Letting go of expecations not efforts

It is easy to talk about not being attached to things when we believe we are renouncing them. But renouncing something isn't the same as non-attachment. In the episode "Burn's Heir" (The Simpsons, Season Five), Homer says: "Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try." All humor aside, there is some ring of truth in what Homer is saying. It does appear that we can avoid failure by avoiding whatever it is we believe will lead to failure. Hence a lot of talk about non-attachment can easily lead to non-living.

Take smoking or drinking. Just because you renounce cigarettes or booze does NOT mean you are no longer "attached" to the false views and cravings your body and mind have learned to associate with nicotine or alcohol. While in these cases it may in fact be healthier if one can learn to live without (abusing) such substances, the point is that even when one is attempting to shun something (or someone) there can still be a deep attachment that is as strong or stronger in aversion as in attraction.

Related to this are all the things we feel are our weaknesses. Now, if you have a weakness, I am not suggesting you run out in front of it like a child into a busy intersection. We should be sensible about problems such as addiction, anxiety attacks, etc. If you walk with a cane I am not saying toss it aside and try to sprint up the stairs. But there is this well-known sense we all have at times that we can deal with problems by avoiding them. And in my humble opinion this is as true for Buddhist practice as anything else. When this kind of thinking takes root in our fear of failure it can masquerade as a claim of non-attachment or non-interest.

I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that many (most?) of us are results oriented. Not only results oriented, but visibly, causally-linked results oriented. This isn't bad, but this perspective can distort our appreciation of the full effects of our actions, speech, and thought. That is, if there is no immediately perceptible benefit, we may think an activity is pointless. If there is no immediately perceptible injury, we may think an activity is harmless. But many insights from traditions such as Buddhism remind us this is not necessarily so.

We can appear, therefore, to be "doing well" because we don't abuse drugs or alcohol, we don't smoke, we are at a good weight, we aren't in trouble with the authorities, and we have a decent job and few close relationships. Isn't that the ideal many of us have of what it means to lead a good life and to be adequate? Yet so many people in such situations suffer. And as Buddhists we may tell them that it is because of their unhealthy attachments and cravings, or because they are concerned with themselves ahead of others, and such things may be true, but do we do with that?

Do we have to renounce our family, friends, money, job, home, public image, etc? Do we have to renounce our selfishness and foolishness (assuming we could ever really give those things up as if they were just simple bad habits)? Can we not have ambition? Is it OK to give up on our dreams by calling them the selfish delusions of our false ego-minds? Are our efforts only as good as the immediate results we can directly perceive?

As I have written time and time again, I am not a Buddhist monk or priest. Nor am I any kind of ordained minister, or some self-styled prophet or guru. I am not a self-help coach. I just share my experiences and those things that others have shared with me. And I am not saying something people generally haven't heard before, but there is hearing and there is hearing. And so as I "get" something again for the umpteenth time, I suppose I have a desire to share it with you as well.

In this case, the issue is using the idea conflating renouncing/avoiding with non-attachment and lack of goals, dreams, or ambitions with the full expression of such an understanding non-attachment. Hence we can also indulge our fear of failure as we no longer have a reason to try. It's a perfect storm of rationalized detachment and demotivation masquerading as insight and tranquility - you float in the eye and ignore the wind and surf on all sides. It's the spiritual equivalent of curling up in the fetal position and sucking your thumb.

What is much scarier, but ultimately more rewarding and useful, is to know how to be at peace even when your are in turmoil. How to find that tranquility in the midst of the storm, not despite it. That means we still try (rejection). And try (failure). And try (exposure). But not because we want to earn our peace of mind, but rather because we already rooted in it. We can't see that at first - there doesn't appear to be an immediate benefit to living our spiritual practice. But if there is, that means we aren't just "trying", we are "doing". And it means we have to face our own expectations and transcend them rather than trying not to care or pretending we don't have expectations when we try ("do"). So then we aren't letting go of our efforts, just our expectations. Not in the renouncing way, but in the being comfortable living with them way. That is, in the yup, there they are, but they don't bother as much way.

I don't know about you, but that still bothers me. As is said in a Chan Buddhist podcast on "Fearlessness" I've linked before,

The ability to neither accept nor repudiate ego - that's real guts. We can be brave and stand up to it, "Oh, I know your just smoke and mirrors, I'm not going to--not going to let you fool me, Ego, you old foe of mine." Neither do we say "I'm going to turn my back on you, so there! So you can't affect me." Neither of those takes real fearlessness. Real fearlessness is the ability to do neither...Neither rejecting ego as foe or ignoring ego as phantom."
-Shih Ying-Fa

So, since people tend to make a big deal about a new (calendar) year and making resolutions and inspecting their lives, what better challenge for now and always (do we really need the "and" there?) than to practice fearlessness. My best to all of you! Thank you all for the lessons you have shared with me.

Pondering the meaning of liberation from suffering, part 4

If you missed part one or part two of the series, check them out! When we left off last time (part 3), I was pondering the following:

One of the obstacles to generating or sustaining the required compassion, however, is judgment. This person caused their own suffering. They don't deserve my attention or assistance. It is true that people are often responsible for the causes of their own suffering, but should that have any real bearing on our response to that suffering?

This is I think another case where the answer seems like a no-brainer (in fact that's true, it's an all-hearter) that is harder than it sounds - our response to suffering should be *unconditional* compassion.

