such delusion. I mean, I was of the belief that Nichiren Buddhism was about action, cause and effect, and hence results, not just hoping for future salvation in a different realm. No one can give you what you already possess, but they can tell you that you have it and how to find it. Is that not what folks like Shakyamuni and Nichiren are supposed to have done and why they are revered?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Helpful Orientation

I recommend reading the About page.

You may also find this useful - a collection of Spiritual and Religious Resources, links to information such as copies of sacred texts and scripture as well as organizations relevant to open-minded people interested in developing their humanist or religious spirituality. There are also links to organizations where you can engage your ideals for the sake of others.

If you wish to share something with me or just say "hello" you can drop me a line anytime via tinythinker at yahoo dot com. Emails received concerning this blog not marked as private may be published but I will withhold your name upon request. You can also contact me at these Discussion Forums: