Historic Buddhist Statues Destroyed in Maldives by Extremists. Why?

(PHOTO CREDIT: "Light of Buddha" by Loster20 for Free Digital Photos.net)

Similar to the Afghan Islamic Taliban’s destruction of the priceless Buddhist and other historic artifacts in 2001, an Islamic Extremist group has vandalized and destroyed precious Buddhist and Hindu statues in the Maldives which can never be made the same again to preserve the history. 

JAMES: This kind of destruction is derived from extremist beliefs, which are almost always rooted in fear of anything different. Any extreme, (whether liberal, conservative or religious) is dangerous because when you believe that you alone are good, and anything not like you is bad, then you're more likely to justify intolerance, destruction and death. The really sad aspect of this story is how anybody can be so consumed with fear and hatred that they feel the need to lash out in such a way.

A person that rotted with rage can not help but be miserable. Deep down inside, in their private moments of reflection, they must be suffering deeply. It's tragic that they can't see that they don't have to live this way to feel happy. Destroying an ancient statue is tragic, but statues crumble with time anyway. Yet hatred never ceases in its ability to destroy happiness, lives, families, countries and whole planets.

~I bow to the Buddha within all beings~

Colorado Town Allows Funeral Pyre Cremation.

CRESTONE, Colo. -- Belinda Ellis' farewell went as she wanted. One by one, her family placed juniper boughs and logs about her body, covered in red cloth atop a rectangular steel grate inside a brick-lined hearth. With a torch, her husband lit the fire that consumed her, sending billows of smoke into the blue-gray sky of dawn. The outdoor funeral pyre in this southern Colorado mountain town is unique. Funeral and cremation industry officials say they are unaware of any other place in the nation that conducts open-air cremations for people regardless of religion. A Buddhist temple in Red Feather Lakes, Colo., conducts a few funeral pyres, but only for its members. (Article by Ivan Moreno of the Associated Press)

James: I have long told family and close friends that my wishes upon death are to have my body cremated and the ashes spread through the four elements of nature: earth, fire, air and water. It is my hope that those ashes will be of benefit to the natural world that made this current life possible. It is a good reminder of the impermanence of life, and a powerful, visual aid to help us let go of the deceased. It seems as though it would help loved ones accept the reality of the death easier than dressing them in fancy clothes and applying make-up as though they are off to a party, rather than no longer alive. I feel that sealing that costumed corpse into a box, to bury in the ground, frozen in time, seems like it often makes the suffering of those left behind more painfully drawn out; leaving them lost to the enslavement of denial.

So, I am pleased to see my home state of Colorado taking the lead on allowing cremation by funeral pyre; especially when you consider the growing Buddhist population here who tend to favor cremation. I like the visual impact of it because so much of the death process in the West is hidden from view--even the current manner of cremating remains occurs behind closed doors. It seems very natural and fittingly appropriate for family and friends to be active participants in the disposal of the body. I don't think there is anything wrong with burying your family in the ground, if that's your style. However, I don't see why there should be laws outlawing cremation by funeral pyre if the proper regulations, authorities and guidelines are established. As well as a location deemed safe and sanitary for such a ceremony.

~Peace to all beings~

PHOTO: Cremation by funeral pyre in Crestone, Colorado, USA by Ivan Moreno for the Associated Press.

Is Buddhism a Religion? Yes, and No. How's That for a Koan?

We often talk about Siddhartha, the young man who became known as the Buddha, as if he were a god. The fact is that he was just a simple Indian guy, a human being like you and me. We think of him as some kind of super-genius for having attained complete spiritual awakening, but in fact his real genius was in showing how any one of us can attain the same awakening as he did. We describe him as a prince and a member of the elite royalty of his time, and we think that must have given him an advantage over us -- but the reality is that most of us today are probably better off, in material terms, than Siddhartha was. The point is, we shouldn't mythologize Siddhartha's life and think that his spiritual awakening was due to his special circumstances. Most of us today actually live in conditions very similar to Siddhartha's, in terms of our material situation.

James: This is something that many in the West don't understand. They think we worship Buddha when we bow to his statues. I think a segment of this misunderstanding stems from the Western idea of what a religion constitutes. The main religions practiced in the West all have the common denominator of a belief in an omnipotent being that rules over all humanity--a "God." Combine that with a relative cultural isolation of many Americans and you have a recipe for misunderstanding Buddhism and other non-Western belief systems.

Siddhartha was a truth seeker, nothing more. He wasn't looking for religion, as such -- he wasn't particularly interested in religion. He was searching for the truth. He was looking for a genuine path to freedom from suffering. Aren't all of us searching for the same thing? If we look at the life of Siddhartha, we can see that he found the truth and freedom he was seeking only after he abandoned religious practices. Isn't that significant? The one who became the Buddha, the "Awakened One," didn't find enlightenment through religion -- he found it when he began to leave religion behind.

James: I don't think this means that we should abandon monasteries, temples and teachers but it is a necessary caution in reminding practitioners that these things are tools to help us along the path that only we can walk. For example, I think we deify our teachers a bit and lean upon them sometimes too much like a crutch. Yet Buddha was clear that we can know the Dharma like the back of our hand but all that is worthless unless we set out on our own and put them into practice. No one can walk the path for us. No teacher can cure us of our suffering--regardless of how enlightened and talented they may be. So, in that sense Buddhism isn't a religion in the Western sense but rather, perhaps, a spiritual school. Let me be clear, however. It doesn't hurt to practice with others in a physical sangha because it offers us support and encouragement but just remember that Buddha had none of these things. And if he can do it, so can we.

After all, what would you do if you were the last Buddhist on Earth? Would you stop practicing because there were no more teachers, temples, statues and sanghas? Of course not. These things are maps but they aren't the path itself. Spiritual materialism and attachment to it's trimmings is just as sure a pitfall as falling into the delusional hole that we don't need any teaching or guidance at all. Ironically, fittingly and beautifully we come back to the conclusion that Buddhism itself should be approached with the middle-path mindset. The way we view it should be balanced between traditional practice and freelance adaptation to an individuals particular karma.

Neither wrong to attend a temple or monastery nor wrong to be more of a hermit Buddhist as Buddha initially was. Some teachers I have read will actually recommend certain students leave the monastery to study on their own as a hermit. So, there are many paths but only one Dharma. That said, neither I, nor Rinpoche are advocating we do away with Buddhism as a religion but rather to go beyond Buddhism as a religion. This means having the structural integrity of the Dharma as our foundation but we shouldn't let organized religion hold back our practice to where we simply copy someone else's practice. In my years of practice I have found that mimicking the path of someone else is simply yet another delusion.

To read the rest of Rinpoche's insightful article, simply click on this sentence.

~Peace to all beings~

Christopher Hitchens on the Why the Universe Doesn't Care About You.

Christopher Hitchens is a thorn to some and a champion to others, but to the cosmos he's nothing. The famous (or infamous, depending on your beliefs on religion) British Atheist is known for being up for a good fight; he now has a fight that is even daunting to his larger than life personality. That fight is against cancer but his acerbic wit is still, thankfully intact. In addition, his daunting challenge hasn't shaken his acceptance that none of us have guarantees in this life, which has prevented him from using too much of his precious days left to ask, "Why me?" His response to that question is almost koan material, which is ironic for not only a committed Atheist but a passionate advocate against religion altogether. To the dumb question “Why me?” the cosmos barely bothers to return the reply: Why not?

It's not an easy thing to admit because it feels like we're losing control over our life. However, this life was never "ours" to begin with, which I think it partly why so many people go through the "5 stages of grief" when facing the exacting, unbending and non-discriminating bringer of death (but also other crises in our lives). It is said that the ego-driven mind goes through 5 stages of grief before finally accepting the inevitable. The stages are as follows: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and finally Acceptance. Interestingly these stages seem to mirror the Buddhist process of accepting the reality of suffering and the impermanence of all phenomena. It's a thought that itches my brain with wondering, "Do awakened people such as the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh go through such a process when faced with death?" The answer chimes clearly like a temple bell calling all to meditation, "No, because if one hasn't accepted the unwavering power of impermanence and the delusion of our ego; how can one be fully awakened?" It makes me wonder too if most Buddhists are better prepared for death than others?

The Buddhist teaching that always comes to mind when I meditate and contemplate about the impermance of life comes from the famous and beautiful Diamond Sutra:

The Buddha asked, “Subhuti, if a man had a body as huge as a mountain, would he be a great man?” “No, Lord. Because “a great man” is only words, and being a great man is an illusion, created by the belief in ego.”

"So listen to this fleeting world:
A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream,
A flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream. --
So should you understand the world of the ego.”

James: And so it is with all things too; not just death. The sooner we accept that our ties to this body, personality, accomplishments and pleasures aren't anchored in rock after all but sand slipping through the fingers of time, is the sooner we overcome suffering to bloom like a lotus in the bright, clear, sky of radical acceptance. Letting go is when we are the most free like a rock climber floats suspended in the mid-air after letting go of a rock wall. If you've ever been rock climbing and been stuck on the rock wall out of fear of falling you cling to what little grip you have as if your life depended upon it. You have to face your deluded mind and make it let go of the fear of falling to free oneself from the panic and fear that is keeping you stuck in an unstable and uncomfortable state.

Just as with life, it is terrifying to let go of all that we know but that rock we are clinging to is not giving us much comfort, which makes us cling to it tighter. Yet whether our mind lets go of trying to control life or not; sooner or later it will have to let go. Christopher Hitchens has let go and is accepting the possibility of death. It must be said, however, that some cancer survivors have said that cancer was the best thing that happened to them. They state that it freed them from a lot of emotional baggage and suffering that was preventing true peace and happiness from blossoming in their life previously. Everything happens for a reason--so let go. You won't regret it because that letting go might just allow you to fly high into the peaceful heavens of awakening.

---End of Transmission---

Ground Zero Mosque Gets "O.k." but Still Faces Opposition.

So the much ballyhooed "Ground Zero Mosque" will go ahead and be built, which isn't just the right thing to do--It's the American thing to do. The opposition to this mosque said that it was too close to the "Ground Zero" site and was thus a slap in the face to the memorial of those Americans who died during the September 11th terrorist attacks. First of all let's clear something up right away; there were Muslims who died on 9/11 along side Christians and Jews. Including innocent Muslims upon the planes used as missiles. So when they say this mosque is spitting upon the memory of those who died I guess they only mean Judeo-Christians. This is intolerance disgustingly hidden behind the American flag to soften the face of their hatred toward all Muslims. Increasingly Americans are packaging radical beliefs behind symbols of good old Americana, which unfortunately often legitimizes such extremist ideologies to the vulnerable.

The people who are opposing the building of this mosque and cultural center are also standing in opposition to religious freedom in America, which we supposedly hold dear. This reverence for the freedom of religion is ironically often espoused by the very same people who are protesting this mosque!! They say this mosque is a monument to radical Islamic terrorism, which is beyond insulting and embarrassing to listen to as an American who works hard to be inclusive. It is the height of arrogance, stupidity and bigotry to lump all Muslims of the world in with Islamic terrorists who probably consist of less than one percent of the worlds BILLIONS of Muslims. Sadly, however, this is the kind of ugliness you often hear from Americans whose only connection with Islam is the 9/11 terrorists and the wars against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Anyone who has interacted with an average Muslim knows the truth; that most Muslims are peaceful, kind and tolerant of others. I spent two years living in West Africa where Islam is a popular belief system, and some of the nicest people I met there were in fact Muslim. The Muslims I met would invite me into their homes off the street and feed me like a welcome guest. And the irony perhaps to some was that I was there in West Africa as an official Christian missionary!! But that wasn't important to them or myself. I was a guest in their country and guests are treated with great respect in many Muslim households.

Out of respect for that invitation I refrained from talking religion but when the subject was raised by them, I would discuss it. However, it was always respectfully discussed by both sides. And interestingly, when we did converse about faith it was often about what we had in common rather than apart. Rather than preached to or insulted for my religion at the time, I was often shown the passages within the Qu'ran that speak reverently about Jesus Christ. And I, in turn, asked respectful questions to learn about a religion that was new to me at the time. Islam isn't an "evil" religion and most people would find that if they had an open, respectful and honest dialogue with the average Muslim that they'd find more in common than not.

In the end, Americans need to come to terms with what it means to be an American. If you think it's o.k. to ban a mosque because of 9/11 then by that same logic we should ban churches close to the sites of abortion clinic bombings too.

Reviewing "Not in God's Name" by Paula Fouce.

India. The cradle of Eastern spirituality (if not the capital of world religion) is where the documentary, Not in God's Name begins. And the nourishment of that spiritual child is the Ganges river. The beginning scenes on this mystical and legendary body of water are stunning in color, lighting and scope. Truly the imagery evokes sensations of viewing a unique and sacred place.

However, we are also reminded in these initial moments of the dark side of religion--hatred and violence. We are guided through this mine field by the Paula Fouce who spent many years traveling the subcontinent. She saw the best and worst in religion.

Including militant Sikhs who sought to secede from India but were violently expelled from their sacred shrine, which mixed two traditionally explosive ideologies together--religion and politics. In the aftermath many dead Sikhs and soldiers littered the streets and even the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi became a casualty of this clash.

She was assassinated for ordering the raid. As Indira Gandhi was a Hindu, her assassination pitted radicals of the two great religions of Hindiusm and Sikhism against each other. Religions that at their heart are supposed to be about peace and acceptance. I was moved by the images and in one particular quote by Blaise Pascal:

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious convictions."

The Dalai lama is interviewed for this documentary and he reminds us that the aim of most religions is to provide inner peace. In addition, he admonished us that there need not be one religion, and that they exist because of the various types of personalities upon this planet. In part I would suggest based on our different and varied karma.

The film goes on to spotlight the main religions of India (Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism) and how they have influenced the culture to create such a unique place in the spiritual world. Hindu sages and Muslim Imams speak about tolerance in the movie yet we are reminded as well that the two religions have often violently clashed. The movie made me think that unfortunately many adherents become blinded by pride and in doing so pervert their faith into a cause that succeeds only by the downfall of the faithful in other religions. This has often taken the form of violent clashes over disputed holy sites in a deluded clinging to the outward, physical representations of their faith. Sadly many see holy sites as able to provide some sort of outward infusion of spirituality into their inner lives. And while they can be helpful, clinging to them and fighting over them is not just counter to teachings of these great religions but violations of human dignity.

The Buddhist part was short but good and I especially liked the quote the great non-violent Ashoka would said that if you denigrate one religion who denigrate yourself. I also really liked how the narrator spoke of the Dalai Lama as not only being a symbol of political and religious freedom to Tibetans but to all people of the world.

My only complaint about this documentary was that the time line and narrative 0often jumped around a bit but yet the message was never diluted or lost because of that editing.

Not in God's Name is a testament and a potent, timely reminder of just how quickly religions can become the opposite of helping mankind evolve toward a more harmonious life and society. Overall I would suggest this documentary to anyone looking to better understand the many religions of India and how they interact. Another reason to see this film is that it is in the running for an Emmy award nomination in the Non-Fiction Special Category. The Los Angeles Times listed it as a front runner.

"Unmistaken Child," on Independent Lens

This PBS special brought me back to thinking once again about why I have not been able to call myself a Buddhist. Than Geoff (Thanissaro Bhikkhu) would tell me—has told me—not to worry my little head about such things, but the belief in reincarnation does seem to me to be the point at which Buddhism ceases to be the most healthy, rational, ethical way to live one’s life and becomes instead a religion. I struggle with this.

I hate to harp on about it, and realize that I speak out of very limited knowledge and understanding of these things, but I keep coming back to the position that everything about the teachings makes wonderfully good sense until we reach this ultimate point. As I have said perhaps too often in the past, I cannot wrap my mind around the notion that we keep returning to this world in a different incarnation after death until we reach enlightenment. It makes sense as a beautiful metaphor; not, to me, as a belief.

These thoughts inevitably occurred to me once again the other night as Ellie and I sat watching a recorded replay of “Unmistaken Child.” It’s the very beautiful, deeply moving story of a Tibetan monk, Tenzin Zopa’s search for the reincarnation of his beloved spiritual master Geshe Lama Konchong in the mountain villages of Tibet. After a long, arduous journey and many false leads he discovers, in a modest rural family, a chubby year-old boy who appears to recognize and “claim” the departed lama’s beads and other ritual objects. The boy‘s credentials are reviewed by the senior leaders, his astrological chart is examined, and he is eventually certified by the Dalai Lama himself as the authentic reincarnation of the master. The story ends with the tot’s richly ceremonial enthronement as the spiritual leader of his own monastery.

There is something extraordinarily compelling about this story. The majestic, snow-capped mountains and the green valleys of the region have something to do with it: the grand supremacy of nature over puny human beings is overwhelming. Unquestionable, too, is the faith of the villagers and the monks. Their faces radiate with it, and with the happiness it appears to bring them. To the Western mind, the circumstances of life are unimaginably bleak: tiny cottages of stone and wood, with only the barest of essentials; frigid temperatures and, in warmer weather, mud everywhere—most notably on the faces of the children! For heat, there are wood fires, and rough cots for beds. To most of us, it might seem impossible to find happiness in such harsh circumstances—but the eyes shine, the faces glow. Or am I projecting, along with the film-maker, my own patronizing and romantic dream about the uncomplicated rustic life?

The faith is touching. It is also omnipresent. We find ourselves on Tenzin Zopa’s journey in a world quite different from ours, where faith is less a matter of the loud profession of beliefs, of Sunday suits and sermons, and more a matter of the way life is lived, of daily ritual and observance. The monk’s profound love for his master amounts to a consuming passion, reflected in his dedication to the search. The faith of those he encounters along the way is clearly an essential part of their lives, and he is received everywhere with unquestioning respect for his spiritual status. There is a symbiotic relationship between the religious and the lay people that accords each his or her own standing—though it’s notable, as in all (?) religions, that the male predominates. The power rests clearly, in this Buddhist hierarchy, in the hands of men.

Religion as a way of life is one thing. It’s when it gets carried over into dogma and hierarchical structures—along with ostentatious ritual and what psychologists refer to as “magical thinking”---that my inner skeptic takes over. And all those things abound, it seems to me, in Tibetan Buddhism. True, there is something irresistibly appealing about those saffron robes and the colorful headgear, the chanting that seems to come from imponderable inner depths of being, the bowing and prostrations, the flapping prayer banners, the constant exchange of those white blessing scarves… There is something enchanting about the sober consultation with astrological charts, something seductive about a paternalistic authority that confers certainty and blessing, relieving us of a certain measure of responsibility and doubt…

And I do realize, of course, that this form of Buddhism is by no means the only one. There are many more “plain” practices than this, many more down-to-earth teachings and expressions of faith. But all of them, it seems to me, circle back to reincarnation and its companion concept, karma. Otherwise, there is nothing so far as I can tell to distinguish it from a philosophical understanding and a way of life—in which is suffices, amply, for me.

So I squirmed, in this story, to see a man as rational and enlightened as I believe the Dalai Lama to be, giving his seal of approval to those astrological charts submitted to him to validate the identity of this “unmistaken child.” I squirmed at what seemed, to my Western mind, an act of child abuse in snatching this child from his mother’s arms and his father’s loving care; at the sight of the little boy screaming as his head was forcibly shaved by the monks, despite his protests; at his bewilderment as the newly enthroned lama, approached for his blessing by untold masses of worshippers.

There is more to my skepticism, of course, than what I have touched on here. It reaches to religions other than Buddhism, and surely says as much about me as about the religions I mistrust. I plan to explore it further in another essay I have planned. Enough to say, at this point, that I loved "Unmistaken Child" despite—or perhaps indeed because of—the resistance that I felt.

Does Tiger Woods Practice Booty-ism or Buddhism?

Today is the day that Tiger Woods finally turns back to golf but of course the media won't stop talking about the scandal, so I figured I might as well take another crack at it myself. I'm not interested in the sexual escapades as that's his business. I try not to get involved with other peoples' sex lives. No, I'm talking about the Buddhist issue, which I guess in this instance sort of relates to the sexual issue but that's not my main point. My main point is about the use of Buddhist terms in relation to pop culture. Well, anyway, today someone thought it would be funny to fly a plane over the golf course with a banner that read, "Tiger, are you sure you didn't mean Booty-ism?"

Booty-ism of course being a mangling of the term "Buddhism." Booty, for all you none American English speakers is what some Americans use as slang for the butt. It's used in American street slang in the context of a "Booty call." That is a term referring to when one someone calls a "friend" on the telephone to meet up for sex. So, they're trying to be clever in making his religion, Buddhism sound similar to a sex term because of his past struggles with infidelity.

I'm not really offended over this one but the reason I am writing about it is to show how for all our intelligence, skills, education and rearing we humans are very childish. As I read on the great, "The Worst Horse," blog it's very sad that someone actually paid money to pay for that banner. This is the same kind of behavior I had to put up with in school with a last name like, "Ure." It's pronounced phonetically as, "Yewur" but the kids use to call me "Urine" as in the bodily fluid. Haha--very funny. I figured they were just jealous because I have a unique name with only three letters.

The point is that there are times to defend Buddhism and how it's used in our societies but we (or at least I) need to pick our battles. Otherwise, if we get upset over every bit of misuse of something Buddhist related we'd all be in the mental ward. That said, I enjoy dissecting a good "Dharma Burger." Speaking of which, Tiger is said to be getting Buddhist sayings on his Blackberry and asking for privacy in his hotel room for meditating. So, it's great to see Tiger walking the path again. I wasn't interested in his foibles as much as the Buddhist angle to the story. I'm not perfect, I have my weaknesses, I'm not a moral guide exactly so I leave that up to him and his wife. I mean, come on. Is his sex life really any of our business anyway?

~Peace to all beings~

Bill Maher: Buddhism is a Crock and Outdated.

The Worst Horse as usual is on its game in reporting another example of just how foreign Buddhism still is to many in the West. Bill Maher, the American comedian and t.v. show host (who I usually find hilarious) recently said some pretty uninformed things about Buddhism. His comments are in red and mine in yellow:

Maher: [Buddhism] really is outdated in some ways — the “Life sucks, and then you die” philosophy was useful when Buddha came up with it around 500 B.C., because back then life pretty much sucked, and then you died – but now we have medicine., and plenty of food

(James::Not all of us Bill, a lot of people in this world don't know where their next meal will come from. And medicine? Americans can't even afford medicine these days let alone impoverished countries. Go to Africa where I lived for two years and tell me there's enough food and medicine for everyone. Then tell me that thus there isn't much suffering from it.),

Maher: and iPhones, and James Cameron movies – our life isn’t all about suffering anymore.

(James: And life wasn't all about suffering back in Buddha's time either)

Maher: And when we do suffer, instead of accepting it we try to alleviate it,

(James::Buddhists seek to alleviate suffering too but we also have had the revelation that no amount of "relieving" can end the suffering. What Buddhists are more interested in other than alleviating suffering is to END suffering once and for all through, what I would consider to be the first "12 Steps" program that is the Eight-Fold Path). If Buddha saw life as hopeless as Maher believes he taught then why would he have even tried to develop a system to deliver himself from it?

Maher: Tiger said, “Buddhism teaches that a craving for things outside ourselves” makes us unhappy, which confirms something I’ve long suspected about Eastern religions: they’re a crock, too. Craving for things outside ourselves is what makes life life

(James: And despite its highlights, life is full of a lot of suffering Bill. There isn't enough money--even for a lot of millionaires who won't be "satisfied" until they get a BILLION dollars. Even those that spend their money can never buy enough houses, clothes, boats, vacations to feel satisfied for long. We lust after something until we get it and then quickly become bored with it and we return again to enslaving ourselves to crave once more. Buddha didn't say that we couldn't enjoy life but that we should enjoy life in moderation to reduce our suffering, and he laid out a path that many people have followed over the millennia toward lasting peace of mind and happiness.

And Buddha didn't command any of this, which is what I think separates Buddhism from many of the traditionally defined, "religions." Buddha encouraged seeing for oneself if his techniques do indeed bring about a greater peace and a life of less suffering by direct experience, which isn't unlike the scientific method where direct observations are the basis of knowledge. Pursue a life of constant seeking for the next "buzz of pleasure" and then live life for at time following the Buddha's guidelines and see, which way gives you the strongest feeling of satisfaction and happiness of life. If you find you think Buddhism is only causing you more problems then best of luck. Sincerely. A lot of people come and go with Buddhism. Buddhism doesn't want to force anyone to do anything. Buddhism would rather let the people come to it so that they are making a choice of their own free will and feel ready to follow such a path).

Maher: — I don’t want to learn to not want, that’s what people in prison have to do

(James: We're in a prison, now, Bill--look around you--We Want a better job, want a new car, want our body to heal quicker or look sexier, want our spouse to change to how we think they should be, and on and on. It's a prison without bars that lures us with shiny new distractions to keep us from finding a way out of the suffering. However, it doesn't have to be an either or proposition as you're stating. You're saying Buddhism says "life sucks, it has no meaning, purpose or value" but that is a common misconception. That isn't Buddhism--that's nihilism. Buddhism teaches that there is a way to live in balance with things of the world yet reduce your long-term suffering. That is what Buddhism offers).

Maher: And reincarnation? Really? If that were real, wouldn’t there be some proof by now? A raccoon spelling out in acorns, “My name is Herb Zoller and I’m an accountant.” …something?

(James: First of all not all Buddhists believe in reincarnation. A lot of Buddhists believe in rebirth and yet still others believe in neither. As for proof? Even science says that energy never disappears but simply changes form. There are many Buddhists who say that it doesn't really matter much what happens after death (if anything) because the only moment we have is this one. For these Buddhists they focus on the rebirth that happens within this lifetime. For example, I am a completely different person from who I was 10-12 years ago when I was an ardent Mormon who was politically conservative. Now I am a Liberal Buddhist!!

But the point of rebirth, in my view, isn't so much about whether we are reborn a slug, or even reborn at all but rather that we realize how our actions affect our future. It's about becoming aware of how we alone are the architects of our own life and what our life becomes is directly influenced by our actions. So, for me, it comes down to what you reap is what you sow. And if all you water are seeds of hatred, greed and delusion then you will reap a lot of misery but if you water seeds of love, compassion and patience then you will reap the opposite and leave a better world behind then when you were born into it.

Maher: People are always debating, is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy: it’s a religion. You’re a religion if you do something as weird as when the Buddhist monks scrutinize two-year-olds to find the reincarnation of the dude who just died, and then choose one of the toddlers as the sacred Lama: “His poop is royal!” Sorry, but thinking you can look at a babbling, barely-housebroken, uneducated being and say, “That’s our leader” doesn’t make you enlightened. It makes you a Sarah Palin supporter.

(James: Bill, I like you--I really do, and while I think your usually well informed, on Buddhism you're quite ignorant. Only one school of Buddhism believes that their teachers are reincarnated, and that's Tibetan Buddhism. If you have a problem with Tibetan Buddhism then take that up with the Dalai Lama, but I would have expected you to know better than to lump all Buddhists together. I didn't want to write this to defend Buddhism so much as to explain it, as best as a common practitioner like myself can to those who aren't familiar with Buddhism so they, can hear both sides).

~Peace to all beings~

Tiger Woods Credits Buddhism in Helping Him Deal with Cravings.

(PHOTO: [Getty images] Tiger Wood's embraces his mother who is a devout Buddhist)

Personally I don't care too much about the whole Tiger Woods "scandal" except how Buddhism fits into it. I'm not one of these people who feels that Tiger Woods personally owes me an apology or any kind of explanation of what he's dealing with. He's apologized to the public and yet that's not enough for some people. They want their pound of flesh. Why do some people live through the lives of celebrities like they are apart of their lives to where they'd deserve an apology? Just leave him and his family alone to deal with their issues. The media is asking, was his apology enough to gain the forgiveness of the public?" As if we all are apart of his personal life!!

This obsession we have in America of worshiping celebrities and then tearing them down when they show that they're human, (just like us) is a highly corrosive aspect to our society. It is escapism to live vicariously through other people, so that we don't have to face our own struggles, obstacles and weaknesses. So, when these celebrities inevitably miss the mark of perfection we feel let personally let down because we have this delusion that our happiness is somehow tied up into how they live their lives. Personally, I think that this incident is between him and his wife but he said in his public statement that Buddhism is helping him deal with his sexual attachments and that's what I'd most like to focus on in this post. Woods said:

"I have a lot of work to do, and I intend to dedicate myself to doing it. Part of following this path for me is Buddhism, which my mother taught me at a young age. People probably don't realize it, but I was raised a Buddhist, and I actively practiced my faith from childhood until I drifted away from it in recent years. Buddhism teaches that a craving for things outside ourselves causes an unhappy and pointless search for security. It teaches me to stop following every impulse and to learn restraint. Obviously I lost track of what I was taught."

James: Buddhism is a compassionate religion, which I think demands that we give people a second chance because who amongst us hasn't needed one ourselves? I think we should be supporting him whole-heartedly in his pursuit to free himself from samsara. It is quite common for humans to turn to spirituality in times of need and suffering. In that sense perhaps something good can come out of the ashes of Tiger's previous life. In some ways our suffering does us a favor in channeling us toward a path to free ourselves from that misery but you can't force that path onto someone who isn't ready. I think that is in part why we Buddhists don't do much proselytizing. Buddhism doesn't come to you, you have to come to it. Because proselytizing often involves using coercion and fear, which causes suffering. So you're basically causing people suffering to get them to overcome their suffering!! It's a futile exercise. Once Tiger was ready, the teacher arrived to help him blaze a new trail, and I for one wish him the best and support his recovery and dedication to living a life with less suffering.

Perhaps in a strange way to others, Tiger Woods is a role model again in drawing attention to how much attachments can make us suffer and how one can go about alleviating it. So says renowned Buddhist teacher Jack Kornfield, "The fact that people could see this kind of behavior causes suffering is an incredibly important message for all kinds of people who respect Woods." If someone with such a high profile as Woods can inspire others to deal with their own toxic suffering then this whole situation will have been positive overall. That is where he'll find redemption. He has the potential in this moment to inspire countless people to excel at more than golf. Besides working through this with his family, I can't think of a better way for him to find the redemption he seeks. The compassion in Buddhism is seen in part how each moment we can start a new. May Tiger, his family and his ex-lovers find the peace and happiness that all sentient beings deserve.

~Peace to all beings~

Brit Hume Doesn't Think He Denigrated Buddhism.

James: So Brit claims he didn't denigrate Buddhism in his original comment when he said that the Buddhist faith doesn't offer forgiveness or redemption. He has basically cast Buddhism as a cold, unforgiving religion that offers no hope for all of us imperfect beings. I try not to attach too much to my Buddhist beliefs but that was indeed an uneducated comment at best and at worst down right bigotry. You and Bill then claim that you weren't proselytizing but you were attempting to influence Woods to turn to Christianity -- That is proselytizing. Christians can proselytize all they want but for a high-profile journalist to do it on national t.v. is rather unseemly. In addition, to dismiss half a billion Buddhists at the same time wasn't exactly, "Christ-like" which isn't a very good way to convince Buddhists to convert to Christianity.

Brit then uses the classic fall-back defense of many Christians, which is playing the martyrs role after he received a lot of negative feedback from viewers. He does this by claiming that the critical comments were attacks on his Christian faith!! So, he denigrates Buddhism and when he takes heat for those comments he turns it around and tries playing the victim!! Classic. He says that we're all just concerned because he dared mention Christianity. Oh how arrogant!! We had an explosive reaction because you dismissed our belief system, which happens to be one of the great religions of the world!! Isn't doesn't have anything to do with attacking Christianity itself!! At least not from me and other Buddhists I know.

And this title, "believer" that some Christians call themselves seems rather pompous because anyone who believes in a religion is a believer. They seem to use it to purposefully divide themselves from others. And it's often said with an undertone of superiority. It just doesn't seem like something that Jesus would say -- and I was a Christian for 22 years!! Even then I didn't like the label, "believer."

UPDATE: I've added the "Share This" widget to the bottom of each post to better enable sharing Buddhist Blog posts with others. All the forms of sharing that you could ever want are there (Digg, Facebook, Twitter, Email, etc). So just click on the "Share This Post" link at the end of each post to access this option.

~Peace to all beings~

A Question for Brit Hume.

We all know by now that Brit Hume slammed Buddhism this past weekend by saying Tiger Woods needs to turn to Christianity if he wants to be forgiven and redeemed. The irony being that by bringing up Buddhism on such a public level he has sparked curiosity in the religion. That said, Buddhists really don't care how many Buddhists there are in comparison to other religions. We're not interested in competing with other belief systems. We don't do the proselytizing thing. It's a bit too forceful for us easy going Buddhists. For a more in-depth analysis of this statement click here to read my original post but for the purposes of this post I want to ask Brit a question.

You say Christianity is the way to go and that Buddhism is lacking. However, you didn't specify, which church is the right one? What if Woods chooses the wrong one and every day he just keeps making "God" angrier and angrier? You didn't stop to think about that one did you? Stick to the news, Brit or enroll in a theology course and get educated. Better yet, go interview an actual Buddhist -- You're a journalist, so, go find out the facts of Buddhism before you denigrate the religion of 330 million people. Thank-you.

Skepticism in Buddhism is Good.

I think skepticism is very admirable, and rather unusual. The history of the world reveals that people are drawn to those who provide a strong, uncompromising teaching. We're drawn to those who say, "This is it, and everyone else is wrong." Certainly we see this pattern in contemporary politics, but we also see abuse of this sort within spiritual circles. It makes you wonder: Do we really want freedom? Can we handle the responsibility? Or would we just prefer to have an impressive teacher, someone who can give us the answers and do all the hard work for us?

–Larry Rosenberg, from "The Right to Ask Questions," Tricycle, Fall 2003

James: Buddhism is by nature a skeptical belief system. Buddha was very much a skeptical being who discovered enlightenment because of a healthy questioning of the accepted explanations of reality at the time. He dared question the great Brahman leaders of the day and was thus seen as a rebel of sorts. We are descendants of that tradition as taught by the Buddha within the Kalama Sutra where he teaches and even encourages thinking for yourself and not believing something if it doesn't ring true through your own experiences. The Kalama Sutra is the keystone of my Buddhist beliefs because without the freedom of inquiry and acceptance of differences as a foundation; Buddhism is just another intolerant, rigid, controlling belief system.