In Buddhism, the four immeasurables are translated into English into loving-kindness, equanimity, sympathetic joy, and compassion. The first, loving-kindness, is obvious - opening our hearts and caring. Equanimity is tougher- it requires us to open our hearts and be present for everyone for all sentient beings, whatever our "relationship" is to them. The next two are the natural outcome of the first two - that is, if one expresses loving-kindness fully and equally to all, then sympathetic joy and compassion will arise spontaneously in the proper circumstances. Sympathetic joy refers to being happy for successes and virtues of others, not jealous or oblivious. Compassion is the sister of sympathetic joy. Whereas sympathetic joy celebrates the best in others and wishes them well, compassion is the response to those who suffer, the desire to see them free of their misery. It is solidarity with the "worst" in others - their doubt, their anguish, their darkness.

To recycle an analogy I've employed twice before (hey, what works works)...

Imagine you are standing (or sitting) near a set of steps. Really imagine you are there and seeing what I describe. A very pretty, sweet young woman, who happens to be blind and pregnant, is walking down the steps with a large bag of groceries. Tick-tack-tack-tick-tick-tack-tack-tick goes her cane. Then she stumbles and the groceries go flying. She tumbles down the stairs and crashes to the bottom...

What would be your reaction? Do you pause or hesitate? Do you think about yourself? Do you consider whether or not to help her? I am going to bet that most of you would simply run (or wheel yourself) right over to her as fast as you could and ask if she is alright. You would offer to get some additional help if she needs it and would likely help gather up her groceries. No hesitation. You would just spring into action. Just like that. That is no-self, the selfless mind, the other-centered view. The difference between a regular person and a Buddha/Bodhisattva is this: They would have the same reaction if they saw the guy that just cut them off/flipped them off in rush hour traffic sitting by the side of the road with a blowout and no spare. They would have the same reaction if a convicted murderer was scared and alone before his execution. That is, I personally believe (and obviously take that for what it is or isn't worth), the expression of Bodhi mind.

Which is found in the actualization of the previously mentioned qualities. But that sounds like a pretty tall order, doesn't it? Certainly to have a heart large enough for all sentient beings sound like the province of a Buddha or otherwise Enlightened Being. Which interestingly intersects with a recent entry on love (including the comments): It strikes me that the four immeasurables sound just like the passages cited in the New Testament as the basis for the concept of Agape, or divine love. The passage include Matthew 25:


"Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me." Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me."

As well as 1 Corinthians 13:

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.

Now I am not going on a tangent to make an interfaith connection, though that is not an ignoble goal, but rather because I think there is an important aspect in the convergence between the two traditions. That is, I have heard the suggestion made that when we rely on the ego to get things done we are limited by our own preconceptions, so instead of "I will", just use "Will" (to hear an example of this kind of dharma talk search this blog for "fearless" and "ying-fa"). That is, open ourselves to Buddha-nature, to inexhaustible virtue. In many branches of Christianity, especially progressive ones, we see a similar act of surrender. Rather than our own strength, relying on God. This is not the same attitude some have of "sitting back and letting God do the heavy lifting". It is being open to the Source in the person of Christ and his example/teachings, akin to being open to Source in the person of the Eternal Buddha or Amitabha. In this sense, at least, we have a vital intersection between the concepts of Christ-nature and Buddha-nature.

And also in that sense, it should be made clear that we are not "subjugated" or "dominated" like mindless sheep in this actualization - to paraphrase from yet another recent entry (down in the comments): The self or ego is never dissolved, negated, or otherwise done away - it is simply completed within/made whole as an aspect of the Other, or more precisely, by directly realizing the inherent unity with the Source. As I alluded to above and as I've written before: "My own love, for example, might be stingy. It might be conditional, forgetful, inconsiderate, or limited. But the image of love coming from Being itself, from THAT WHICH IS, is one of love that is always present, always open, always accepting, and that never runs out."

We all bear each others burden of suffering in our response to the call from the Source, whether we name it God, Tao, Shunyata/Dharmakaya, etc, whether we encounter it in the person of Jesus, or Amida, etc. Because in seeing our deep interconnection and our true nature, how can we turn our backs? This relationship simultaneously functions as a call to action and the strength to answer the call.

But is that it? We hear and answer the call - we respond to the plight of others. Our suffering can be transformed into liberation and serve as a motivator to act to relieve the suffering of others as well, but is that all we can do? Is it enough?

In Buddhist terms, when we talk about being mindful, or about being engaged, or about exemplifying the four immeasurables of loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity, what is the impact? Or to put it another way, when we talk about interdependence, what are we really saying? Is the extent of the benefit of our attitudes and practice limited to our mundane interactions (i.e. I write something, it inspires someone else, it causes that person to do great things, which then benefits still more people, and so on)? Or are we connected on a deeper level? If I were stranded on a deserted island and everyone had forgotten about me, but I still kept practicing, would that in and of itself still benefit any sentient being, even if I were never rescued and no record of my life or activities on the island were ever recovered?

(Note, you aren't the only one wondering what the answer to this question is, so, stay tuned!)

