Things do not arise (Candrakirti)

Candrakirti used the argument that inner and outer things do not arise from themselves, from something other than themselves, from both or from neither, i.e. causelessly. Since that covers all four possibilities this argument shows that nothing truly arises. For something to arise, it first has to be absent. The Samkhyas believed that things arose from themselves. Candrakirti refuted this saying that if something already existed, it would not need to arise. Arising has no meaning for something which already exists. The Hinayana Buddhist schools, the Vaibhasikas and Sautrantikas, believed that things arose from what was other than themselves. In other words, one moment gave rise to the next. Candrakirti argued that no connection exists between one moment and the next. A moment arises at the very instant that the moment before disappears. Something that has no connection with another thing can hardly be called its cause, otherwise one could say darkness is the cause of light and light the cause of darkness, just because one followed on from the other.

Since, in this way things arising from themselves and things arising from something else are refuted, one might try to argue that things arise from both. The Jains thought this. Candrakirti argued that such a position has the faults of both the previous positions.

Maybe one would like to argue that things arise from nothing? This would be like the belief of those that deny all cause and effect, including karma cause and effect. Such a school existed in India. They were called Ajivakas and Candrakirti refuted their view by saying that if things arose without cause what would be the point of doing anything? For instance, why should a farmer bother to plant his crops, if causes do not bring about effects? Such a belief, which suggests that everything is haphazard and chaotic, is totally nonscientific.

Maybe a film is a good example of how things are nonarising. We all know that when we see a moving film it is really a series of still frames in quick succession. It may look like one thing is affecting another on the screen but, in fact, except for the sequential arrangement, there is no connection between them. There are even gaps between the pictures. For something to cause something else there has to be a point where they meet, otherwise how could one affect the other? But a cause never exists at the same time as its effect. Once the effect has arisen the cause is past...

-From Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche

This passage really resonates with me, and I actually think it's rather mind-blowing. The way I interpret it, this argument of Candrakirti's shows that conceptual interpretations of reality are inherently self-contradictory, and this is a good prelude to meditation on the emptiness of reality. (Not in a nihilistic sense, but in a nonconceptual sense.) Once you reflect on this passage and see that all rational avenues are exhausted, the mind can rest in nonconceptuality.

Closing the Lower Door

One of the points of meditation posture is "closing the lower door" which basically means that you rock back and forth, right and left before meditation to make sure your buttocks are together. I had the occasion to ask a Lama yesterday whether this means you should refrain from passing gas while meditating, and she said yes. Now I know. I'm going to try this out to see how it works.

Wouldn't it be great if

there were a drug that made you feel sick unless you were helping others? The recreational drugs I am familiar with seem to make people more ego-centered and less interested in the welfare of others. What if there were a drug which did the opposite?

Merton on Inferior Forms of Religion

...[F]ew religions ever really penetrate to the inmost soul of the believer, and even the highest of them do not, in their social and liturgical forms, invariably reach the inmost "I" of each participant. The common level of inferior religion is situated somewhere in the collective subconscious of the worshipers, and perhaps more often than not in a collective exterior self. This is certainly a verifiable fact in modern totalitarian pseudo-religions of state and class. And this is one of the most dangerous features of our modern barbarism: the invasion of the world by a barbarity from within society and from within man himself. Or rather, the reduction of man, in technological society, to a level of almost pure alienation in which he can be brought at will, any time, to a kind of political ecstasy, carried away by the hate, the fear, and the crude aspirations centered about a leader, a propaganda slogan, or a political symbol. That this sort of ecstasy is to some extent "satisfactory" and produces a kind of pseudo-spiritual catharsis, or at least a release of tension, is unfortunately all too often verified. And it is what modern man is coming more and more to accept as an ersatz for genuine religious fulfillment, for moral activity, and for contemplation itself.


-Thomas Merton, The Inner Experience

The religious right immediately springs to mind. Clothing themselves in the exterior trappings of religion, yet mistaking their untamed subconscious for true religion, they ultimately fuel their own hatred and intolerance. Merton suggests elsewhere that the contemplative needs to get to what he calls the "true self," which is beyond our subconscious and, in fact, inseparable from God. The method to do this is the contemplative life, lived in isolation. Merton allows that this contemplative experience is probably the same as that described by Zen masters without using the word God. I wish that quiet contemplation were more of a fixture of modern Christianity, because I think its face would change. That would be a wonderful thing. When I read Thomas Merton, I am much more at home than when I listen to Christian evangelists, who often have an underlying energy of hatred, intolerance and fear. They are stirring the depths of our unconscious, of our libido, but they are not contacting genuine spiritual energy, as far as I can tell. Perhaps I'm lashing out a bit here, but I still believe what I'm saying one hundred percent, and the main point is not how terrible Christian fundamentalists are, but how wonderful it is to see that there is a true Christianity, a genuine spiritual Christianity. When I was in high school, I thought wistfully about becoming a (Christian) monk. I had a couple of reasons. At that point I was clothed in the trappings of religion, calling myself a Christian, and believing simplistic things about God, but not really having a genuine spirituality. I recall ranting to myself as I walked my dog about how terrible people are for not behaving morally, never perceiving that my anger was itself immoral. Not very spiritual; very close to my brothers and sisters in the Christian right at that point! The other reason I wanted to become a monk is that the world scared me. The prospect of getting a job and fending for myself scared me. I figured that being a monk would be an easy way to avoid the pressures of the world. I know now that the life of a monastic is very difficult, but it didn't strike me that way then, and I also know, that at least for Buddhists, it is considered improper or "wrong motivation" to take up the life of a monastic because one needs food or shelter. But anyway, I'm glad now two decades later, that my early aspirations for the monastic life are finding fruit, both in my Buddhist practice and in my appreciation for Thomas Merton.

New look

I decided to revamp my blog using one of the existing templates. The new picture is of the Tian Tin Buddha of Hong Kong, one of many giant Buddha statues in the world. The Leshan Giant Buddha is another example.

Three Year Anniversary

I haven't had a drop of alcohol in 3 years. I remember when going without a drink for a day was iffy.

From the Dhammapada (Sayings of the Buddha)

All experience is preceded by the mind,
Led by the mind,
Made by the mind.
Speak or act with a corrupted mind,
And suffering follows
As the wagon wheel follows the hoof of an ox.

All experience is preceded by the mind,
Led by the mind,
Made by the mind.
Speak or act with a peaceful mind,
And happiness follows
Like a never-departing shadow.

"He abused me, attacked me,
Defeated me, robbed me!"
For those carrying on like this,
Hatred does not end.

"She abused me, attacked me,
Defeated me, robbed me!"
For those not carrying on like this,
Hatred ends.

Hatred never ends through hatred.
By non-hate alone does it end.
This is an ancient truth.


This is excerpted from a wonderfully poetic translation by Gil Fronsdal.

Words that resonate

We stumble and fall constantly even when we are most enlightened. But when we are in true spiritual darkness, we do not even know that we have fallen.

-Thomas Merton

Meditation

Sitting.
Clouds form.
Clouds dissolve.

Post Paradox

I could post something on my blog, but I don't have anything to say at the moment. So I won't.

Deep waters

My new favorite punching bag, Paul Edwards, claims in his book that reincarnation implies the strongest form of dualism (between mind and body) and since dualism is philosophically untenable, reincarnation is out the window! Ironically, Buddhism teaches that dualism is ultimately incorrect, that all concepts including those of self and other are empty of inherent existence. When we look at a chair, can we find any existence beyond that which is imputed onto it by our own mind? I think Edwards would say yes. But then, in the absence of an observer, is it a chair any more? Doesn't the concept of chair bring with it all sorts of assumptions that only make sense to a human? In fact, essentially tautologically, all we can ever know arises in dependence on conceptuality. The idea of a reality existing independent from us breaks down upon investigation. It is this way with everything. Our body, our mind and our self. None are seen to truly exist, except in dependence upon conceptuality. This may seem untenable or paradoxical, but is undeniably true, and its truth becomes clearer as you meditate and observe the way the mind works. Reincarnation is an example of "relative truth," a phenomenon that exists in the relative world of concepts, but according to "ultimate truth" does not actually exist. This is true of any concept. It vanishes when probed deeply enough.

So in Buddhism, dualism of any kind is found to be ultimately lacking in truth, but that is the way things appear to us. It is also said that we need to work within this relative framework to begin with (training wheels) in order to reach the level ultimate truth beyond concepts. Therefore, designations of "good" and "bad", "reincarnation" etc are provisionally helpful, but in the end it is all just the arising of mind.

I have personally come to the conclusion that there is an elephant in the room that many people miss when discussing cognitive science. It is often reduced to physical events such as neuron firings and neurotransmitters, but ignores the fact of first person experience. It is a commonly expressed view that consciousness is an epiphenomenon riding on top of a sufficiently complex system. In this view, first person experience (whatever that is!) automatically arises in any system capable of performing in the same complicated way as a human. To me this answers nothing. It doesn't explain what first person experience is, nor why it is forced to arise, when one could imagine a sufficiently complicated machine that has no corresponding first person experience. As I see it, there's a big mystery here.

Now Buddhism doesn't seek to reduce or explain this mystery. In fact, awareness is seen as inexpressible and inexplainable, the ground from which all arises.

A view from the other side

In thinking about reincarnation, I decided to read some literature that's prepared to vigorously argue against it. I picked out a book that amazon.com recommended through it's pseudo-omniscient algorithm called "Reincarnation: a critical examination" by Paul Edwards. Leafing through, this is not meant to convert anyone. Rather it has the form of preaching to the choir, treating the views of his "opponents" contemptuously and impatiently. A section of the book that caught my eye is about karma. Here is an excerpt


Anybody not intimidated by the virulence with which the champions of Karma brush off objections to their theory will want to raise a very simple and, as it seems to me, utterly devastating question about the execution and more generally the "administration" of Karmic ordinances...

The claim that Karma operates autonomously invites the following questions: How, to begin with, are good and bad deeds registered? Is there some cosmic repository like a huge central social security office in which the relevant information is recorded and translated into some kind of balance? Next, how and where is it decided what will happen to a person in his next incarnation as a result of the balance of acts in his or her life?...

The believer in Karma,[...], must be prepared to claim that the earthquake was brought about in order to punish or reward the various people who suffered or benefited from the earthquake.


First off, I have to ask why this author's attack has such a personal quality to it. (Witness his first sentence which is a personal attack.) But let's accept that and try to get to his actual objections, which do not conform to my understanding of the Buddhist view of karma. Admittedly, there are many takes on karma, from Hindu to Jain to New Age, and some people in those schools may hold views that are susceptible to his attack, but maybe not. I will simply argue from the standpoint of my own understanding.

First, karma is indeed an autonomous process. I like to think of it as spiritual physics. There's no need for a cosmic moderator when it comes to the standard laws of physics such as gravity and quantum physics. So why should one be needed for karma? The author also refers to a "balance" revealing the common idea, which is not the Buddhist view, that karma reflects some kind of ledger with good deeds in one column, bad deeds in another, and then an overall balance. So if you kill someone and then save someone you are karmically neutral. This is not the Buddhist view at all. Put simply, virtuous actions will ripen beneficially in the future, negative actions will ripen negatively in the future, and this is essentially a definition of virtuous and unvirtuous. There's nothing about cancellation. In fact, karmic acts interact in complex ways, often having a snowball effect where one small deed will continue to magnify in importance as it informs your later actions. It is taught that these karmic seeds are embedded in our mindstream and flower when appropriate conditions arise. So it is not simply that karma causes things to happen, but that we encounter conditions based on our karma. So as for Edwards' question about how it is "decided" how one is reborn based on karma, there is no external agency that decides. Indeed, the bardo being is blown by the winds of karma (that is the tendencies embedded in its own mind) to a certain womb. One would think that coming from a critical scientific perspective, Edwards would not automatically criticize a theory based on anthropomorphizing it.

The final point I want to talk about is Edwards' describing karma as punishment and reward. In all three eastern religions, Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, karma is regarded as an unconscious automatic process, not a process of punishment and reward. If we see someone who is suffering and don't help them because we think it's their own karma that got them their and hence they deserve what they are now getting, then we are abusing the teachings and will ourselves experience suffering in the future as a karmic ripening of our own miserliness. This attitude also neglects the fact that everyone has accumulated vast amounts of negative and positive karma, and we just happen to be in a relatively fortunate situation at the moment. So to accuse someone else of having negative karma is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I'm not saying there is original sin, in fact, quite the opposite, all beings are Buddhas at their core, but by our very nature as sentient beings in the world of samsara, we are prone to act in ways nonbeneficial to ourselves. One further aspect about this I'd like to mention, and this is something I've brought up before, is that because the events which befall us are the result of our own past actions, that means we have the power to transform those circumstances. That doesn't mean we can wish really hard for something and it will come true. It is much more difficult than that. All the specialized practices taught by the Buddha are designed to transform one's mind. They work, but they require diligence and patience.

In a subsequent section Edwards points to the fact that the law of karma has no predictive value, and, as I understand him, is therefore of no practical use. His point is that when an earthquake happens, we can say after the fact that it was maturation of the karma of the people affected, but we could never predict the earthquake. Of course, I agree that karma has no specific predictive value, and so I will agree that it is not a scientific law, but that hardly closes the case on the matter. Karma has general predictive value, for if I kill someone, I will suffer as a result. Even if I get away with it, I will be tortured internally. I admit that there is no way to prove that everything that currently happens to me is a maturation of something I did in a previous life. Clearly I'm not going to be able to logically demonstrate this, but what I can say is that as I progress along the Buddhist path, as I gain more insight, those teachings of the Buddha and the Lama which I can check out for myself all turn out to be true, and this gives me increased faith that as I develop more, some of those items which I currently accept on faith will become evident.

To me, there is a fundamental wonder and mystery at the center of our ordinary, banal experience. This is our awareness, our consciousness. This is also the core of Buddhism, the star player as it were. Our own awareness, omnipresent and locationless. This is the mind of Buddhahood. (Do you think our awareness has a location? If so, doesn't that mean it has a physical shape? How can awareness have a physical shape?) So, as far as I'm concerned, Buddhism is homing in on exactly the right thing, and this view of mine is strengthened through my continued meditation practice. So even though karma is not a traditional scientific theory, I have faith that it is true nonetheless, and I certainly don't feel like Edwards has raised and "devastating" objections to it.

the hook of compassion

Just as one might need another's help to move a dresser
One might need another's help to realize happiness.
If the Buddha could snap his fingers and make samsara disappear
He would.

The Buddha's hook of compassion
Needs to catch our loop of faith
And once that connection is established
The blessings pour through,
And rest assured,
We will one day achieve Buddhahood,
Spontaneously helping countless sentient beings
Break through the veils obscuring their consciousness.

The more we call upon the Buddha and all enlightened beings for help,
The stronger our connection becomes,
The weaker the obscurations in our mind.
In the sky before me,
I see countless Buddhas and Bodhisattvas,
And in the plane around me,
Billions of people and other creatures
All reciting the prayer of refuge as one.

"I take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.
By the virtuous merit that I collect,
By practicing giving and the other perfections,
May I attain the state of a Buddha,
To be able to liberate all sentient beings."

Untitled Mind

I am on a plane
The air is bright, brilliant spheres of light
Scattered tears, dark smoke filtering up
This dissolves, breaks, fades
There is darkness all around
And then I notice the smoke itself has a brilliant quality...

The emptiness of ideation

When I concentrate on a point I want to make,
It diffuses and grows ornamental curlicues,
Which themselves further elaborate,
Leaving the center empty.

Random thoughts about feelings

I'm sitting in my ole easy chair right now, a stick of juniper incense is burning in the holder behind me, and I begin to type a poem meant to capture my mood...


Worked up, a bit
Just gave a talk and had trouble articulating a point
Felt a bit uncomfortable
Traced the feeling back to defense of ego



In Buddhist psychology there are five skandhas.
Form, Feeling, Perception, Mental Formation, and Consciousness.
Form is the barest glimmer of structure.
Feeling is a sensation like heat or discomfort.
Perception begins to form judgments of desirable or undesirable.
Mental Formations are macroscopic thoughts.
Consciousness is the fundamental quality of awareness.

I would say that the discomfort that arose as I was talking was a feeling, a kind of tone, certainly not composed of gross verbalized thoughts, rooted in a judgment of the way the talk was going. I guess it's a little bit like a "growing sense of alarm," when you, for example, you wander into an unsafe neighborhood. There's this gradual buildup of a background feeling which informs the tenor of your thoughts, but which itself is not a word-level thought.

Mind sees an I

"I" is an expression of mind.
Who is it that perceives "I"?
Into what does "I" arise?

When thoughts of anger or confusion arise,
Who is it that experiences them?
Who is it that created them?
Who is it that looks to see?

When outer appearances arise,
Who is it that perceives them?
And when that one is perceived,
Who perceives it?

The mind is empty of unchanging solidity.
Yet awareness and appearances exist indivisibly.
The essence of mind is vast like space.

As the karmic shackles of conceptuality
One by one dissolve into awareness,
The mind of Buddhahood dawns
and the universe is illuminated.

The science of reincarnation?

Attempting to provide evidence for reincarnation scientifically may seem like a fools' game, but if there is potential evidence for the phenomenon, it would certainly be foolish to ignore it. That is, it would be foolish to dismiss the evidence without first looking at it. It would be begging the question to accept whatever is offered uncritically. In any event, there is a little-known collection of case studies by Ian Stevenson, a medical doctor, collected in many books, which purports to bolster the case for reincarnation. The book I'm reading right now is called "Where reincarnation and biology intersect," so-called because of the occurence of birthmarks on supposedly reincarnated individuals which correspond to wounds sustained at death. The documentation is extremely careful, and there is no indication of deliberate falsification. Certainly Stevenson is sincere. He also frequently provides counterevidence in particular instances when not all evidence points to the same conclusion. On the other hand, there are passages where his thinking seems sloppy. There are a number of case studies that are extremely convincing, and I'd like to share one with you.


Necip Unlutaskiran was born in Adana, Turkey, in 1951. Necip's mother had a dream before he was born in which a man she did not recognize showed himself to her with bleeding wounds. She did not know how to interpret this dream, but it made some sense when she saw, after Necip's birth, that he had seven birthmarks. Some of these were more prominent than others, and a few had faded by the time I first examined Necip, when he was about 13 years old.

Necip was late in speaking and late also, compared to other subjects of these cases, about speaking of a previous life. From age 6 on he began to say that he had children and asked his mother to take him to them. He said that he had lived in Mersin (a city about 80 kilometers from Adana). He said that his name was Necip and that he had been stabbed; as he described the stabbing, he pointed to various parts of his body to indicate where he had been stabbed.

His parents at first paid little attention to these statements, which they found more annoying than interesting. Their stance changed when Necip was about 12 years old. His mother took him to meet her father, who was then living, with his second wife, in a village near Mersin. Necip had never met his grandfather's second wife before, but he suddenly said that he recognized her as from the previous life that he claimed to have lived in Mersin. She had known a man in Mersin named Necip Budak and was able to confirm the accuracy of Necip's statements. This meeting increased Necip's wish to go to Mersin, and his grandfather took him there. There he recognized several members of the family of Necip Budak. They further confirmed the accuracy of Necip's statements for the life of Necip Budak.

It seems that Necip Budak had been a quarrelsome sort of person, especially when drunk. One day he began teasing and then taunting an acquaintance, who, perhaps drunk himself, stabbed Necip Budak repeatedly with a knife. Necip Budak collapsed on the street and was taken to a hospital, where his wounds were noted and where he died the next day.

Among the statements that Necip made, the most impressive was his claim that he had once stabbed "his" (Necip Budak's) wife in the leg and that she thereafter had a scar on her leg. Necip Budak's widow admitted the truth of the statement, and, taking some ladies into the back room, she showed them the scar on her thigh.

Necip expressed great affection toward the children of Necip Budak and fond attachment toward his wife. Indeed, he manifested keen jealousy regarding her second husband and wanted to tear up a photograph of this man.

In the number of wounds matching birthmarks-six in all-Necip's case exceeds all other cases (having medical documents) that I have investigated. In the monograph [a different book] I give a tabular summary of these and show their correspondence to the wounds on Necip Budak recorded in the hospital where he died.

Attachment to Dharmas

The state of enlightenment is free of attachment. Yet foolish people remain attached. 'Foolish people' are empty of self-nature, and thus are not foolish people. `Enlightenment' is empty of self nature, and is thus not enlightenment.

I'm riffing here on the theme of the Diamond Sutra, the genesis of this blog, which I have been reading over the past several days. All things are empty of self nature, which is a startling way of saying something obvious. Namely, when you look closely at things, they lose their characteristics. When you look closely at a chair, you don't see little chairs, or elements of chair-nature. Looking closely at the chair, the chair completely disappears. It is the same with all concepts, including, very importantly, the self. When you look closely at the self, it disappears! This is true of everything, including enlightenment. However, this does not mean you can't sit in a chair or attain enlightenment. Indeed, the empty nature of things allows them to exist and be interacted with. If a chair had a core reality of chairness, then it could not be sit in, because it could not change. Nothing could penetrate the solid core, for if they could, it would not be solid. In the same way, if all of the seeming obstructions to Buddhahood (enlightenment) were inherently real, they could not be overcome. Since they are illusory, they can be overcome. If one pursues Buddhahood, attached to a goal, Buddhahood remains obscured. Thus one can say it doesn't really exist. Yet if one approaches it without a goal, without the thought that "I liberate beings," then it will be achieved.

The idea of being attached to dharmas came up for me last night while attending an A.A. meeting. The way the meeting works is that we go in order around the room and everyone shares. I realized that after I had shared, in my mind, I took ownership of what I shared, of the dharmas I had released into the room. As people after me started sharing their own stories and ideas, I noticed myself scrutinizing their words for approval or criticism of "my" dharmas. Yet I needn't be attached. In doing so, I am certainly attached to a self, which doesn't exist. So it is a pointless cause of suffering. In the room, we each share, but it is not for our own ego, but for the benefit of all in the room. In the A.A. rooms, there is no cross-talk, no arguments between people when sharing. One person may share, and later on someone may disgaree, but it is not a back-and-forth argument. Even if there is a misunderstanding, there is no pressure to resolve it. Everyone releases their dharmas to the room, weaving a tapestry of which no-one can claim ownership.

Happy August

I went to another meeting last night. I did run into the issue of self-censorship, although I did share as best I could. Talking with someone after the meeting, he pointed out that the eleventh step explicitly mentions meditation, and he encouraged me to share honestly. His point was maybe someone needs to hear my experience. This guy is really wonderful. He gave me a book by Sogyal Rinpoche several months ago, and he meditates during the meetings. I'll have to think more on it. If it feels right, at some point I may share more directly my thoughts and feelings, rooted as they are in Buddhism. I do want to make sure the motive is right. My motive could easily devolve into defense of intellectual territory. Indeed last night, as I was listening to a woman share about how her urge to drink was lifted almost instantaneously after praying to God, and how she ascribes this to her higher power working in her life, I was definitely moved. But, I noticed the wheels of my mind spinning, trying to reinterpret the event within a comfortable framework. (I.e. `Maybe that wasn't God working. Maybe it was a ripening of past good karma, etc etc.') However, my motive in this case was indeed defensive. Not content to let it be, I desired to interpret the world in my image. This is not Buddhist at all. It is a sign of attachment to concepts. So I decided I had no need to reinterpret. This woman had her experience, it helped her, she's sober, and that's that.

Another thing that struck me about last night's meeting is the amount of wisdom present there. As we went around the table, a lot of people said some very deep things. Simple but deep.

Quote from Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso Rinpoche

Some people, who think of themselves as scientifically minded, believe that the mind is the brain or a function of the brain and that for this reason there is no essential mind/matter dichotomy. According to their view, everything can be explained in terms of the material world. They choose to overlook the qualities of the mind that have no relation to matter, such as subjective experience, thoughts and emotions. Although they would not take seriously the story of Pinocchio, where a simple piece of matter, a stick, inexplicably develops a mind experiencing hopes and fears, pleasures and pain, and so on, they would not find it strange if sub-atomic particles, atoms or molecules started to produce thoughts and feelings. However, not only is there no scientific evidence whatever that such a phenomenon is possible, but it represents a semantic confusion of categories. Linguistically there is a category `mind' and what is not mind i.e. matter. Matter, or the material world is what exists `out there' beyond the senses. If it does not exist independent of the senses, how can it be categorized as material? How can a material world that exists outside the senses also be the senses that sense and experience it? Such a theory does not answer anything. It does not even begin to address itself to the question of what conscious experience is, let alone to the question of what might or might not exist external to it. -from "Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness"

A.A. and Buddhism: more thoughts

I went to an A.A. meeting tonight after a somewhat long hiatus. At some point, I decided to spend all my effort on Buddhist practices, and so stopped attending A.A. meetings. The Dharma Path program has been a real blessing, as I have made a formal commitment to practice a certain amount each day, and that has been very beneficial. Still, I know the capacity of the mind to delude, and in particular, I have seen and experienced the situation where someone stops coming to meetings and slowly the mind's awareness deteriorates until one day, there is no defense against the first drink. My situation is slightly different in that I was continually meditating and practicing, so that my mind was not spiraling into a web of self-delusion leading to disaster. Still, with this in mind, I did not want to completely sever my connection to the program. I'm glad I came tonight. I met several old friends, and I realized that not only is the program is useful for me, but also I can benefit others. This is, after all, the Bodhisattva ideal.
At the meeting, I started thinking about the relation between Buddhism and A.A. again. The goal of each is similar, although one is more limited. In fact, A.A.'s effectiveness is due in very large part to its extreme focus: alcoholism. There is a lot of discussion in A.A. circles about whether drugs other than alcohol are an appropriate topic, and the general consensus is that they are not. This is not out of lack of compassion for drug addicts, but because a meeting devoted to competing topics is of less benefit to alcoholics and drug addicts alike. A.A. is extremely open and welcoming, but definitely has a Christian, or at least, theistic focus. This is due in large part to the fact that the founders were seeing spirituality through the lense of their preexisting beliefs. Now one of the fundamental tenets of Buddhism is the lack of a supreme deity that created the Universe or who represents the ultimate nature of reality. However this is not traditional atheism, which usually carries a host of concomitant assumptions, including lack of belief in anything beyond scientific materialism. In the same way that a creator God is not supported by logical analysis, the self-existing independent solidity of the outside world does not hold up under logical analysis and introspection. Furthermore, Buddhism provides an answer to all of us under the power of afflictive emotions and ignorance. It is a path whereby we can unlock the potential of our mindstream, releasing us from the suffering we often don't realize we are experiencing. (This may sound like a contradiction, how can we be suffering without realizing it? It is nonetheless true. I can see instances in my own life, looking back, where I was definitely suffering, even though I was under the power of delusion, and did not see it.) So the goals of A.A. and Buddhism converge, they both represent a path out of suffering. There is also a lot of overlap in philosophy. A gentleman sharing at tonight's meeting echoed a common theme. When he was drinking, trouble followed him around, but he never noticed that he was its cause. Listening to this, I thought this was a perfect example of the working of karma. When bad things happen in our lives, through ignorance we often ascribe them to bad luck or malevolent forces. Some people even get the idea that God has turned against them and is punishing them. In the end though, this is the ripening of our own past actions. Of course, A.A. just looks at this from the viewpoint of a single lifetime, but the basic principle is there. Speaking of karma, some reading this might get the feeling that ascribing all negative events to past actions on the part of the experiencer is "blaming the victim." Well, first of all, there is no blame here. It is just description. Not helping someone or looking contemptuously on someone because their current misfortune is a ripening of their own past deeds is a huge abuse of the teachings and goes against the love and compassion which are core teachings of the Buddha. It also conveniently omits the fact that we are all guilty of countless past negative deeds (and positive ones). On the other hand, a hidden and beautiful facet of this teaching on karma is the fact that it implies our destiny is under our control. All of the things that happen to us are of our own making, so we have the power to eventually stop accumulating karma and achieve enlightenment. So anyway, A.A. and Buddhist teachings have points of convergence, but they also have points of divergence. As an attendee of meetings, I am happy to accept the points of divergence. After all, the Buddha gave 84,000 teachings, each one tailored to the dispositions and abilities of different sentient beings. The Buddha would give teachings that were appropriate to the listener, necessarily saying things that weren't ultimate truth, but which led the listener in that direction. The thing I've struggled with however, is how to reconcile my Buddhist beliefs with A.A. as a contributor. I have often found myself modifying what I'm saying to seem more in tune with Christian philosophy because I don't want to be divisive. But the more firmly rooted I become in my Buddhist practice, the more unnatural that seems. I guess I'll continue playing it by ear and see what happens.

The unexpected benefits of meditating

I recently was meditating outside when I saw a skink out of the corner of my eye, waddling along the porch. This is already a significant event, since skinks are very shy and will dash out of sight almost as soon as you see them usually. The fact that I was nearly motionless put the skink at ease I suppose. In any event, the skink proceeded to waddle up on to my meditation cushion and touch my knee! I almost expected it to start crawling on me, although it didn't. It then explored the porch some more, came back to touch my other knee for a few seconds and then left. Very cool. Last summer I meditated in by backyard quite a bit, where we have a couple of bird feeders. I recall one instance when I was very close to one of the feeders and so the birds were to scared to come and feed. However, when I closed my eyes for a while, I heard them on the feeder making quite a racket crunching the seeds in their beaks. Fascinating.

Healing words

Let go of choosing between friend and enemy.
Immediately drop thoughts that follow from passion or aggression.
Within the expanse of simply being, without judgment,
The sun of devotion spontaneously dawns.

-From "Spring's Flower: A Spontaneous Song of Experience" composed by Vidyadhara Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche

A thought about reincarnation

Imagine a planet coalescing from dust in space. That is like our body and mind coming into being. Imagine the planet breaking apart and dissolving. That is like when we die. Imagine it coalescing again and reforming. That is like when we are born in our next life. The new planet is completely different, but drawn together from the same basic stuff. So the essence of mind is the same, but it comes together in a new way. Our karmic seeds are stored in a particular mindstream, so it's not quite like we dissolve into the ground of existence, lose all personal identity, and then something else reforms. But, just as my self in the future of this life is different than my current self, so my future rebirths are different. But the fact that there is karma in common means that of all the individuals in the universe in all of the three times (past, present and future), the ones I can influence the most are the ones that are future manifestations of my mindstream. I was at a retreat this past weekend, where Lama Norlha Rinpoche advised us that when we call upon the Buddhas, we need not limit ourselves to those in the past and present. We can and should also call upon the Buddhas of the future. Now it occurs to me that the final destination of the mindstream which I am a part of is Buddha. Therefore that future Buddha at the end of this mindstream is someone to whom I can call for help. This brings new meaning for me to the idea that we all have Buddha nature. In any event, in the same way that we should take care of the planet for its future inhabitants, we should take care of our body for its future inhabitants (future instances of our mindstream), and this means physically, mentally and spiritually. By performing actions that get us closer to Buddhahood, we are being kind to our future selves as well as to the vast array of sentient beings who can rely on us when we have achieved perfect enlightenment.

I think the analogy of the planet being destroyed and reformed is useful because it really shows that reincarnation is subtle. If the personality, the mental apparatus of conceptualization gets destroyed in between lives, then in what way can we say the new individual is the "same" as the old one. There are certain tendencies that are carried over, habitual patterns of fixation, attachment and aversion. Conversely patterns of concentration and mental stability arising from meditation can carry over as well. But is it the same person? Again, I am not the same person as I was a second ago, so I am certainly a dramatically different person than the next incarnation of this mindstream.

I know one reader of this blog believes in reincarnation but certainly thinks I've gotten it wrong, whereas another reader (you people know who you are!) does not believe in reincarnation. Why do I believe that things work roughly the way I've outlined? My first thought when I was wrestling with this earlier is that it's very unlikely I could prove that reincarnation happens. But then by the same token, it seems unlikely that it could ever be disproven, especially given our current paltry knowledge of what consciousness is. So then I decided to search for an argument that would increase my confidence in reincarnation and this was what I came up with. It is quite reasonable to me because a fundamental teaching of Buddhism is that the essence of mind is clear, lucid and unaffected by particular thoughts or conditions. When one meditates and has certain experiences with the Lama, one begins to perceive this directly. Thus through direct observation one glimpses the essence of mind, like the ocean with thoughts appearing as waves. This sort of analogy gets at it a little bit, but to really understand what I mean, you need to have a comparable meditative experience. And once one accepts this underlying substrate of the mind, it becomes reasonable to imagine that it would continue after the body dies. It's like the planet that is made out of dust, our mind is "made" of this substrate.

So-called violent protesting monks

The Chinese government seeks to portray Buddhist monks in Tibet as capable of violence, but apparently the only way they can do it is to actually impersonate them. As the Dalai Lama says, we should feel compassion for them, since they have some heavy karma coming their way.

The Ninth Symphony of Beethoven Understood at Last as a Sexual Message (Adrienne Rich)

A man in terror of impotence
of infertility, not knowing the difference
a man trying to tell something
howling from the climacteric
music for the entirely
isolated soul
yelling at Joy from the tunnel of the ego
music without the ghost
of another person in it, music
trying to tell something the man
does not want out, would keep if he could
gagged and bound and flogged with chords of Joy
where everything is silence and the
beating of a bloody fist upon
a splintered table

A crude comic I drew a while back

I drew this comic in an attempt to illustrate a certain manner of interaction between myself and another individual. See if you can figure out what I mean. I'll post an explanation of what I was thinking when I drew this at a later date. [Click on the image for a larger view.]

Spring

Dragging feet in the water
The nasal passage of time
Conspires and coalesces like music.
Monstrous membranes occlude my perception.

The wave of Spring is always welcome.
But it is not welcome in all ways.
Trees spew their particles into the wind
Awakening ancient cells of resistance.

A body wages war with a body,
Just as beauty battles pain.
Plants emerge from the soil,
And pollen falls like rain.

Of Gödel and Galaxies

I've been reading the book Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter again, and it's really an amazing book. I recommend it very highly. One of the book's centerpiece's is Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, which, in a nutshell, shows that there exist statements of number theory (such as "3^3=27," or "if you define a sequence a1=1 a2=1 and a3=2a2-a1, then no term is ever equal to 6.") which are true but cannot be proven within the context of number theory. The two examples I just gave are not of this form. One can prove them or prove there negation. The actual number theoretic statement constructed by Gödel is extremely complicated. The method of proof is brilliant, though. Because the laws governing the manipulation of numbers can be encoded as strings of numbers, one can actually connive to have number-theoretic statements have a secondary coded meaning which has something to say about the machinery of proofs. The coup de grace comes when you construct a statement whose coded meaning is "I cannot be proven in the system of number theory." Now let's consider whether the statement is true or false. If it is false, then it can be proven, which is to say it can't be proven. This is a contradiction, a version of the so-called Epimenides paradox: "Epimenides, a Cretan, says that all Cretans are liars." So the statement is not false, hence it is true. Since it is true it cannot be proven. Thus we have elegantly constructed a true statement of number theory which cannot be proven (within the system) precisely because that is what it asserts! Note that it can be proven outside the system, because we just did that. This is an awesome idea. The formal system of number theory can be utilized to show that it cannot adequately capture all true statements. One might say it contains the seeds of its own demise, but it might be better to say that it contains the seeds of its own limitation. Gödel's theorem doesn't destroy or invalidate number theory, it just shows that it is more subtle than any axiomatic treatment.

This whole story reminds me of an article I read in Scientific American which pointed out, that due to cosmic expansion, in 100 billion years all galaxies away from our local group will be traveling away from us at super-light speed, implying we cannot in principle see them or know anything about them. Inhabitants of the local group, now combined into a supergalaxy, will think that they are an island in infinite space. Furthermore, with all galaxies beyond our observable horizon, we won't be able to detect cosmic expansion, thus removing theoretical justification for a Big Bang. Our progeny, unless they have good records, will not have any reason to believe true physical facts about our Universe. In fact, future scientists might propose the existence of other galaxies or a Big Bang, and be shot down for unprovable junk science. So the current laws of Physics contain the seeds of their own limitation, just as with number theory. We can predict, using current Physics, that our progeny will not be able to detect facts about the Universe which we consider objective hard, facts. From here it's a small leap to realize that there are objective facts about our Universe that we will never be able to know because the information has already been lost.

