What is the value of human life?

[Pixabay]

Do you accept the idea of equality regarding individual humans? If so, why?

There is no trick or gimmick here. Just a question. Upon what basis do you accept the idea of human equality?

I will elaborate.

"Everyone is born equal."

Are they? In what way? Some are more gifted physically. Others may have talents for being social or engaging in activities requiring physical strength or grace. I could go on, but we know this is true.

Beyond just biology, the social position one occupies, the "luck" they have in particular situations, and so on, definitely give some people more of advantage to live a happy and successful life.

Of course, happy and successful can be relative, as some people can feel they are content and enjoy life even if they are living in relative poverty or suffer from severe limitations from participating in the events that their peers find rewarding.

Yet that simple suggests that contentment and happiness as well as notions of success or a "good life" are highly subjective. Just because you can learn to be satisfied or content with your options doesn't make you equal to others. And who says everyone can reach a stable point where they can acquire such acceptance and contentment?

We could try to make equality connected to consciousness, but this too is problematic as people with different mental capacities have differing levels and experiences of consciousness. This isn't to say that these differences are good or bad, but they don't support some baseline of equality.

The concept of human equality is an ideal, but outside of some religious context or axiomatic assertion, what is there that supports such an assertion?

That question leads to a related claim...

No right and wrong, no end to right and wrong

Image by Bill Kramme via Flickr

This is a tough one.

There is no right or wrong path in life. There are only right and wrong choices.

Perhaps your a regular reader, in which case you may be at least entertained in giving me some latitude. Or maybe you've just arrived, in which case I may seem full of myself and foolish. A reminder to both Iam mostly writing to remind myself of ideas, not to tell anyone else what to do or believe. In either case, what could I mean by what I wrote?

Is change coming to the relationship of morality and politics?

What do you think?

I recently saw part of a program where someone was claiming that abortion was a moral evil requiring resolute action, which amounted solely to banning the procedure, but fighting poverty and providing affordable health care to pregnant women was not as urgent. Those things were a matter of private conscience, and you could be a "good Christian" even if you had various opinions and attitudes about those issues. Even though poverty and health concerns drive many women to consider abortion whether it is legal or not.

So extreme and debilitating material and psychological poverty then aren't major moral evils to be fought will all due concern and effort, but the consequences, including higher rates of violent crime, drug use, abortion, etc - they are, of course, and we must step up the fight. That's why I think Obama's position, for example, of trying to reduce or eliminate the factors that tend lead to abortions should be a priority. I don't see why everyone can't support that whether or not they want abortions to be legal or illegal.

As an additional note, this highlights the problem with focusing ethical and moral considerations either solely or even heavily primarily to either the social or to the individual. We do not exist in a vacuum and we are responsible for the atmosphere we create and the influences we exert, either intentionally or apathetically. Yet even so each of us has a personal choice in how to respond to these conditions. To over-emphasize either of these is a cop out and ignores the reality in which moral choices are made.

The same is also true for any system, religious, social, political, etc, in which moral choices are not made available or accessible - when people are essentially required to choose among immoral options. This is every bit as destructive as a narcissistic hedonist who always chooses their own pain and pleasure as their motivator above the welfare of anyone else. Some just want to deal with the system actively facilitating or promoting the "sin", others just with the would-be "sinner". I can't see how to separate the two - they are both reflections of each other, different expressions of the same flaw.

Can Buddhist phenomenology effectively sort the abortion issue?

James Ure of The Buddhist Blog has written about his personal views concerning abortion with the caveat that he is not representing any particular Buddhist tradition, school, or sect. Instead he wishes to use his understanding of Buddhism to discuss and justify his positions on the issue. You are encouraged to go and read his thoughts along these lines because he has put quite a bit of effort into it, yet you will not find a set of point by point counterarguments here. While I do reference his writing, it is not to try to contradict him or critique every single thing he says point by point. Instead his post raises the question about the ultimate utility of such an approach. What does it really offer and what can we do with it?

For starters, James acknowledges that those opposed to abortion point to Buddhist writings condemning the act. He politely points out that some texts which are attributed to the Buddha may in fact have been written by other monks, so he wishes to apply the Buddha's more widely accepted principles (including a model of skeptical inquiry based on the Kalama Sutra). James seems confident that the advice to the Kalama people was a historical event and that it is a sensible model. At this point you might wonder how much of the Buddha's teachings were recorded in his own lifetime. The answer is - none. They were written down during a council of his disciples and students that met after his death. Other teachings, often in sutra form, have been produced hundreds of years after the death of Siddhartha Gautama. For the sake of legitimacy, these were frequently authenticated as oral teachings which had been previously untranscribed. Others attribute them to the development of the understanding of the Buddha's teachings by later Buddhist communities. Neither of these explanations automatically make what is said in these sutras right or wrong. This in turn means that even if the Buddhist writings opposing abortion are not the original words of the Buddha, they may still be consistent with the spirit of his message (as some would say these authors may have been touching the Buddha's "Dharma Body"). James does not provide the details of these writings or there arguments, so we are unable to assess them ourselves.

Next, James candidly points out that he "follow[s] the sutras in many cases, I also use my meditations, scholarly works, mind-set, values instilled by my family, pondering and personal reasoning to come to that direct knowledge of what I believe to be 'truth.' " There is nothing here to criticize, but it is important to note that everything after "meditations" is a product of societal and personal history and the corresponding cultural values attached to such influences. One must be cautious in this regard because it tends to lead even the most fair-minded person, often subconsciously, to a biased selection of evidence in addition to coloring the interpretation of said evidence. Often we have some gut reaction about what we want to believe and then find logical reasons and evidence to construct a justification for that position. It also means someone in good faith could go through the total available evidence and use the same tools as James does to come to a different conclusion about the moral and ethical implications of abortion.

For example, James focuses on the debate of how he thinks Buddhism defines life. To clarify, it is presumed he means sentient life. I make this clarification because many living things do not possess all of the features he mentions. It should also be clarified that the question of when life begins, which generally follows the question of what "counts" as life in the abortion debate, is also inaccurate. According to the best current estimates of paleontologists, life on Earth began roughly 3.5 billion years ago, and every living thing on the planet is a part of that same unbroken chain of reproduction. All the life on Earth now is simply a continuation of the life that came into existence then. What people really mean is "When does an immature individual human organism become a person?" A person is a (typically biological) individual whom society formally recognizes with the granting of rights. Normally such biological individuals belong to our own species, Homo sapiens, although some folks have been fighting to get similar formal recognition and rights for non-humans primates such as chimpanzees. Getting back to abortion, the issue then is when an immature human organism should be recognized as a person.

This helps undercut some of the clutter that get into these debates. Yes, the zygote/embryo/fetus is alive. Yes it is an individual (even if you cleave the zygote they may each survive and grow up to be separate people - think identical twins). Yes it is human. Who cares if it has gill slits and a tail? That is part of the normal human life cycle. Until your late teens/early twenties you had unfused epiphyses at the ends of your long bones, but that developmental detail didn't make you less than human. These facts are not in dispute on whichever side of the debate you may personally land. In acknowledging this we can get back to the central question - when and how does an living human organism get to be recognized as a person? This issue of personhood underlies many of the major abortion debates as those familiar with the arguments will know. But it also drives us to a more scrupulous assessment of when and how personhood is granted, because as you and I and a human embryo growing in the womb are all living human organisms. If we are going to set standards for who has rights and who does not we must be careful we don't hang ourselves by our own arguments.

This brings us back to the assessment James makes using the notion of Skandas, or the aggregates to which a living sentient being can be reduced. These traditionally include form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. For example James points out that at certain stages embryos lack the form (biological structures) necessary for the five traditional senses, including physical pain. At different stages an embryo or fetus may not yet have the capacity for perception or mental formations (basic thoughts and feelings), let alone full consciousness. So he arranges his schedule of when he believes abortions should be permitted or not according to how well the immature organism places on a Skanda scale. Thus he writes:

In conclusion, I have submitted in this essay that an embryo (which is the potential human being) during the first trimester does not meet the requirements of all five skandha/aggregates and is therefore persmissable to believe in first trimester abortion as a Buddhist. I do not, however, agree with late term abortions except if the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

So I am for abortion during the first trimester and only for abortion in the second trimester in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk.

Again, the point here isn't to discredit James' opinion, so we instead can ask - "Are there other situations in which a human organism other than a zygote/embryo/fetus may not be deserving of personhood by such criteria?" If there are, then while his effort gets us closer to an answer, James' position is not complete. For example, some humans are born without one or more (fully) functioning sense organs. Others may acquire such a lack of perception later in life due to illness or injury. Similarly, some may lack the cognitive development and corresponding capacity to process certain perceptual information, or to develop and contemplate sophisticated mental formations. Others may slip into a coma which may include a lack of consciousness. What about them? And is a human organism in a coma not a person if they have healthy neural tissue and a chance to wake up? What about someone in a persistent vegetative state?

This line of thought can then permute in many directions and lead to debates over whether the potential to develop is relevant, the effect of giving something a name, whether or not other criteria can (and should) be used to distinguish human organisms that are still in the womb from those which are not, including the degree of dependence of an individual on some external life support such the mother's body (and whether this is comparable to other supports such as iron lung). These arguments are outside of the scope of the present phenomenological analysis, but they are not necessarily outside of the realm of Buddhist metaphysics. Perhaps they point to fruitful areas of analysis for future contemplation. But they also hint at other more practical questions - is a solid argument for or against abortion based on Buddhism even possible and if one existed, would it really influence those Buddhists who are committed to or opposed to abortion rights?

The larger moral questions provoked by the Knoxville church shooting

Right now, I still believe that the focus concerning the church shooting in Knoxville should remain on the human, rather than the political. There are many websites and organizations pouring out love and sympathy for those affected by this tragedy...

The words "The sun'll come out tomorrow - bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow there'll be sun!" rang through Second Presbyterian Church sanctuary. Children and adults wiped tears, hugged and blew out candles lit minutes earlier at a vigil held in the wake of the Sunday morning shooting at neighboring Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church.

Members of both churches, which stand adjacent on Kingston Pike, attended. Also attending were Westside Unitarian Universalist Church members. Members of that church also were shot Sunday. But the sanctuary pews, balconies and aisles were filled with Knoxvillians from all - and sometimes of no - organized faiths. Some latecomers were soaked by a summer rainstorm; lighting flashed and thunder boomed during parts of the service. The message was one of comfort and strength in times of crisis and pain.

knoxnews.com

But there are also attacks on what are seen as the far-right roots of the shooter's hatred and agitated responses from defensive conservatives. Based on some of my own recent experiences with this, I wanted to share something to help us see one of the bigger pictures brought into relief not only by this tragedy but by the political and ideological responses it has provoked.

If you read the collected reports in the Knoxville papers the evidence collected, from eye witness accounts of the attack to the gunman's "manifesto" to interviews with neighbors and acquaintances, Adkisson strongly identifies with the many of the popular messages of radical conservatism, particularly the more intolerant ones such as "Liberals are evil", "Liberals are dangerous", "Liberals are traitors", "Liberals are more of a threat than those scary Muslim terrorists", and "Liberals should be eliminated". The evidence for that doesn't just go away because someone doesn't like it or thinks that the killer doesn't fit with their conception of what a conservative should be or because they don't want to share the same ideological label as a murderer. Liberals would feel the same way if someone who claimed to "hate the conservatives" went in tried to shoot up a politically conservative congregation. Yet it is has been noted (here and here, for example) that the description of Adkisson's four page "manifesto" recalls an extreme anti-liberal rhetoric one can hear on the radio or read in popular books and blogs.

There are at least two forms of naive oversimplifying that can occur when discussing the revelation that Jim D. Adkisson, the gunman who assaulted a Unitarian-Universalist congregation, owned books by conservative talk-show hosts and attributed his violence to a hatred of liberals. One form of naivety is thinking that the shooter was simply following verbatim the instructions written in the books containing anti-liberal sentiments found at his home, the other is to assume that such books, corresponding comments on talk-radio and the internet, etc had absolutely nothing to do with what happened. I can understand the desire on the part of those who consider themselves to be conservative to do this in this particular case, it is a mistake.

The fact is that just because one doesn't "blame" conservatism or all conservatives for what happened in Knoxville DOES NOT mean that we shouldn't seriously consider to what degree the social/political climate contributed to this tragedy. And this is not an attack on conservatism, nor a defense of liberalism. I believe this can be a problem for religious folks and non-religious, theists and atheists, etc. So please bear with me through the whole thing.

Consider a different context for a moment other than conservatism. Imagine a situation in a community where some folks start making racist jokes to those they think will appreciate them. Some don't think they are funny but say nothing. Others chuckle a bit. So some of the jokers start making even more hardcore jokes, including ones involving suggestions of violence. No one stands up to it, even those who aren't as comfortable with the new harsher tone. Some ignore the jokes or only laugh at the lighter ones, but a growing hardcore is really into it.

So now we have an atmosphere that is somewhat toxic. That is, it is fairly offensive and sickening to those not used to breathing its fumes. But as this atmosphere goes relatively unchallenged, those at the sickening edge go further, inciting hatred and intolerance. Someone with a lot of frustration and rage has been soaking in these toxic fumes, which are now a poisonous cloud, for some time now and buys into the whole thing in a very concrete way. When some event happens that causes him to become unhinged and plunge over the edge, he puts this rhetoric into action.

Some folks didn't like the racism at all, but said nothing. Others thought the lighter stuff was funny, and just ignored the harder stuff. Some were secretly enjoying some the harder stuff but really didn't take a lot of it seriously. And some were just enjoying the derisiveness and how it pumped up their egos too much to care either way. Yet to some degree all of these groups contributed to an increasingly toxic atmosphere which became poisonous. And when that poisonous atmosphere came into prolonged contact with someone whose moral, emotional, mental, or other defects allowed this poison to get deep into his system, all that was needed was a spark, some stressful event, to set him off.

Now let me be clear. I am not suggesting a defense for the shooter. I am not suggesting he isn't responsible for his actions. I am guessing a psych evaluation will determine that. Nor am I suggesting by some back door that all conservatives are guilty of causing this tragedy. I realize that this subtle distinction can be confusing because it takes a broader view of the potential influences leading up to an event and includes factors which may not have directly and decisively affected the outcome. It also introduces a moral standard beyond the strict legal standard concerning liability. This can be illustrated briefly with another example I have used before.

Suppose a madman is holding some small children hostage with a machete. Two police officers were caught off guard when the incident began. One is dead and the other is bleeding to death. EMS workers can't get to the injured officer without setting off the killer, who is not providing the SWAT sharpshooters with a shot. Because of the killer's position, however, the killer cannot see you. You are next to the dead officer and have taken his firearm. You have a clear shot at the killer, who is raising his blade and getting ready to attack one of the children. In this version of the classic "Is it ever OK to kill?" hypothetical, most people would shoot the killer. I would too. Yet for me, that isn't the end of the hypothetical, because I don't think I did a morally kosher thing.

I don't believe there is a right thing in that scenario, just the lesser of two wrongs. I find this important because it keeps clear the fact that harm did come of my actions, whether or not others would find them justified or legal. There was a whole host of wrongs over many years on the part of many, both actions and inactions, which would have led to that scenario, and while the killer bears the primary responsibility, especially in the legal sense, his life didn't happen in vacuum. The moral failure didn't start when the man with the machete started hacking people, that was just its horrifying fruition. Neither did the life of the violent nut in my racism hypothetical. Neither did the life of Jim D. Adkisson.

If our lives don't occur in a vacuum, then the atmosphere to which we are exposed, be it social, political, religious, etc, cannot be ignored just because of a preference for emphasizing personal responsibility in moral and legal judgments. The two are not mutually exclusive. Is that not one of the conservative argument for not allowing gay adoption - that homosexuality is an unhealthy atmosphere for a child? Is that not the bipartisan argument for going after video game designers and producers who market games with realistic violence to kids?

Hate is not generated or sustained in a vacuum. And I don't believe it is wise to limit the scope of the discussion, in the case of the Knoxville shooter, strictly to particular talk-shows or the books by their hosts. Those are just a couple of examples of particular media echoing a particular kind of poisonous thinking that has settled over what I referred to as the radical right or radical conservatism and which is seeping into more popular conservative outlets. The fewer people who support such a toxic atmosphere, either casually or generously, the better. For those conservatives who reject it, awesome. For those who vocally criticize joking suggestions that the only way to talk to liberals is "with a baseball bat", bravo.

Which brings us back to Adkisson. Does anyone really believe his rants and tirades against the evils and dangers of liberals just came from nowhere? That the similarity, from what we know so far, of his beliefs about the specific damages he felt liberals are doing to the country and those from the far right talking points is just a coincidence? That there is no connection between the poisonous atmosphere of the radicals on the right and Adkisson's hatred of the "liberal movement"?

FYI, this is why I am against the tone of some who identify with the "new atheists". I am not concerned with their arguments, which have been widely criticized as a selective reading history coupled with a poor understanding of theology and tedious over-generalizations, but rather with the attitude (see the recent actions by PZ Meyers and a response from a member of the community Meyers set out to antagonize and offend). Their demagoguery helps push the atheist dialogue to a more disrespectful place and opens up (additional and more visible) space for potential extremists who could then create their own poisonous atmosphere of repugnant rhetoric which vilifies and scape goats religious people in the same way I fear that some conservative commentators are creating space for or in some cases echoing such rhetoric with regard to "liberals".

The same can be said of the the hateful speech on some liberal blogs, such as comments rejoicing in the Tony Snow's diagnosis of cancer as well as his death, which can also generate and sustain an offensive atmosphere that becomes poisonous. It can happen any time someone goes from criticizing or lampooning the ideas or agendas of a group targeting people who are identified with a particular label. We all need to work to clean and prevent further pollution in the public square, starting with the groups with which we ourselves have the most influence, which are generally those who tend to otherwise share our outlook and values.

Trusting Amida Trust?

I am usually not very “deep” when it comes to my topics here and I am certainly not the most experienced or insightful blogger dealing with issues related to (my interest in and practice of) Buddhism. If you want that there are much better places to go. I really do try not to take myself too seriously, although as I never know who may read my obscure corner of the web and what they may take away from it, I generally try to exercise at least some prudence in terms of inflammatory speech or idol chatter. Over the past month and change, however, there has been a debate brewing online over a Buddhist order known as the Amida Trust.

People associated with Amida Trust have replied to this blog and a couple have their blogs listed in my blogroll. They generate some really interesting posts. I am not writing about this to attempt to defend or discredit the Trust or to agitate the issue further. I simply believe that whatever one thinks of Brazier or the Trust, there have been some important general issues raised concerning who is or isn't qualified to do what in Buddhist circles and how that kind of thing should be decided. I am merely writing about what I have encountered and I am trying to be fair to everyone involved.

The Trust was formed largely through the efforts of a gentleman known as David Brazier and his wife Caroline. David Brazier has written a few books on his view of Buddhism, and the Trust is a (relatively) small group based in the UK which is rooted in the idea of engaged Buddhism as well as the practices associated with Amidism, a form of Japanese Pure Land Buddhism. This form of Buddhism has traditionally been maintained and propogated by Jodo Shu (Pure Land School), founded by Honen several hundred years ago in feudal Japan, and Jodo Shinshu (True Pure Land School), which grew out of the work of Honen’s disciple Shinran. Jodo Shinshu is better known to most people simple as Shin Buddhism. Amida is the Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese term Amita, a truncated reference for the Buddha known as the Buddha of Infinite Life (Amitayus) and Infinite Life (Amitabha). In the West this Buddha is commonly referred to by practitioners of various Pure Land schools either as Amida or Amitabha.

The controversy that has come up lately is in part due to another controversy, that of Edward Penny, which was covered extensively (see the articles listed here and here, for example) on the Buddhist Channel, a website featuring news from around the world about Buddhism and Buddhist events. According to the stories appearing on the Buddhist Channel, Penny had started his own Buddhist organization and claimed to have received training and permission to teach from various Buddhist lineages. When friends and family of one his students became concerned that their loved one had been indoctrinated into a cult, the story made its way to the Buddhist Channel. Many ordained clergy wrote in about the materials posted on Penny’s website, including his writings as well as photographs, claiming that it appeared as though the way he presented himself, including his dress and his credentials, was not authentic. Penny’s people replied and this was posted on the Buddhist Channel as well, leading more members of the Buddhist community to become involved in the dispute.

There is also a website, where Buddhists from countries around the world come to discuss their practice and debate their differences, known as E-Sangha. E-Sangha had previously had issues with people creating usernames or bios in which they claimed to have been ordained or to have received dharma transmission without giving some evidence of this fact. Given that some visitors to places such as E-Sangha may place more credibility on the responses of someone claiming to be a monk, nun, or priest, a rule was instituted that all registered users of the discussion forums wishing to claim such a status must provide verification somehow.

This brings us back to the Amida Trust. A post was made on E-Sangha this fall asking about the group, which led to questions about what lineage or lineages Brazier, the group’s head and founder, is associated with. It has been stated that he was ordained by a particular group but that he is not affiliated with that group, and that he had studied with various teachers. It has been implied that he is not formally affiliated a recognized lineage from which to base his order. This also lead to the question of whether one of the people defending Brazier was inappropriately claiming some kind of ordination or “official” status in the same thread. On the one hand, there are those who claim that while anyone can follow the Buddha, talk about the Buddha, write about the Buddha, etc, not just anyone should present themselves as a priest or monk or start their own order without being a part of an established lineage. The rationale is that this is a way of protecting the integrity of the teaching and practice as well as offering a standard of legitimacy to guard the unsuspecting seeker against charlatans. On the other hand, there are those who are claiming that one does not need a lineage to share the nembutsu or propagate the message behind it.

David Brazier (who is referred to in the Trust as Dharmavidya) has (so far) declined to participate himself and lay out what he sees as the necessary authority to do what he has done as well as the credentials he does or does not wish to claim aside from those listed under his bio at the Amida Trust website (which apparently some are not satisfied with). I can understand why one would be reluctant to do so in a thread where so much has already been said about the matter, but then again, what should the standard be? I am not judging the credentials of Dharmavidya or challenging the validity of the Trust and its practices. As far as I know, no one has suggested David Brazier is another Edward Penny. But looking at the bigger picture, is there an obligation to public scrutiny for people who found new Buddhist orders or sanghas? If so, what should it be? And what could be the impact of spreading the suggestion that Brazier has not met this standard? Is this just a tempest in a teapot? I welcome your thoughts and contributions on this issue.

The value of human life in the culture of life?

Whether it is policies that force Mexicans to go more dangerous routes to try to cross the US border or the so-called "collateral damage" of wars of choice, the impact of trade policies that make huge profits for large companies and cheaper prices for American consumers that simultaneously generate (lethal) poverty in other parts of the world, or simply shooting two unarmed men on your neighbor's property against the instructions of the police, how can any of this be called a "culture of life"? Or is it supposed to be only a respect for American, preferably white, English-speaking and Christian, life?

Let's examine the last example in more detail.

Radio and television talk show host Alan Colmes, a self-described liberal Democrat, has been discussing the issue of Joe Horn, a Texas man who shot two men to death on his neighbors property. It is not surprising that people who call radio talk shows are often as outrageous as they are outspoken, but sometimes they do reflect a current of more popular opinion, at least within certain socioeconomic circles. Callers to Alan's show have brought up the fact that apparently the two men were burglars. But does committing a criminal act justify the casual taking of a life in which someone with a shotgun yells "Boom! Your dead!" and then fires point blank at two people? Then it was reported one or both of them may have been in the country illegally and that they may have been Mexican. Again, does that justify disregarding the instructions of the 911 dispatcher and shooting two men to death on someone else's properly?

There was no imminent danger to anyone until Mr. Horn left the house against the instructions he was receiving from the dispatcher. The police were on route and arrived soon after the shooting. Forget for a moment whether Mr. Horn put himself or the lives of plain clothes police officers in danger by leaving his house with a loaded shotgun in the middle of a robbery. Is human life worth so little? How does calling them criminals lessen the fact that they were human beings? How does calling them illegal aliens or Mexicans lessen the fact that they were human beings? And with no imminent danger, or even the appearance of imminent danger, to Mr. Horn, what was the justification for needlessly taking a life? For needlessly taking two? Does our culture value human life so little?

More to the point, based on remarks and phrases as well as self-identification of personal beliefs and politics, it seems that many of the people who are trying not only to justify what Mr. Horn did but also celebrate it include those who call abortion a massacre. Really? Now I am aware that there are many (and I sincerely hope that the majority of) people who consider themselves pro-life would disapprove of what happened in Texas. But what about that sizable segment who want to see more people do what Mr. Horn did? How can they honestly consider themselves any part of something called a "culture of life"?

It sounds more like a culture of fear and retribution.

The words of the prophets

The prophetic voice is becoming a popular topic. At the Faith in Public Life blog as as well as Father Jake Stops the World, there are link to sites discussing the need for people to speak to power and to speak for the powerless. This is not what many people have in mind when they hear the word prophet, which has come to have a popular usage as a kind of doomsayer or fortune teller.

Father Jake, for example, quotes Presiding Episcopalian Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori in an article from Episcopal Life by McCaughan:

There is something gravely and sinfully wrong with a world where the division between the rich and poor continues to expand, where some still live in palaces and recline on ivory couches while others starve outside their gates," (Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori) told about 120 parish, diocesan and national church communicators from around the country.