I feel that Buddhism treats me like an adult and allows me greater freedom. Whereas in the brand of religion that I was raised with (Mormon Christianity) it felt the complete opposite. I felt like it saw me as a child not to be trusted with thinking for myself and I felt like I was constantly being talked down to and seen as a threat or "evil" when I questioned the "parents" (church leaders, doctrine, etc). I didn't feel trusted and that made me frustrated, angry, confused, cynical, resentful and ultimately I left feeling completely deceived. I felt like I was being punished for thinking for myself. Of course the monotheist religions, (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) like all forms of religion have their good qualities but for me personally it was too controlling and domineering. It's only natural to feel that way when you don't feel trusted or ever good enough by any group, organization or ideology.

A teacher in Buddhism will give you pointers and advice but you won't be somehow kicked out of Buddhism if you don't follow it word for word or even at all. Unless of course you're a monk but becoming a monastic who actually seeks out such a strict code of living and practicing is a decision made individually for the most part. Even then a monk might be asked to leave the monastery but they are still allowed to practice that form of Buddhism. Whereas in my former, monotheistic religion I felt like everyone was held to such a standard and if you wanted to practice in a less rigid way you were considered weak, inadequate and all too often reprimanded and even excommunicated.

After leaving that religion I was looking for a belief system that was more tolerant for such reasoned scrutiny. As well as allowing for a lot more personal freedom in tailoring the teachings to each person's unique and particular life. I found that in Buddhism, which is anchored in how our karma varies from being to being. Karma demands greater freedom to explore and personalize one's practice. So doubt in Buddhism isn't a "sin" (there is no such thing as sin anyway in Buddhism). In fact doubt can lead to some very powerful insights into spirituality as the exploration is personal and not spoon fed to you. This is not to say that monotheistic religions don't have aspects of personal exploration but it is very limited I have found in comparison to Buddhism.

There are, however, fellow converts in Buddhism that I find from time to time who do practice with similar rigidity, exclusivity and over-bearing reverence, which I saw so much in my monotheistic past. I have found that these people are often former monotheists as well who might have adopted Buddhism but they practice it by the way they use to practice their former religion. I believe that Buddhism isn't just about adopting different beliefs but changing one's entire approach to how religion is practiced.

Addendum: Special thanks to Phillip Ryan over at Tricycle for the quote.

Thich Nhat Hanh's Disciples in Vietnam Facing Turmoil.

By BEN STOCKING Associated Press Writer

HANOI, Vietnam August 1, 2009 (AP)

Communist Vietnam's sometimes edgy relationship with religious freedom is being tested in a dispute over a monastery inhabited by disciples of Thich Nhat Hanh, one of the world's most famous Zen masters. For four years, the Buddhist monks and nuns at Bat Nha monastery in central Vietnam have been quietly meditating and studying the teachings of the 82-year-old Vietnamese sage who is perhaps the world's best-known living Buddhist after Tibet's Dalai Lama. But lately, they are in a standoff that could test the patience of even the most enlightened. First, local authorities cut off their power, water and telephones. Then, a mob descended on their compound with sledgehammers, smashing windows, damaging buildings and threatening occupants.

Communist authorities have ordered the 379 Vietnamese monks to leave the monastery in Vietnam's Central Highlands. They say the standoff stems from disagreements between two Buddhist factions at the monastery. But Hanh's followers believe they are being punished because of Hanh's praise for the Dalai Lama and his call to broaden religious freedom in Vietnam. The affair represents a remarkable turnaround from four years ago, when France-based Hanh returned to his native land after 39 years of exile during which he developed a philosophy called "Engaged Buddhism" and sold more than a million books in the West. The abbot at Bat Nha, which belonged to the official Buddhist Church of Vietnam, invited Hanh's followers to train monks in their brand of Buddhism at the temple there. The letter also said that Hanh's followers should leave Bat Nha and stressed that Abbot Duc Nghi, the property's original owner, wanted them to go. Nghi could not be reached, and committee members declined to comment, saying they needed several days to arrange an interview.

Sister Dang said the Plum Village followers were taken by surprise when Nghi told them to leave because the abbot had visited the monastery in France two or three times and seemed to respect Hanh. She theorized that Nghi must have been pressured from above to ask the Plum Village practitioners to leave. Otherwise, she said, any tensions between the two camps could have been resolved.

James: Vietnam will one day have full religious freedom and what a joy that day will be!! I hope to visit this beautiful, stunning country one day but I don't have the money to travel there right now. When I do, however, I hope to meet a reader from Vietnam--I know there are some from that great country who read this blog and I thank-you for reading. May the power of the people seeking freedom break down the cold structure of Communism and in a peaceful, Gandhi-like fashion. Trying to contain freedom is like trying to contain water. Water blocked by unbending, restrictive rocks will always find a way to erode them and continue on its way toward joining the open, vast freedom of the sea and ocean. Water has carved through some of the strongest rock to form natural wonders that inspire awe, respect and unrestrained possibilities. The concept of change as taught in Buddhism is no exception.

The saying, "Time heals all wounds" is over-used and sometimes simplistic but is important to remember as it enables people to endure things that they thought weren't possible and for longer periods of time than thought possible. Buddhists seem better prepared and capable of enduring long hardship and suffering than some because of the Buddha's teachings of the inevitability of suffering, dealing with anger but also the inevitability of change. In this case the inevitability that Vietnam will change it's government and allow full and fair religious freedom.

Thich Nhat Hanh speaks often of the idea of seeds, "The seed of suffering in you may be strong, but don't wait until you have no more suffering before allowing yourself to be happy."
— Thich Nhat Hanh (The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching).

James: I need to hear those words right now because lately I've been struggling.Whether we suffer the oppression of an authoritarian government or from an authoritarian mental illness like I do we lessen our suffering by finding the good in the little things, which upon further reflection are anything but little. It's easier said than done but for example, I always amaze myself at how much joy and peace can be found in focusing on the vibrancy and beauty of nature. A simple rainstorm can change the mood of my entire day toward one of increased relaxation and renewal. Gazing mindfulfully upon a simple flower swaying gently in the breeze can give me great comfort that signs of happiness can still be found despite all the misery and suffering in the world. Especially those hearty flowers, which sprout up inbetween rocks. In addition, Buddhism lends itself well to practicing alone if an organized sangha is not possible because of religious oppression such as in Vietnam and China.

It's hard for an oppressive regime to police what people do in the privacy in their own homes and a small altar is easy to hide. Meditation is often done quietly, which makes it easy to practice without drawing attention. Thich Nhat Hanh knows this well and teaches that meditation can be done while walking, working, enjoying music, physical exercise, etc. Hanh teaches like all wise Buddhist masters that even if we live in a religiously open and free society that meditation shouldn't be a separate part of our lives, which we only practice in formal settings/sessions. Otherwise it becomes just another hobby, which is fun but without deeper intigration into one's daily activities dies out like a fad. Another example would be like trying to cure a sickness through a patch on the skin rather than injecting it into the blood stream.