The toolbox

I sometimes think about the fact that many of the separate Buddhist traditions are so heavily distinguished by emphasizing a particular method. Pure Land, as most of us casual students of Buddhist history will know, with its emphasis on nienfo, was a part of the larger package of techniques and emphases before it became a separate tradition. Focusing awareness through meditation and short-circuiting our habitual mind/conditioned existence through bizarre riddles, shouts, and whacks with a stick, while now associated with Chan and most especially its Japanese transmission Zen, were in fact part of this larger package of tools. Even Nichiren Buddhism's recitation of the daimoku, "Nam(u) myoho renge kyo", can function both as a form of nienfo (Buddha-remembrance or Buddha-embodiment) and as a koan. -And I don't want to leave out all the other traditions and schools, so feel free to add yours to the list in the comments section.-

Whereas in the Nichiren tradition and its many schools, there is an emphasis on their own method as the superior practice in the current age, there is also an appreciation for the teaching of the Lotus Sutra that the various methods of different Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and Enlightened Beings were expedient means used by skilled teachers to reach people in different circumstances. Getting away from the idea that everything other than the Nichiren practice is "provisional" and antiquated, I have always found the ecumenical aspect of the Lotus Sutra to be quite inspiring. I am not concerned with whether the historical Buddha really gave this teaching before he died, or whether those who inherited his living tradition and realized this truth put it in a proper and acceptable form as yet another expedient means.

I was thinking about this idea, of the tool box, as I struggled to find a remotely useful analogy in clarifying my thoughts about having a settled mind. I was trying to convey that in areas where we should be perpetually open to experiences, flexible, and free from preconception, we in fact are closed to experiences, inflexible, and bound by preconception. This is particularly true when we are pleased with just how open-minded and impartial we are. And, ironically, this inflexibility comes from not being settled where it counts. With the clear vision, pure mind, and boundless heart of Bodhi (these are actually just three different labels for the same thing), we can, as the popular expression goes, be comfortable with uncertainty. With a settled, or adamant, mind, or as some traditions refer to it, a diamond that cuts through illusion, one has the truest form of what is captured by another popular Western Buddhist phrase - beginner's mind. And thus one who is so settled is able to be "unsettled" (which I previously referred to as "agitated"), or more accurately, unhindered, when encountering the utter novelty of the ever-unfolding moment in which we live.

(As an aside, that last though reminds me of many of the teachings of which I have become fond... "Affliction is Bodhi and the cycle of birth and death is Nirvana"-Platform Sutra of Hui Neng; "Form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form; form is exactly emptiness, emptiness exactly form"-Heart Sutra; "The Way does not require cultivation, just don't pollute it."-Chan ancestor Mazu. Teachings which are oft-repeated: "Although you may understand the explanations, if you are still suffering because of problems, you clearly do not understand the true nature of your mind, your body, and your senses."-Lama Zopa Rinpoche; "You have always been one with the Buddha, so do not pretend you can ATTAIN to this oneness by various practices."-Huang Po; "Just understand that birth-and-death is itself nirvana. There is nothing such as birth and death to be avoided; there is nothing such as nirvana to be sought. Only when you realize this are you free from birth and death."-Dogen)

Does that mean that any Buddhist tradition is valid? No. But the proof is in the pudding. Rather like the Bible verse that suggests "By their fruits shall you know them" (Matthew 7:16). Nor is a tradition valid just because it worked for some in the past. Any sacred tradition which is not a living tradition is hollow and headed for hot-headedly intolerant radicalism or which goes the other direction into stale, inflexible, musty formalism. If you assume for the sake of argument that there is a Source which pervades and sustains our existence, whether this is expressed in terms of shunyata and tathata, or the yin and yang of the Tao, whether it is personified or non personified, as religious or non-religious, etc., and if you are a teacher who is trying to open people's eyes to their true nature, then one must further presume that an effective teacher is one who:

A) has had her or his own eyes' opened,
B) is deeply concerned with helping others do the same, and
C) is good at doing so.

Hence such an effective teacher would need to be able to read people, gauge their capacity for different types of teaching, and pick and choose from the toolbox to use not only the right practice but the right level of practice for each person they are teaching. For one student, a very direct method may helpful because they are already on the verge of awakening. For another, this same method may only cause confusion, frustration, and resentment.

In my previous attempt to write about being settled and unsettled, I ended with "So get settled and shake things up, or, for some of you, shake things up so you can get settled!" I think that's how it is with some methods. For some, you start by emphasizing being settled in Buddhanature, which in turn allows you to truly change how you see the world. For others, you may have your views of the world shaken up, which allows you to then be settled in Buddhanature. But no matter where you start, I suspect that this dialectic never truly ends as each reaffirms and sustains the other, because they are both manifestations of the same. Hence the common affirmations in Buddhism in general that you cannot "achieve" Bodhi nor can you ever "locate" Buddhanature.

No wonder some Chan masters chased their students with a length of bamboo and whacked them each time they tried to answer questions such as "What is your original face?", even when the student gave the answer of not answering at all. Each time the master asked the question, habit mind, conditioned mind, popped up, so "whack". Then again, "whack". Kind of like whack-a-mole with the . Unfortunately I think this kind of story suggests to some people that anti-intellectualism is the ultimate goal, rather than training the mind. A hammer is a very useful tool, but not for watering plants. In the same way, the rational, analyzing intellect is awesome and wondrous and highly useful for many things, but that doesn't mean it's the right tool for each occasion - enjoying a song, for example, or creating art. So to get to that clear insight and settled mind, the master would drive away things which hindered the student's perception. No wonder masters in that and other traditions would encourage students to visualize and verbalize something which would invoke a vibrant and peaceful yet non discursive state. No wonder other masters in various traditions instructed their students to develop serene trust in the vows and compassion of the Buddha(s).

So, rather than simply telling their students to do exactly what their teacher(s) told them to do verbatim, an effective teacher tries to discern what will be of use. That doesn't mean they won't have common methods, but that they won't apply them in the same way for each student. I would hope, for example, that even in Shin, where one moves toward trust in Amida's vow and develops "deep hearing" through recitation of that Buddha's name, that a teacher would recognize the different needs of those who may not yet truly see saying the nembutsu as a form of gratitude and those who do. That is, whatever tool one may find helpful at a given moment, it is just that. Which would normally bring us to the popularized phrases about not mistaking fingers pointing to the moon (sacred traditions and their practices) for the moon itself (reality as it is) or perhaps about ditching the raft (similar lesson). But that would just be a little too... too... well, too much. Instead, I just want to bring it back to this--

For some, you start by emphasizing being settled in Buddhanature, which in turn allows you to truly change how you see the world. For others, you may have your views of the world shaken up, which allows you to then be settled in Buddhanature. But no matter where you start, I suspect that this dialectic never truly ends as each reaffirms and sustains the other, because they are both manifestations of the same. Hence the common affirmations in Buddhism in general that you cannot "achieve" Bodhi nor can you ever "locate" Buddhanature.

Which is why my favorite teaching, the one that has been most effective so far in revealing and reminding me of both aspects of this single truth, is one that was given to me by the Venerable Shih Ying-Fa...

"Never think that you've got it, and never doubt that you do."

Differences

Consider the following quotes, both ancient and contemporary, from various Mahayana traditions...

Do you want to understand? The whole world is one of your eyes, the body produced by your parents is a cataract. All ordinary people ignore the indestructible, marvelously clear, unfailingly mirroring eye, and cling fast to the dust cataract produced by the relationship of their father and mother. Therefore they take illusions for realities, and grasp at reflections as the physical forms themselves.
-P'u-an

Ultimately, all phenomena are contained within one's life, down to the last particle of dust. The nine mountains and the eight seas are encompassed by one's body; the sun, moon and myriad stars are contained within one's mind.
-Nichiren

The Smaller Sutra is a highly imaginative portrayal of the realm of enlightenment in very concrete terms: bejeweled railings, nettings, trees; bathing pools lined with golden sands with steps of gold, silver, lapis lazuli, and crystal; pavilions covered with exquisite jewels built on the earth made of gold. The atmosphere is filled with celestial music, rare and exquisite birds, and a subtle breeze blowing through jeweled trees which produces a melodious chorus. This rich and colorful description is said to be a manifestation of emptiness (shunyata) that expresses itself freely in any way it chooses. Since reality is empty of permanent being and all things are in flux, it can take any form.
-Taitetsu Unno

Once you stop clinging and let things be, you'll be free, even of birth and death. You'll transform everything; you'll possess spiritual powers that can't be obstructed; and you'll be at peace wherever you are. If you doubt this, you'll never see through anything; you're better off doing nothing. Once you act, you can't avoid the cycle of birth and death, but once you see your nature, you're a Buddha even if you work as a butcher."
-Bodhidharma

(CONTINUE...)

When I was a young novice, I told my Master, 'If the Pure Land doesn't have lemon trees, then I don't want to go.' He shook his head and smiled. Maybe he thought I was a stubborn youngster. However, he did not say that I was right or wrong. Later when I realized that both the world and the Pure Land come from the mind, I was very happy. I was happy since I knew that lemon trees and star-fruit trees exist also in the Pure Land, with dirt roads and green grass on all sides.
-Thich Nhat Hahn

Each Buddha-Tathagata, as the body of the Dharmadhatu, pervades the mind of all sentient beings. This is why when your mind perceives the Buddha, it is your mind that possesses the thirty-two prominent features and the eighty secondary attributes. This mind that creates the Buddha is the mind that is the Buddha, and the wisdom of the Buddhas true, universal and ocean-like arises from this mind. This is why you should single-mindedly fix your thoughts and contemplatively examine that Buddha, that Tathagata, that Arhat, that Supremely Awakened One.
-The Sutra of Contemplation on the Buddha of Immeasurable Life

I could go on, but I haven't had a chance to collect more of these in one place. I may add more in the future as I find/remember them. Feel free to reply and suggest more if you see what they are all saying.

These quotes demonstrate an appreciation of the constancy of rebirth as the manifestation of emptiness, that through the teachings of no-self and nirvana Buddhism is not espousing some abysmal fatalistic escapism ('life is so bad let’s hope we don’t get reincarnated any more and simply cease to exist because being nothing is better than being alive'), and also that perspective is crucial. My oft-quoted favorite passage from the Platform Sutra of Hui Neng, 'affliction is Bodhi and the cycle of birth and death is Nirvana', as I have suggested before, is actually saying the same exact thing as 'form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form'. It just phrased differently to fit a different context. To me other teachings or phrases seemed to echo this as well, such as ichinen sanzen within Namo Myoho Renge Kyo (3,000 realms in a single thought-moment) and Namu Dai Bosa (manifestation of Bodhi in all things), and Ichinen tanen mon'i in Namu Amida Butsu (Ultimate Reality manifested/calling from/to/in Limited Beings). I have heard that in traditional Pure Land writings there is a phrase along the lines of 'Amitabha is no other than the regular person and the Pure Land is the ordinary world'.

Which is why it is so interesting to me to read critiques of Zen from Nichiren Buddhism or Pure Land, or critiques of Pure Land from Zen from Nichiren sources, etc. I am sure that there are many people in various sects and traditions within these schools who really do cling to tenets and doctrines and don't go beyond the constructs of their tradition to what I would personally see as a greater understanding of Buddhist teaching, but I think there are many who do. It's the same with the fact that people always want to put supernaturalism and superstition into their sacred beliefs, creating a duality between the sacred and the ordinary and perpetuating perceived dicohtomies like life and afterlife, heaven(s) and hells(s), etc. Every religion has some version of indulgences (paying off a loved ones time in an afterlife realm of pain), or potions or rituals for 'faith'-healing. It's just a human quirk. So, I am not going to say that 'a true Nichiren Buddhist should think this' or 'a sincere Pure Lander would recognize this teaching as'. However, I do think that often times when a Shin Buddhist talks about comparing 'The Path of Sages' versus 'The Path of Amida Buddha', or when someone in Nichiren Shoshu talks about the 'teaching of the one-vehicle' versus the 'provisional teaching', they are really perpetuating contextual differences born from the doctrinization of teachings coupled with cultural and historical circumstance.

That is not to trivialize the differences in terms of that historical significance or to deny that they exist as these schools are often taught, or to call for a uniform syncretism and total blending/merging of the various Mahayana schools. Instead, I wish to put them in their place, at least in my practice/study of Buddhism, as fingers pointing to the (same) moon. Now when I write on topics such as this, some Pure Landers may congratulate me on beginning to hear the call of Amitabha/Amida, some Chan/Zen folks may silently approve of my rudimentary grasp of sunyata and tathata, and a few in the Nichiren crowd may suggest I have begun to appreciate the teaching of ichinen sanzen (or they may all think I am a clueless wonder who over-intellectualizes everything..could go either way).

If you listened to those MP3s of Dharma talks by the Venerable Shih Ying-Fa I linked to recently, you may recall in the 'Over-Under-Sideways' talk he says something akin to 'Screw the Ox-Herding pictures...the Ox-Herding pictures should be burned if they are an impediment to our practice.' I suppose that's how I react to so many of the exclusionary-sounding (or at least implying) positions that sometimes creep up within the various schools of the Mahayana. I have had the experience before of pointing out to someone that something in their school is also taught in a different form in another school, and they were very surprised, believing it was a break-though in Buddhist thought from the founder of that person's particular school that made it somehow superior to the others. So, while I don't suggest that we should erase the tools and heritage that have developed in different schools, perhaps it would help if we 'got to know each other better'.

(Naturally, this can be extended to other avenues of Mahayana and beyond)

Dead man blogging

I recently posted about some MP3s of dharma talks by the Venerable Shih Ying-Fa I found on the web. One of those talks, Fearless, made an interesting point about drill sergeants telling new soldiers training to go into combat "You are already dead." The Ven. Ying-Fa took the talk it in another direction, but not before saying that we could "say that now" (in other words about ourselves). And when I thought about it, it's true. The cause of death is birth, it's just that some deaths have yet to manifest in the world of form. But from the view of formlessness, cause and effect always arise simultaneously; there is no distinction of past, present, and future--it isn't linear. Dealing with the reality of death is a prerequisite for truly living.

In another dharma talk (for which I have no audio or transcript to share), it was suggested that (paraphrasing) it might help to go around with the word DEATH tattooed on our foreheads. I decided instead to make an animated GIF:




Now, in addition to the idea of the physical birth and death of biological individuals, there is also the issue of our concept of the self. Every time our ignorances leads us down the path of conditioned existence, we recreate/renew the delusion of true separateness from everything else and lose sight of the fact of our death. To rephrase a popular saying: 'The delusional person die a million deaths, the fearless die but once.'

(CONTINUE...)

Now while I've couched the discussion in terms familiar to Buddhists, it clearly is not a teaching or realization that is confined to any sacred tradition. Wiccans, secular humanists, Christians, etc. could all (potentially) see the value in this reminder.

If you'd like to add a reminder to your blog/website, please download the image and host it on a server of your choosing (if you don't have server space with your internet account try the free service at places like PhotoBucket). Here is the code (just fill in the appropriate URL):

<a href="http://peacefulturmoil.blogspot.com/2006/06/dead-man-blogging.html" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="http://www.yourwebsite.com/dielivenotice.gif" alt="You are going to die" title="You are going to die"></a>

Dharma talks by the Venerable Shih Ying-Fa

I stumbled across these podcasts the other day of dharma talks by the Venerable Shih Ying-Fa. I have only found two so far but they appear to be a part of a larger series. In any case, they are worth listening to. The first is about what it means to be fearless in practice, and second is about the obstacles we create for ourselves in our practice...

Fearless

Over-Under-Sideways

May you realize a fearless practice free from self-made barriers... :o)

Amitabha!

Selected Archive on Religion, Spirituality and Transformation

This page is a way to navigate particular themes on this blog. The selected posts reflect the concerns and perspectives presented here since the blog began. Some of it may seem or actually be contradictory. Some of it may or may not still reflect the views of the author.

It isn't a manifesto, or an amateurish attempt to play at theologian. It's just a collection of snapshots, a scrapbook, an uneven collection of reflections. It isn't professionally edited or polished. Take it or leave it as is.

The general categories are "About my spiritual/religious practice", "My attempts to understand or explain Buddhist ideas", "Buddhism, society, and popular culture", "Atheism, Agnosticism, Secularism, Fundamentalism, Religion-Based Conflict, etc...", "Christian teachings and ideas (or using Christian examples for different lessons...)", "UUism and spiritual potpourri ...", "The whole "God" thing...", and "Broader or more general topics (prayer, meaning, etc...)". 

The order is earlier to later going down within each category.


About my spiritual/religious practice...


2005

• Example of a weekly Buddhist service
  
• The nature and benefit of practice
  
• Uhhh...is this thing on?
  
• What are the refuges & precepts and why take them?
  

2006

• Form and formlessness and the practice
  
• Bodhier than thou
  
• Wisdom from a talking sponge
• The Four Great Vows
• Solo Practice
• Some of my more serious attachments

2007

• Cause it's how you are supposed to feel
• To learn and actualize the teachings of just a single Buddha
• Dharma Dieting
• Waiting for perfection
• Practice makes perfect except when it does not
• Letting go of expecations not efforts

2008

• Overabundant choices for the expression of direct and simple spiritual practice
• Dabbling at the Buddhist Buffet
• Three general kinds of aptitude for spirituality
• Single-pointed focus and the heart
• Context and actualization
• The Unsatisfactory Nature of Non-Committal Dullness
• The Unsatisfactory Nature of Non-Committal Dullness, Part 2

2009

• More on spiritual homelessness
• The me-show
• Mahayana Buddhist (or Mystical Christian) Available. All offers considered.
• More on seeking (or moron seeking?): believe, accept, act

2010

• Flashes of insight, thoughtful consideration, hollow platitudes and lack of faith
• What elements of spiritual insight have you drawn from your practice? Here are four I am still learning
• Moving from certainty to uncertainty
• Are you ready to fully enlighten?
• Small reflections, 11/29/10
• Great minds think alike (so why I am I thinking like they do?)

2011

• Wrestling with traditional Christian scripture and prayers
• Religious Experience, Meaning and the (Lack of the) Substance of Faith
• Revisiting "You Have Permission to be Happy"
• Taking the idea of gratitude seriously: seeing everything as a gift.
• My first Ash Wednesday and another step toward Oblation 
• Seeking Rest 
• Bullshit Buddhism, Counterfeit Christianity
• Prayer from my childhood vs. prayers now
• Assessment of My Re-Exploration of Christian Spirituality (cross-listed below) 
• Discovering one's purpose (or not)

2012

• What to do when you have no spiritual side?

My attempts to understand or explain Buddhist ideas...

2005

• Contradictions and negations
  
• An Expression from the Heart Sutra
  
• The Doubt and the Vow
  
• Opportunity versus Obligation
  
• How much must one practice to attain enlightenment?
  

2006

• Inspirational Admonition
  
• Why seek rebirth in the Pure Land?
  
• Transformations
  
• Mountains and rivers
  
• Yours, mine, and ours? Not at all
  
• Give a hoot, don't pollute
  
• Differences
  
• 'Breaking' the Precepts and the Grave Offenses
• Dharma talks by the Venerable Shih Ying-Fa
• Differences, again
• Getting to 108
• Don't neglect the subtle nuances
• Buddhism and the Divine
• The toolbox

2007

• A good start is saving all sentient beings from yourself
• Groundhog Day
• Do You Surrender All?
• Contemplating Death Gives Gratitude for Life
• Effortlessness - simple yet challenging
• May the Buddha Find Reguge in Me
• Emptiness and compassion
• Being Buddha, Being "a" Buddha
• What is expected, what is required?
• No mind but Mind? Or are minds incorporated in Mind?
• On not disparaging practices such as Buddha and sutra recitation
  
• One flower includes everything
• Sitting as surrender
• A little more on sitting as surrender

2008

• What to do when there is nothing to attain?
• Greatly deluded within realization
• Lost in translation? Buddhists need desire
• What does taking the Lotus Sutra seriously look like?

2011

• New Series--God is a Buddhist Concept 
• God is Dharma (the law of God)

2012

• God is karma (the righeousness of God) 
• God is no-self (the love of God) 
• God is suffering (the grace/mercy of God) 
• God is form (the immanence of God)
• God is emptiness (the transcendence of God) 
• God is samsara (the fear of God)
•  

Buddhism, society, and popular culture...

2005

• "Buddhist" values, social engagement, and political activism
• American Buddhism in Retreat
  
• Diversity in the Sangha

2006

• Witnessing to Buddhists
• I sometimes wonder
• Tough love, bleeding heart

2007

• Buddhism in Stereo(-type)
• Being Nobody Special and Taking Joy in Dull Tasks
• Christian Buddhists? Buddhist Christians?
• Humanist Buddhists? Buddhist Humanists?
• Bracing for Buddhist Evangelism
• Don't taint my Buddhism with comparisons to Christianity
• Buddhism-informed versus Buddhist-inspired blogging
• Buddhist mags
• What is the point of blogging on topics (sort-of) "about" Buddhism?

2008

• Is the "Buddhist blogisphere" losing steam?
• Is a Buddhism-informed science the same as a science-informed Buddhism?
• Slicing open the goose of tradition to get the golden eggs of enlightenment

2009

• Scratching the surface of devotional practices
• Buddhists and God
• Western Buddhists - stay or go home?
• Who are the false and evil monks/prophets/rules of the age?
• What is the big appeal about wondering/debating over what does or doesn't "make you" a "Buddhist"?
• "Be Now", "Just Be", "Open Up", "Let Go" and Other Western Buddhist Cliches
• "Dharma Wars" and the problems with Buddhists/Buddhism online
• Thich Nhat Hahn, Tenzin Guyatso, Deepak Chopra and the like are all full of it

2010

• Helping Buddhism advance in the West
• The knitty gritty of "engaged" spirituality, Buddhist style
• Dharma, dharma everywhere and not a drop to drink
• A Buddhist prayer for those who feel persecuted
• Joyous Bodhi Day 2010!

2011

• Does Jesus represent one of the 84,000 Dharma doors?

2012

• The Buddhist/Eastern Spirituality Blogroll from 2006 
• Buddha, It's Your Birthday. And Rebirth Day. Happy Wesak 2012!

 

Atheism, Agnosticism, Secularism, Fundamentalism, Religion-Based Conflict, etc...

2005

• The rise of the semi-demagogues (anti-religion -v- anti-secular)
  
• Internet Atheism
  
• The Battle for Faith
  

2006

• Cartoons and violence
• To be or not to be secular, a humanist, or a secular humanist
  
• The term nontheist
• Revisiting secular humanism

2007

• The fundamentalist atheist flap
• Sympathy for the jaded members of the secular left
• Putting us in our place
• Buffers against fear

2008

• On atheists and "disbelief"
• Atheist vs. Christian Intellectual Death Match
• Their knowledge is expressed in other words, or remains unspoken
• When is a cracker "just a cracker"
• Depth but not depth - a look at atheist spirituality

2009

• Why I am not anti-religious
• Sam Harris: appointment to head NIH too religious
• So are atheists getting worse, more numerous, or just more vocal?

2010

• Somewhat unoriginal but still important: new atheism and fundamentalism (again), Chris Hedges on "sin"
  
• Do atheists encounter God when they stop believing in God?
• The benefits of letting go of God can include coming closer to God

Christian teachings and ideas (or using Christian examples for different lessons...)



2005

• "Faith in" what?
  
• The Christ Narrative as Metaphor
  
• Love Your Enemies
  

2006

• Laying up treasure?
  
• Verses for comtemplation on 3-12-06

2007

• Who can celebrate Easter?
• Velvet Jesus
• Love, love, love...
• Verse for contemplation on 07-26-07
• Book Review: Manifesting God

2008

• Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani!
• Maundy Thursday
• Hyperbole versus substance
• The beams in our own eyes
• Real Presence as opposed to Ominpresence - a reflection for Advent

2009

• The changing tone of (God as presented in) the Bible
• Book Review: How to Believe in God (Whether You Believe in Religion or Not) by Clark Strand
• Oh, They've Encased Jesus in Carbonite
• Exorcism video exemplifies why many homosexuals don't trust Christianity
• Discovering the CUA - a new voice of Christian Universalism (cross-listed below)
  
• Thomas Merton on the how to approach the Bible
• The Simple Way, New Monasticism, Ancient Christianity
• Examining the Christian doctrine of salvation inside and outside of the church
• Facing doubt to find genuine faith

2010

• The Church is dead, long live the Church
  
• Discussing the nature of religious texts with the Bible as example
• Sympathy for the (self-described) traditionalists
• What do you think the term "Christian" means?
• God, Christianity, Buddhism, Shin, Ichinen Sanzen and more
• Theologia crucis -- a take on the theology of the cross
• Life, death and eating human flesh
• Fieldtrip to another blog (Jesus the Radical)
• The legacy of Raimon Panikkar
• "The One" and "the Only"
• So are you precious or abhorent in the eyes of God?
• "The highest" and "most worthy"?
• Follow Jesus or worship Christ?
• Solid rock or shifting sand?
• Gay-friendly Christians must accept anger and anguish directed at Christianity

2011

• For the (pick-and-choose) Biblical literalists, hyper-legalists and other fundamentalists
• Happy Feast of the Epiphany 2011
• Seeing the spiritual forest for the fundamentalist trees; or why some atheists are right about the Bible (and how that makes them wrong about the Bible)
• Wrestling with traditional Christian scripture and prayers
• Two competing visions: What I do and do not find appealing about Christianity
• Reconciling tradition and contemporary insight: Who was Jesus? Was he was without sin?
• Reconciling tradition and contemporary insight: Who was Jesus? Did he "die for me"?
• Reconciling tradition and contemporary insight: Does Jesus save? Can we call on Jesus?
• Reconciling tradition and contemporary insight: How do we connect to Jesus? What is the "good news" and who is it for?
• Reconciling tradition and contemporary insight: Connecting the vision of the Gospel and salvation and debates about faith vs. works
• Reconciling tradition and contemporary insight: The role of the church
• Reconciling tradition and contemporary insight: How to live, meeting God, and judgment
• Reconciling tradition and contemporary insight: Prologue
• The Transfiguration and the Bodhisattva ideal
• Reconciling Tradition follow-up: The atonement and appeasement models in Christianity (again)
• Reconciling Tradition follow-up: The concepts of incarnation, deification, and panentheism (part one)
• Reconciling Tradition follow-up: The concepts of incarnation, deification, and panentheism (part two)
• Reconciling Tradition follow-up: The concepts of incarnation, deification, and panentheism (part three)
• The Feast of the Annunciation
• I want what you have -- an Indian parable, the Gospel according to John, and the Christian witness 
• Christians being perspecuted by "the world" and the notions of spirit and flesh
• Want to experience the end of the world? Stop, drop and roll
• In the presence of Christ and beyond Christ: the contigent and the universal within Christianity
• Where have all the prophets gone?
• Could Christianity use a year (or decade) of repentance? 
• The Psalms still sound awful to me 
• Assessment of My Re-Exploration of Christian Spirituality 

2012

• The two-truths model applied to Jesus and the Cross 
• Is Buddha a better Jesus? 
• Will Christianity rediscover its relevance in the West?
•  

 

UUism and spiritual potpourri ...

2006

• Progressive spirituality and the need for true tolerance
• Interreligious Understanding and the UUA

2007

• Just Making Up My Own Religion As I Go Along
• What light through yonder window breaks?
• Whopper, hold the bun (Whither UUism?)

2008

• Who would want to be UU?
• Keep the G-word out of Church

2009

• Concerns with the i-Religiont/UUA style of spirituality
• Discovering the CUA - a new voice of Christian Universalism (cross-listed above)
• Christian and Buddhist vows of peace and nonviolence

2010

• OK UUs, more unsolicited advice

The whole "God" thing...


2007

• God, religion, sacred texts and such things
• Putting us in our place

2009

• Hang-ups to seeking God, Part 1: What does it mean to know God?
• Hang-ups to seeking God, Part 2: God isn't one of the "gods"
• Hang-ups to seeking God, Part 3: God isn't a superior hypothesis
• How do you know if God is telling you something?
• Information systems, ambiguity, diversity, grammar and the Divine

2010 
 

• Meaning with(out) God
  
• The (non)existence of God -- more on why God isn't a superior hypothesis
• Does it make sense to believe in God?
• Quantum tempest in a celestial teapot
• "Quantum tempest in a celestial teapot" spurs additional questions
• "Quantum tempest in a celestial teapot" spurs additional questions, conclusion
• Ajahn Punnadhammo ponders "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
• Is God a person or just some vague cosmic force?
• A few brief remarks on two common obstacles to "taking God seriously"

2011

• Rely on God or rely on the self? 
• Believing in God isn't the same as believing in God--being open to truths of religion & spirituality
• No outside force is going to save you
• No, no... it panENtheism. Getting our Gods straight
• What's the point of believing in God, anyway?
• A lack of compelling evidence for belief in God?
• How exactly does God fit into all of this? 
• God's nature as revealed by Jesus and the Biblical narrative 
• God, bad and ugly

Broader or more general topics (prayer, meaning, etc...)

2006

• Just who do you think your are, anyway?
  
• A time to duck, a time to run, a time to stand
• Suggestion for religious and spiritually liberal people for outreach
• Get settled and shake things up

2007

• Just as you are
• Regarding silence
• The Substance of Spiritual Practice
  
• God, religion, sacred texts and such things
• A few words on prayer
• Worth and possession
• Framing the Relative and Absolute in Spirituality
  
• Christian, Atheist, Buddhist
• Pondering the Meaning of Liberation from Suffering
• Using dangerous words - talking about religious language
• Critiquing contemporary religious progressives
  
• An encounter with spiritual death
• You have permission to be happy
• The Power of Gratitude
• Fighting the good fight
• Faith isn't a fix
• The poor, the sick, the criminal, and the outcast

2008

• Signs of spiritual development?
• Amazing grace
• That's not a half-bad prayer
• meaning with a capital "M"
• Where can we find an awareness of the depth of Being?
• Hooray for nonsense and apathy
  
• Into the great wide open - going beyond materialism
• Into the great wide open, part two - going beyond supernaturalism

2009

• To see with sacred perception
• Holding the mystery of the faith
• The lenses we use to see the world
• Bleeding Heart (Remix)
• Bleeding Heart (Revisited)
• Pondering the Necessity of Suffering
• Book List: A Decade of Spiritual Seeking
• The idol of no form
• The wages of sin, the consequences of karma
• The challenge of grace and gratitude

2010

• Reframing the discussion of religious liberalism and conservatism
  
• Religion is a matter of "Why?" (including "Why not?")
  
• Religious pluralism in a secular democracy
  
• Is extreme (objectivist) libertarianism antithetical to the traditional religions?
• The Cynic and the Dancer
• What do you think the term "religious liberal" means?
• Being open to the insights of your sacred tradition and avoiding self-limitation
• God, Christianity, Buddhism, Shin, Ichinen Sanzen and more
• No right and wrong, no end to right and wrong
• Handling science and religion properly and patiently
• Caveman Og and the problem of religious mystery
• Solid rock or shifting sand?
• Is advocating religious pluralism ever "fair" to other religions?
• The tension between tradition and revelation
• We are religious creatures: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
• We know Jesus, and the Buddha, and the rest too well
• The Golden Rule
• Grace expressed in different cultural constructions

2011

• It's the end of the (religious) world as we know it...
• Life as prayer
• Hands that help or lips that pray?
• Bad things and good people
• Prayer... and response (music by Flying Lotus) 
• What religion offers (and what is doesn't)
• If you meet Jesus on the road, kill him
• Music and spirituality in the 21st century
• Are flaws key to virtue?
• Is the medium ever the message in spirituality?
• Too much or too little thinking in religion?
• Why people don't go to church (or synagogue, etc)
• Burn me, a wretch, O God, with undying fire
• Which spiritual path is best?
• Spiritual suspension of disbelief
• Religious ceremony and the inner landscape

2012

• The perils of idolatry in a religiously plural society   
• Left Brain, Right Brain -- Doubt and Opening the Heart
• You are dust and to dust you will return 
• The value of the profound in the absurd 
• More on the value of the absurd in belief