Both these scenarios point to the fact that knowledge contains the seeds of its own limitation. This doesn't invalidate the reasoning process, but rather shows just how powerful and far-reaching reasoning can be. It is so powerful that it can even detect that it fails to completely capture all of reality!

The Lazy Poster

I just wrote a friend of mine in response to a letter he sent me essentially decrying theism. I'm reproducing the letter here since it is in the spirit of this blog, and also gets me off the hook for needing to post something.


Well, Jeff, I don't actually consider myself a theist. In fact, I'm committed to the principle of holding beliefs based on reasoning and evidence. I don't believe in an all-powerful deity. However, I don't necessarily agree that religion is dangerous. As I outlined in my email, there isn't much evidence that I can see that religion per se is destructive. I believe that many of humanity's current problems are caused by fundamental aspects of human psychology. For example, the instinct to band with a group of people and identify oneself as a member. I think this is why racism and sexism have been such problems, and why nations go to war. If the Israelis and the Palestinians weren't so concentrated on their labels as Israelis and Palestinians, then there would be no need for the continuing violence. Yes religion is present in the conflict, but I don't think it's the heart of the matter. I think it is a manifestation of the deep human instinct to band together and set oneself apart from some other group. (The atheist-theist dichotomy fits into this scheme too.)

I consider myself a Buddhist, and Buddhism is often considered an atheistic religion, though that is a gross oversimplification. I don't think you can really say Buddhism is either atheist or theist. The main point of Buddhism is not belief in a supreme deity, but rather the following of specific practices (like meditation) with which one can change one's perception, thinking and behavior for the better. I think there is much evidence that followers of Buddhism are a force for good in the world and not for evil. (The nonviolent protest by the monks of Burma against the reigning dictatorship is a good example.) However, even though I am partial to Buddhist thought, I think that there are good people in all religious traditions. (Gandhi, a Hindu, and Dr. Martin Luther King, a Christian, are really good examples.) People like Gandhi and King would no doubt have disagreed with the asinine pronouncements of many of the theists on the webpage you sent me. I agree that this sort of theism, the kind which is ill thought-out and intolerant is unacceptable. And our current politicians often appeal to this pseudo-religion, with stomach-turning results. That does need to be defended against I absolutely agree. But I don't think that labeling it as theist and therefore bad is the right way to go. I think that pointing out the immorality and injustice would be more effective and more accurate.

McCain Spoof video

Check out this spoof of the Obama "Yes We Can" video, in which McCain talks about how "the American people don't care if we're in Iraq for 100, 1000 or 10,000 years." I'd say that's not a fair assessment.

Happy New Year!

It's Losar, the Tibetan New Year. 2135. The year of the earth rat. (or earth mouse in one translation.)

Peace, happiness and prosperity to everyone reading this and to everyone else as well. May your day be as beautiful as an emerald mountain range at sunrise. May your mind be as tranquil as a crystal clear pond above the tree line. May your activity be as productive as the ribosomes in a single cell. May your metaphors be as outlandish as a peacock's tail made out of fiery stars.

Why I support Obama

I'm pretty sure all my readers are in Super Tuesday states, and I encourage you all to vote, no matter who you support. I actually already voted (early).

As far as I see it, Obama, Clinton, or even McCain, would be a huge improvement over Bush. After 9/11, I felt a spirit of hope, compassion and togetherness in the wake of the catastrophe. People seemed willing to help and support each other. It was like nothing I've ever experienced. A good leader would have capitalized on that oppurtunity to effect positive changes. He or she would have nurtured that spirit. Instead, Bush shabbily used the tragedy to promote his pre-existing agenda to attack Iraq. He completely squandered the good will in and outside the country, and tipped the balance from compassion to fear and hatred. It really felt awful in this country right around the time we attacked Iraq. I felt threatened for simply expressing my viewpoints.

Of the Democratic candidates, I think Obama has the potential to be most like the leader I envision. Certainly not an exact match. But he has the very useful skill to make impassioned and inspiring speeches that tend to bring people more toward the compassion side than the hatred side. Also, unlike Clinton, he did not vote for the Iraq war. Aside from that, their actual platforms are very very similar. Perhaps it's being unfair to Clinton, but she doesn't seem to have the same charisma. I also have been rather disillusioned with her for always making decisions based on whether she thinks it will maintain her electability. In other words, rather than trying to help the most, she is simply laying plans to get elected. Obama is certainly also guilty, but perhaps because of his shorter political career, less so.

One down side to both candidates: neither has any plans to reduce the size of the military or the defense budget. (We spend something on the order of magnitude of ten times more on defense than any other country, and it makes up an astounding percentage of our budget. It rather belies our fundamentally violent, imperialist nature.) Kucinich was my man for that, but he has dropped out in order to concenrate on maintaining his current congressional seat. (I encourage you to donate to his congressional campaign. We need voices like his in congress!)

Please post a comment if I'm being unfair.

Title pending

I would like to try to maintain this blog's irregular regularity. So I thought I'd describe what I'm doing now in terms of my Buddhist practice. Last year I completed the Four Ordinary Preliminary Practices, which are contemplations on the four thoughts that turn the mind toward the dharma. These thoughts are on

1. Precious human birth. Our current status as humans with time and ability to practice the dharma is incredibly rare, so rare that it would be foolish not to take advantage of the current opportunity.

2. Impermanence. Everything is impermanent, and so cannot be relied on for lasting happiness. Our current bodies will dissolve back into their component elements, and once that happens, we will not be able to take any of our possessions with us. Furthermore, if we have not practiced virtue, in our next life we will probably be born in a situation where we cannot practice the dharma, thereby accumulating more negative karma and perpetuating a very difficult cycle to break. Hence, we should practice virtue at all times. We don't know when we will die. Indeed, there are two certainties in life. That we will die, and that we don't know when. As the Buddha said, death comes upon you like a thief in the night.