"In our day, the prophets still speak for a world where the hungry are fed, the ill are healed, where all children are educated and no one is denied the basic necessities of life"...

..."Each and everyone sitting here is capable of changing the world. Somewhere, somehow each one of us has the capacity to tame the chaos around us and turn it toward the peace of shalom. So where are the prophets? Who's going to speak those words? Who's going to do that work?

"What you or I do in this moment can bring hope or wholeness somewhere," she said. "The language or images we use can inspire or move others to be change agents themselves ... to move people to a different place. Your ability to tell stories like these can inspire others to change the world"...

...While thanking communicators for their ministry within the church, she added that their task is to "challenge the injustices and death-dealing realities around us and to inspire and encourage others to build toward God's dream of shalom of life abundant, not only for ourselves but for every creature in the cosmos.

"Prophets have two tasks, to critique what's unjust and to offer strength and comfort to the despairing," she said...

Bishop Shori also makes an interfaith nod to the idea of interdependence as represented in Hinduism/Buddhism as Indra's Net:

Borrowing an image from Hinduism of a fishnet with a jewel at each junction of the web that reflects every other jewel in the net, Jefferts Schori encouraged the gathering to cultivate a sense of fundamental unity, to see connections, find common ground, in an attempt to build greater unity among people and positions that seem remarkably disparate.

"If we could see ourselves as a jewel like that, reflecting and involving every other jewel, we might begin to respond differently. You do reflecting work when you offer a vision of hope, a story about where God is at work or an invitation to enter into suffering of others," she told the communicators.

Faith in Public Life meanwhile is reporting on a Connecticut group called Reclaiming the Prophetic Voice, described as "gathering of religious leaders and people of faith, joined by our belief in the God of justice and love, who calls us 'to do justice, to love kindness and to walk humbly with God.' In this time of crisis and war, we believe that walking humbly with God requires us to advocate and practice nonviolent love, in the tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr."

There are many spiritual groups who could be these criteria be considered prophetic, even among spiritual progressives, but the current movements still comprise just a drop in the ocean. Do you consider yourself to have a prophetic obligation, and if so, how have you used your voice?

The three pure precepts and non-discrimination II

I have previously asked about the concept of non-discrimination:

The three pure precepts:
Cease to Do Evil

Do Only Good

Do Good for Others
Yet I have read that the Fourth and Sixth Ch'an Ancestors (a.k.a. Zen Patriarchs) remarked that one could attain the Way by ceasing to discriminate between good and evil. Also, the the instructional poem Faith in Mind, we read:
"Be neither for nor against

For and against opposing each other--

This is the mind's disease."
How can one recognize suffering, generate compassion, cease evil, and do good without some form of metaphysical/grammatical discrimination?

I suppose it's unlikely that my original entry on this subject (linked above) is going to get much more activity, so I will now give my own answer, such as it is. But remember that it's something you need to figure out for yourself. Don't just take what anyone says as "the answer". This is simply how I happen to see it at this moment.

I think that non-discrimination refers to looking at things as being intrinsically empty. That is, there is not an object or person, a sight, sound, smell, taste, or touch, that is intrinsically or inherently "good" or "evil". These are designation that our minds assign--they are contextually based. Some will call this relativism, which is accurate, but that is consistent with the teachings of ideas of emptiness and impermanence. If you think about it, even those who claim to believe in good and evil as absolute also have a relative definition--that is, it is related to the will of their God. If it pleases God, it is good. If it offends God, it is evil.

There are different catch-phrases for realizing the relative nature of our preconceptions and judgements in Buddhism, like beginner's mind and "don't-know" mind. The question then arises, to what are the values of Buddhist connected? I think that is where the three pure precepts come in--cease to do evil, do good, do good for others. Here is the clue--I have also heard them phrased as: cease to generate and cause unnecessary suffering, work to alleviate suffering, work to alleviate the suffering of others.
Amitabha!

The three pure precepts and non-discrimination

The three pure precepts:

Cease to Do Evil
Do Only Good
Do Good for Others

Yet I have read that the Fourth and Sixth Ch'an Ancestors (a.k.a. Zen Patriarchs) remarked that one could attain the Way by ceasing to discriminate between good and evil. Also, the the instructional poem Faith in Mind, we read:

"Be neither for nor against
For and against opposing each other--
This is the mind's disease."

How can one recognize suffering, generate compassion, cease evil, and do good without some form of metaphysical/grammatical discrimination?