In keeping with the teaching of seeds, Nhat Hanh teaches that we all have the seeds for violence, ambivilance, peace and loving-kindness. I hope that my Vietnamese brothers and sisters can water the seeds of love and not anger because in watering the seeds of anger we are watering the seeds to our own destruction. The easy answer is what the ego-mind goes toward first and often that is anger, which is a seed that like a weed grows quickly with little watering and can quickly grow out of control. Anger/violence might feel good and seem to be the answer at first but that quickly fades and often leads to an even stronger backlash by the other side. If both sides keep watering those seeds the anger and violence can spiral to such an extent that eventually it will destroy both sides completely. Total annilation isn't in anyone's interest.

I hope this post doesn't sound too simplistic or that I think the solutions in Vietnam are easy and simple because I know that they aren't. I am also very much aware that it is easy for me to sit here in America in the comfort of my home, enjoying my religious freedom and advise others about dealing with an authoritarian government. However, my intentions are to provide encouragement as well as encouragement to myself in dealing with my oppressive mental health. It gives me hope and I always underestimate the power of hope. The beauty of Buddhism is that we know this hope will ripen one day into reality as change of all kinds is inevitable--yes, even change for the better, which I have to remind myself daily it seems being a born pessimist.

It sounds cliche to focus on the seemingly little things that bring happiness into our lives and sometimes it doesn't always work but when it does it sure changes my entire perspective. It's amazing how much more patience and peace I have after spending just 15 minutes contemplating the organization and feeling of completeness of nature. If nature can live in harmony and completeness despite the reality of suffering than so can we especially since despite our best efforts at separating ourselves--we are nature as well!!

~Peace to all beings~

Obama and the Lama.

This picture has been around for awhile now and while I have seen it on other sites I have never shown it here. It is one of my favorite pictures because it shows two of the world's most influential people who both happen to be heroes of mine together in one picture. It is a powerful image showing how spirituality and politics don't have to be enemies but can actually help improve each other.

According to the theory of the two wheels, the state leadership (worldly wheel) and spiritual leadership (religious wheel) exist along side. The state gives support and protection to the religion. The religion gives guidance to the leaders to make righteous policy and decision.

~Peace to all beings~

FOX Host Carlson Afraid that Christianity is In Mortal Danger.

So an Atheist sign in the state capital of Illinois was stolen and now the Atheist group behind the sign wants to replace it with a new one saying, "Thou Shalt Not Steal." Yet Gretchen Carlson apparently doesn't get the point of the replacement sign.

It seems apparent to me that those who would be the most upset by the sign would be rabid Christians. Therefore reminding them that they [most likely Christian] broke a commandment of the very religion they are claiming to defend by stealing that sign is on point and brilliant. It's called using your critics words and beliefs against them. It's a great debate tactic and Carlson's only comeback to it is to claim that Atheists have no right to use the ten commandments because Atheists don't believe in them? That's a nice dodge from the point of Christians stealing despite being commanded NOT too.

So in other words Christians can break the commandments when dealing with Atheists because Atheists shouldn't have the same rights to freedom of expression as Christians enjoy. In part too because Atheists are seen by extreme Christians as evil to be defeated by any means necessary and therefore (to these type of Christians) the end justifies the means (i.e. stealing). It's not too unlike radical Muslims who think "God" will bless them in heaven for killing the nonbeliever because belief in "God" is more important than free will and the commandment against killing. Thus we see that many radical Christians don't actually believe following every commandment by the letter as they often say they do.

Michelle Maulkin actually takes the high road for once in basically saying "Just ignore them." But Carlson is completely freaked out to the point of saying that if they treat them as equals then Christianity might disappear??? Come on. Honestly. It might disappear from the public square (as it should according to the Constitution) but Christianity is not going to disappear from a country [America] that is beyond any measure predominately Christian. Besides, where is their faith that "God" won't let Christianity die out in America?

And should it be about control? Shouldn't your belief in Christianity be personal? Isn't it more about your own salvation than about being the dominate belief system to maintain your feeling of superiority as being "number 1?" I'm a Buddhist and we are no where near the dominate religion in America and I don't care. I don't practice Buddhism so that maybe one day Buddhism can dominate America. I practice it because I find meditation to be helpful in my daily, personal life.

I am a weak Atheist/strong Agnostic, I know many other Atheists and for most it's not about abolishing Christianity but rather about equal representation in the public square. Either everyone gets to have a display or no one should as the public square belongs to everyone and public/government buildings/locations are paid for by everyone--not just Christians. It seems really simple and basic to me.

~Peace to all beings~

Anti-Conversion Bill in Sri Lanka.

An anti-conversion law titled, "Prevention of Forcible Conversion Bill," is being considered in Sri Lanka's parliament. It is a bill that I generally disapprove of because I believe in the freedom of religion and while I don't personally like proselytism I think it should be included in a country's freedom of religion rights. In a country, which is 70% Buddhist (Sri Lanka) I do not understand how Christianity is such a threat that it needs to basically be outlawed.

In addition, the structure of "Buddhism" itself can be yet another attachment. Without practice and mindfulness a Buddha statue is nothing but another chunk of wood or stone and temples become glorified houses. I'm not saying that such things aren't beneficial and needed but that Buddhism will evolve how it will and if it disappears in a free world then so be it.

Besides, some say that Buddha himself said that one day Buddhism will no longer be taught in this world. Even if I am the last "Buddhist" on Earth I worry not for the Dharma as it will always be reborn in one form or another either here and/or on other planets. And if not then I am confident that it will have served its purpose. I have faith that karma and change will take the course that it must.

Now. That said I do agree with a limited version of this bill if it simply bans using humanitarian aid, education and health care as a tool to force people to listen to sermons/scriptures and be converted. If these services can not be donated without stipulations then I consider that using unethical behavior. It is taking advantage of the needy to forward your religious ideology instead of giving because it's the right thing to do--period. After all my years of reading the Bible and practicing Christianity I do not believe that Jesus would condition help to proselytism or conversion. It is pure manipulation usually of those whom are vulnerable both spiritually and otherwise. It is not right for religions (whether Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, etc.) to use peoples' suffering to advance the interests of their belief system.

Also, I wonder if these Christian organizations will now stand up for the freedom of non-Christians here in America to be free of Christian influence in government such as prayer in school, nativity scenes on government property, etc. As a Buddhist I stand up for them to have the right to proselytize in America and abroad but they need to back off a bit on some of the demands that they are placing upon the American government and other secular based governments. There is no reason that religions can not exist together nor is their any reason that religious people and non-religious people can not exist together. I reject extremism on either side of the spiritual spectrum. Whether it is fundamental Christianity (or fundamentalist Buddhism) or militant atheism.

~Peace to all beings~

Thoughts on Gay Marriage.

The term "traditional marriage" is a modern invention because there has been no such thing as a simple, codified form of marriage throughout history, religion and geography. Besides the examples given in the video, back in Biblical days traditional marriage meant marrying more than one wife. It also meant and still does in some parts of the world that women are chattel and basically auctioned off to the would be husband who has the most goats.