3. Karma. Our actions have results, and when we perform virtuous activities, we achieve positive results. When we perform non-virtuous activities, we suffer. The results of our actions often take several lifetimes to manifest, but sometimes we can clearly see how our actions have led to results. For example, the alcoholic who sees his life collapsing around him will often attribute all of the negative events to bad luck, or the fact that world is out to get him, but once his mind clears a bit, he sees how all of these events were actually caused by his negative behavior. Similarly, right now there are many things which happen to us which seem random, but once our mind gets closer to enlightenment, we can see how our own behavior (in this and previous lives) has caused them. So knowing that our actions have consequences, we resolve to live virtuously.

4. The defects of samsara. Samsara is the cycle of existence in which most beings are trapped. I alluded to this cycle before. Basically negative actions lead to negative results which lead to more negative actions. Activity which seems virtuous can also lead to negative results. For example, doing something virtuous with the hope of looking good, or of getting a pleasant rebirth-- i.e. motivated by attachment and clinging-- can lead to rebirth in a Gods realm. Here life is great but once your supply of virtue has been exhausted, you die, and the immense suffering you feel as a result of having to leave will often propel you into a miserable rebirth. So the idea is to move away from cyclic existence, practicing virtue while not being attached to future happiness. A quote from the Buddha, talking to the monk Subhuti, is helpful here:

"Subhuti, those who would now set forth on the Bodhisattva path should thus give birth to the thought: `However many beings there are in whatever realms of being might exist, whether they are born from an egg or born from a womb, born from water or born from the air, whether they have form or no form, perception or no perception or neither perception or no perception, in whatever conceivable realm of beings one might conceive of beings, in the realm of complete nirvana, I shall liberate them all. And though I thus liberate countless beings, not a single being is liberated."

In other words, the way to become liberated (from samsara) is to aspire to help others achieve the highest form of happiness, which is to be liberated themselves, but not to be attached to the idea of doing so. A Buddha is able to encompass all sentient beings with his compassion, whereas beings like us who are still progressing on the path can only have compassion for a (small) finite number of beings.


Okay, so those are the four thoughts that comprise the four ordinary preliminary practices. Now, under the instruction of Lama Norlha Rinpoche, I'm doing the four "extraordinary" preliminary practices (Tibetan: Ngondro). The four sections of this are

1. Prostrations
2. Vajrasattva mantra recitation
3. Mandala offerings
4. Guru yoga.

I've been doing prostrations and Vajrasattva recitations since last July, and I just learned how to do the Mandala offerings. I haven't yet started Guru yoga. For each section, one must to 111,111 repetitions, although Rinpoche has said we only have to do 10,000 each to go to the next stage. He has expressed the wish that we complete all 111,111 in our lifetimes. These four activities engage different aspects of our body, speech and mind. Mandala offering, which I'm just learning how to do, for example involves offering a visualized universe full of beautiful objects to the Buddhas, thereby accruing vast amounts of merit. When one does this, one drops piles of rice on a mandala plate as a symbolic representation of this visualized universe, and repeats this over and over while reciting the liturgy in Tibetan. It's a form of tactile meditation or mantra, I would say. (This doesn't replace sitting meditation, but complements it.)

Anyway, that's the state of my practice now!

The good stuff

May all beings have happiness and the causes of happiness.
May they be free from suffering and its causes.
May they not be parted from the true bliss that knows no suffering.
May they abide in equanimity, free from attachment and aversion, that hold some close and others distant.

Evidence based theology?

As a thought experiment, let's assume we know nothing of what a deity is, and then try to derive some properties. I feel, along with many other intelligent people, that there is a way to be spiritual and yet be consistent with logic and reason, so this could be a worthwhile experiment. One of the first difficulties we encounter is that there is no good definition of "God." If one goes the simplistic route and defines God to be an omnipotent being, one gets into trouble since omnipotence is a logically inconsistent concept. (If God can do anything, he can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it.) Notice how I used "he" to describe God. This shows a lot of preconceptions that people have: that God is an intentional agent, and moreover, can be assigned a human gender! In any event, this simple argument shows that God, should one exist, is not all-powerful in the most simplistic sense. Indeed, if that were the case, he would snap his fingers and dissolve the suffering of the world in an instant. But the force of God evidently cannot instantaneously dissolve the suffering of the world. (I don't believe there is a difference here between "cannot" and "doesn't choose to." Aside from the problem of assigning intention to an unknown quantity, there is also the conundrum of whether one can ever choose to do act in a way differently than one actually acts. ) This solves a lot of the questions people have, and the reasons that are frequently given about why faith is not an option. But notice that it does not prove or even, to my current way of thinking, make a dent in the possibility of a spiritual force that can dissolve suffering, just not instantaneously. In fact, I believe that one need to be open to help from a spiritual force, in order to receive help, at least efficiently. We are more powerful than that spiritual force, in a gross sense, because we can choose to ignore it. It cannot control us like automatons. Yet, in a subtle sense, we are not more powerful than it, and in fact, I believe it is our innermost nature.

Today I Mused About

a claim by Freeman Dyson that research into telepathy is very difficult, as scientific rigor is almost impossible to arrange. For example, if telepathy is more likely in individuals in a state of emotional excitation, then a laboratory is not the place to see it. And I mused that there is a researcher who claims to have circumvented such problems by studying dogs instead of humans, supposedly finding, though I remain skeptical, that dogs will spend more time at the door of the house from the moment their owner decides to come home until the owner arrives, even accounting for instances when the owner decides to come home at an irregular time. I further mused that psychic research will never say anything definitive until we understand the mind much better, since the experiments offer no hint of a mechanism, and that is what would be needed to convince scientists.

Today I Learned

that store-brand green tea is better than Twining's.

Note: In an attempt to keep this blog new and interesting, I am shamelessly stealing La Misma's idea. Maybe I should change the title so it's not so flagrant. Hmm.

Juvenile Cooper's Hawk

I snapped a shot of this Cooper's Hawk in our backyard the other day. It was harassing a squirrel, which appeared to be in no danger. I suspect the hawk still hadn't quite perfected its hunting skills. The hawk would go after the squirrel somewhat hesitantly, and the squirrel would run around to the other side of the tree, and they would circle around for a few cycles, the hawk would give up and perch for a bit. This picture was taken when the hawk was perching in between bouts of squirrel chasing.

A cartoon that will make you laugh and cry

Karma Ghost on youtube.