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.

Interesting interview with Ethan Nichtern

Follow
this link

to read an interview with Ethan Nichtern who makes a well-reasoned case in the short space available that one needs to combine the spirituality of Buddhism with political and community activism. He has some meditation groups in NYC, so listen up, you New Yorkers! :)

What's up with the weird writing at the top of the blog, anyway?

This is Tibetan, and it spells out the mantra "OM MANI PEME HUNG." What that means is a bit complicated because the idea of a mantra is not widely understood in the west. The mantra itself is Sanskrit, the ancient religious and scholarly language of India, but it doesn't have a meaning in the same way a normal sentence does. Often one meditates using a mantra, repeating it over and over, sometimes with an accompanying visualization. The mantra is said to be imbued with deep spiritual power. It is associated with the bodhisattva of compassion Chenrezi, or as he is referred to in Sanskrit, Avalokiteshvara. When you chant it, so it is said, you will receive his blessing. One of my favorite visualizations with regard to this mantra, taught by Bokar Rinpoche, actualizes Chenrezi's promise to free all beings from their suffering. Each of the mantra's six syllables represents a different realm of existence in the world of cyclic existence, and as one chants the mantra, one imagines that all the sentient beings in each of those realms becomes liberated as you say each syllable. (The realms are the hell realms, where hellish experiences and misery dominates, the yidak realms, where unsatisfied desire dominates, the animal realm, where confusion and ignorance dominates, the human realm, which has a curious mixture of mental afflictions, the jealous gods realm, in which the sentient beings are jealous of others despite their paradisical surroundings, and the Gods realm, who are usually blissful, but suffer immensely when they realize the party's almost over.) There are other visualizations one can do as well. One could very simply meditate that one wishes to save all sentient beings from their suffering, or just concentrate on the sounds of the syllables as you say them. It is said that the syllables are Chenrezi (no equivocating by saying they merely represent him.) ), so that merely saying them without understanding or recognition has the power to liberate!

A.A. and religion

I may be a good spokesman for A.A. since my religious views are, at a surface level anyway, not particularly consonant with the Judeo-Christian preconceptions that inform much of the spiritual discussion in A.A. literature. First let me say that belief in a God is not a requirement for membership in A.A. The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. The founders of the program were actually quite far advanced in their thinking when they decided the program shouldn't have any connection to any particular religion. To be fair, the program does mention God, and synonymously talks about a Spirit of the Universe, and also a Higher Power. But Bill Wilson makes clear that there are a wide variety of spiritual approaches, unique to each individual, not any one more correct than any other. He specifically references William James's book "Varieties of Spiritual Experience" in this regard. A.A. has no specific agenda to promote. It consists of people passing on the methods that worked for them to stay sober. The newcomer must then take these suggestions, use common sense, think about them, test them out, and apply what seems to fit in his or her life. One common suggestion which makes good sense to me is to find someone in the program who seems to have what you want. (Contentment, joyfulness? I guess that's up to you.) Then try to emulate them, and perhaps ask them to be your sponsor. (The term "sponsor" is a relic from the days when new members wouldn't be allowed into a group until someone (a sponsor) vouched for them. It's really a good thing that that tradition was scrapped decades ago.) A sponsor is kind of like a mentor. You can ask them for advice, and the good ones are willing to help you out in a moment of weakness. If you crave a drink, they can talk to you on the phone about it, or come over and hang with you until the urge abates.

Anyway, just a public service announcement in case anyone who thinks they might be an alcoholic is reading this. I'm happy to give more info to anyone who wants it!

A good A.A. video

There's a good
A.A. video here. I can really identify with the guy waking up miserable and retching into the toilet.

A.A. has really worked miracles for me, by the way. I know I'm an alcoholic, even though I never lost my job or had any gross external consequences. Internally, I was miserable and appalled at the way alcohol controlled my behavior. Many times I vowed to quit, many times successfully for a period of time, but I was never able to stay stopped. With the help of A.A. message and it members, I was able to finally do it. Achieve stable sobriety.

Cheers!

Two year birthday

Today is my 2 year birthday. Not a drop of alcohol in two years.

Good article

Slips and Human Nature

by William Duncan Silkworth, M.D.

The mystery of slips is not so deep as it may appear. While it does seem odd that an alcoholic, who has restored himself to a dignified place among his fellowmen and continues dry for years, should suddenly throw all his happiness overboard and find himself again in mortal peril of drowning in liquor, often the reason is simple.

People are inclined to say, "there is something peculiar about alcoholics. They seem to be well, yet at any moment they may turn back to their old ways. You can never be sure."

This is largely twaddle. The alcoholic is a sick person. Under the technique of Alcoholics Anonymous he gets well - that is to say, his disease is arrested. There is nothing unpredictable about him any more than there is anything weird about a person who has arrested diabetes.

Let's get it clear, once and for all, that alcoholics are human beings. Then we can safeguard ourselves intelligently against most slips.

In both professional and lay circles, there is a tendency to label everything that an alcoholic may do as "alcoholic behavior." The truth is, it is simple human nature.

It is very wrong to consider any of the personality traits observed in liquor addicts as peculiar to the alcoholic. Emotional and mental quirks are classified as symptoms of alcoholism merely because alcoholics have them, yet those same quirks can be found among non-alcoholics too. Actually they are symptoms of mankind!

Of course, the alcoholic himself tends to think of himself as different, somebody special, with unique tendencies and reactions. Many psychiatrists, doctors, and therapists carry the same idea to extremes in their analyses and treatment of alcoholics.

Sometimes they make a complicated mystery of a condition which is found in all human beings, whether they drink whiskey or buttermilk.

To be sure, alcoholism, like every other disease, does manifest itself in some unique ways. It does have a number of baffling peculiarities which differ from those of all other diseases.

At the same time, any of the symptoms and much of the behavior of alcoholism are closely paralleled and even duplicated in other diseases.

The slip is a relapse! It is a relapse that occurs after the alcoholic has stopped drinking and started on the A.A. program of recovery. Slips usually occur in the early states of the alcoholic's A.A. indoctrination, before he has had time to learn enough of the A.A. techniques and A.A. philosophy to give him a solid footing. But slips may also occur after an alcoholic has been a member of A.A. for many months or even several years, and it is in this kind, above all, that often finds a marked similarity between the alcoholic's behavior and that of "normal" victims of other diseases.

No one is startled by the fact that relapses are not uncommon among arrested tubercular patients. But here is a startling fact - the cause is often the same as the cause which leads to slips for the alcoholic.

It happens this way: When a tubercular patient recovers sufficiently to be released from the sanitarium, the doctor gives him careful instructions for the way he is to live when he gets home. He must get plenty of rest. He must drink plenty of milk. He must refrain from smoking. He must obey other stringent rules.

For the first several months, perhaps for several years, the patient follows directions. But as his strength increases and he feels fully recovered, he becomes slack. There may come the night when he decides he can stay up until ten o'clock. When he does this, nothing untoward happens. Soon he is disregarding the directions given him when he left the sanitarium. Eventually he has a relapse.

The same tragedy can be found in cardiac cases. After the heart attack, the patient is put on a strict rests schedule. Frightened, he naturally follows directions obediently for a long time. He, too, goes to bed early, avoids exercise such as walking upstairs, quits smoking, and leads a Spartan life. Eventually, though there comes a day, after he has been feeling good for months or several years, when he feels he has regained his strength, and has also recovered from his fright. If the elevator is out of repair one day, he walks up the three flights of stairs. Or he decides to go to a party - or do just a little smoking - or take a cocktail or two. If no serious aftereffects follow the first departure from the rigorous schedule prescribed, he may try it again, until he suffers a relapse.

In both cardiac and tubercular cases, the acts which led to the relapses were preceded by wrong thinking. The patient in each case rationalized himself out of a sense of his own perilous reality. He deliberately turned away from his knowledge of the fact that he had been the victim of a serious disease. He grew overconfident. He decided he didn't have to follow directions.

Now that is precisely what happens with the alcoholic - the arrested alcoholic, or the alcoholic in A.A. who has a slip. Obviously, he decides to take a drink again some time before he actually takes it. He starts thinking wrong before he actually embarks on the course that leads to a slip.

There is no reason to charge the slip to alcoholic behavior or a second heart attack to cardiac behavior. The alcoholic slip is not a symptom of a psychotic condition. There's nothing screwy about it at all. The patient simply didn't follow directions.

For the alcoholic, A.A. offers the directions. A vital factor, or ingredient of the preventive, especially for the alcoholic, is sustained emotion. The alcoholic who learns some of the techniques or the mechanics of A.A. but misses the philosophy or the spirit may get tired of following directions - not because he is alcoholic, but because he is human. Rules and regulations irk almost anyone, because they are restraining, prohibitive, negative. The philosophy of A.A. however, is positive and provides ample sustained emotion - a sustained desire to follow directions voluntarily.

In any event, the psychology of the alcoholic is not as different as some people try to make it. The disease has certain physical differences, yes, and the alcoholic has problems peculiar to him, perhaps, in that he has been put on the defensive and consequently has developed frustrations. But in many instances, there is no more reason to be talking about "the alcoholic mind" than there is to try to describe something called "the cardiac mind" or the "TB mind."

I think we'll help the alcoholic more if we can first recognize that he is primarily a human being - afflicted with human nature.

A dream

Every once in a while I have a lucid dream, a dream where conscious awareness is present. These are treasures for me, partly I suppose because they are a novel mental state, and I'm naturally curious about such things, but I think it's also because I think it is always good to become more aware and more conscious. Normally in the dream state and while sleeping, awareness is fettered, but in lucid dreams the chains are loosened. I had a lucid dream a while back where I suddenly found myself aware that I was dreaming, while driving a car. So, and this must be my mind's natural tendency, I decided I was going to control the dream and make something happen. I decided to make the car move straight up into the air. What actually happened was that the front end of the car moved slightly up in the air, the dream broke, and I woke up.

This morning I had another lucid dream of a similar character. While the dream was not lucid, I dreamt that I found a snake in my mala (string of prayer beads) which I thought was kind of neat, but when I went to remove it, I realized it was actually a giant earwig. So I went to brush the earwig away, and realized that there were three of them. When I went to brush them away, they started crawling and I realized each of them was also three smaller earwigs. Around this time, I had the insight "I'm probably dreaming right now." At this point, I was actually brushing away lots of dead insects from my text holder while sitting out on the front porch. I got rid of them all, which felt good, because it symbolized eliminating my negativities and obscurations, and true to form, decided to consciously do something in the dream. I thought that maybe I could see the Buddha, so I looked up into the sky, and I saw a roughly circular lighter area in the sky, which I though maybe was the Buddha, but not directly perceivable to me because of karmic obscurations. (Several stories like this appear in Buddhist texts, where Buddhas go unseen due to karmic obscuration.) But then the dream broke and I woke up.

I'd like to try to maintain the lucidity of such dreams longer than I have, and the idea seems to be that I shouldn't try to control the dream so much, but just enjoy the ride. These dreams occur so rarely for me that it's hard to practice having the right attitude. Ah well. I'm sure something will develop.

Taking Refuge

There is a ceremony which you go through when you become a Buddhist, called "Taking Refuge," and one repeats the refuge prayer often during one's continuing practice. But what does taking refuge mean? When one takes refuge, one is doing so in the so-called Three Jewels: Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. One is taking refuge as protection from the suffering of this world, and with the aspiration to eventually help all beings become enlightened. When I first heard about the concept of refuge, I found it difficult to understand and identify with. After all, how can the Buddha, who died 2600 years ago, offer me any protection? I've come to believe that, although the Buddha's body did in fact dissolve into its component elements, that the primordial mind of the Buddha, and of enlightened existence shines on, and pervades everything, particularly the layers of my own consciousness. Thus the Buddha is a real, solid support and source of protection. This past weekend I was at a retreat up in the mountains, and I had chosen to meditate outside on a back porch. As I meditated there, wrapped in a blanket at 6am, temperature below freezing, and gazing at the starry sky in front of me, I imagined the love and compassion of all the Buddhas surrounding me, offering me comfort and protection, just as the blanket offered me protection against the cold.

The Dharma is the living teaching of the Buddha, and is also a source of protection. It provides a means of progressing, of increasing our good deeds and reducing our negative actions. From personal experience, I can say that following the practices has helped to make me a kinder, gentler person. I'm certainly not anywhere near perfect, but I can see definite changes in the way I react to people and the way I react to my own emotions and thoughts.

Finally, the Sangha consists of those beings who have progressed further on the path to enlightenment than we have. If you think of the Buddha as the doctor, who prescribes us medicine, which is the Dharma, then one can think of the sangha as nurses and caregivers who help us take out medicine. In my own case, I've had the good fortune (i.e. karma) to come into contact with a wonderful practicing group in my hometown, and also to meet several teachers and Lamas, who, motivated by compassion, have helped to show me the way to progress.

By taking refuge, one recognizes that this world, driven by desire, hatred and ignorance, will not offer us lasting happiness, but that the Three Jewels offer us a true path to enlightenment.

I encourage you to take refuge. It has no risks, and even if you feel your commitment is not that strong, it will help to plant a seed.