It meant in the medieval period to marry out of status and hope of improving that status rather than out of love. Yet love from another being is what we all yearn for and hope to achieve in this life. Even monks who don't marry express love for the Dharma and the Sangha as well as for the laity. Their marriage is again, not "traditional" but their marriage to the three jewels is no less important and fulfilling.

How twisted have some religious veins become that some people are using them to deny people basic happiness and love in a world that is so full of suffering. Why would we want to cause even more suffering by denying people the right to marry the person that they want to share their life with? Shouldn't we be applauding people who want to commit to honor and cherish each other in this world of hatred, isolation and division? Without love for each other I ask, "What chance do we have as a species?"

~Peace to all beings~

Non-Violence is the Right Choice--It Works.

New York, USA -- Nonviolent resistance is not only the morally superior choice. It is also twice as effective as the violent variety. That's the startling and reassuring discovery by Maria Stephan and Erica Chenoweth, who analyzed an astonishing 323 resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006. "Our findings show that major nonviolent campaigns have achieved success 53 percent of the time, compared with 26 percent for violent resistance campaigns," the authors note in the journal International Security. (The study is available as a PDF file at http://www.nonviolent-conflict.org).

"First, a campaign's commitment to nonviolent methods enhances its domestic and international legitimacy and encourages more broad-based participation in the resistance, which translates into increased pressure being brought to bear on the target," they state. "Second, whereas governments easily justify violent counterattacks against armed insurgents, regime violence against nonviolent movements is more likely to backfire against the regime."

James: I think that one of the reasons that Buddhism and Buddhists are so peaceful, nonviolent (with some exceptions of course) and less likely to engage in violence and aggressive intimidating divisive talk that often breeds tension and conflict between religions is because of Buddhisms lack of a belief in a god. This helps neuter the defensiveness and aggression that often comes with religions that claim to be the sole religious truth and the fight that often ensues of "my god is superior to your god." It divides people to the point of seeing those who don't believe in your god and absolute truth as inferior and evil, which can divide families as well as turn brothers, friends and fellow human beings into enemies and set them against each other.

It can and often does very breeds intolerance rather than acceptance. It often leads to an attitude of superiority, which can also easily escalate to violent conflicts such as in the crusades, the inquisitions, the purge of pagans and Islamic jihadism/terrorism. This is not to say that all members of these certain religions act in such ways and agree with such aggressiveness.

As for nonviolence in general I think that it is more effective because it appeals to everyone's internal desire to avoid suffering and most people (except perhaps the most deranged) suffer greatly when they employ violent behavior, thought and speech. This can be seen throughout history when eventually the rank and file members of a violent organization/military either desert or turn on the leaders to end the bloodshed, oppression and overall suffering.

Nonviolence comes from a place of strength and violence a place of weakness therefore nonviolence can usually be sustained for a longer period of time. It is not unlike a strong oak tree that bends in the strongest wind but doesn't break for its roots are deep in the soil of interdependence. This a weird analogy but the word fascism is derived from the Italian word fascio, which means "bundle" or "union", and from the Latin word fasces. ^[12] The fasces, which consisted of a bundle of rods often tied around an axe.

The idea being that one twig on its own is weak and can easily be broken by force but when many weak twigs are tied together in a thick bundle not even the strongest hands can tear them apart. When a population unites together in a literal manifestation of interconnection their numbers and willpower will overwhelm and outlast the strongest, largest army. The general population of a country is almost always greater than the numbers of a military and unlike a military every citizen can participate in a nonviolent movement including the old, sick and young. Especially when the global population adds to the numbers. I'll end this post with one of my favorite quotes from Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who explains why a seemingly weak strategy of nonviolence is so powerful:

Nonviolence is a powerful weapon and just weapon, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.-Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

~Peace to all beings~

Lunch at the Huntington

I enjoyed an excellent lunch yesterday in the gardens of the Huntington Library, up in San Marino. Well, the lunch itself was… cafeteria, okay. But the company was excellent, as was the conversation. Long-time readers may remember, back in July, when Ellie and I hosted a party for a dozen or so Caians—alumni of my old college at Cambridge, Gonville and Caius, who happen to be living now in the Southern California area...

My host for yesterday’s lunch was one of these, a distinguished professor of philosophy and religion, scholar, editor, writer, and activist in the field of interfaith understanding. Indian-born and educated by the Jesuits in his native country, he embraces the wisdom and the cultural history of both East and West—he calls himself a “Buddhist Catholic”… or was it a “Catholic Buddhist”?—with a blend of infectious passion and curiosity. A great talker, he proved also a good listener and, despite his outstanding credentials and the breadth of his learning, a comfortable conversationalist. It’s rare, these days, to be able to sit down for a couple of hours and penetrate some important and difficult issues in a shared language of understanding and compassion.

We talked first about politics. Not surprisingly, we found ourselves in agreement: for the good of the country, this is a must-win for Obama. My friend had read “Dreams From My Father,” I had read “The Audacity of Hope,” and we agreed that the man is an excellent writer—one who writes from the heart as well as from a wide grasp of the political and historical moment in which we find ourselves. We agreed on the steady mind and the firm hand. We agreed that the alternative would cast a great pall over the future of the planet.

But the real meat of our conversation came when we turned to more broadly philosophical questions about religion and its role in the contemporary world. My friend is a man of thoughtful faith, who deplores the excesses of extremists, no matter whether they be of Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or any other origin. He dedicates a good part of his life to the promotion of tolerance and understanding between religions, and is a board member of Parliament of Religions--an organization for which he serves as the program director for a 2009 conference in Melbourne, Australia. Being attached to no faith, but rather a skeptical follower of the teachings of the Buddha, I was glad to be reminded that the meaning of the Greek origin of the word “skeptic” is “inquiry.” It’s about asking questions, which I personally believe to be the business of religion, and it dismays me that so much of the religion that is practiced inn the world today is about providing dogmatic answers.

Speaking of the intolerance that pits religion against religion, my friend asked what I thought was the source of that intolerance. Without reflecting any too deeply, I came up with the answer: fear. It’s that old, instinctive fear of the unknown, fear of the “other,” fear of encroachment by inimical forces on our camp site, the fear that what we “have” may be taken from us. If that’s the case, he asked me, what is the antidote? And again without too much reflection I answered: self-examination, a study of the fears that can determine the direction of my life unless I understand them and observe how they function. And what’s good for the individual is good for the institution. Religions, too, would benefit from honest, fearless self-examination. We need to understand when fears serve us—as they sometimes do—and when they serve only to stand between us and those who share our humanity but may have different views.

It was good to be prompted gently into some useful and productive thoughts. I see no way, for myself, to come back to the religion with which I was brought up, and which I abandoned as a young man. I do believe that the intellectual and spiritual roots it provided me then continue to ground me in ways unseen and, perhaps wrongly, unexamined. I value that religious education much as I value having learned Latin and other, living languages in my youth; I would be less well equipped as a writer without that solid foundation of etymology and syntax, and I judge that such humanity as I possess is meaningfully informed by the spiritual training I received. I was much more cavalier about discarding it as a young man than I am now. What I learned about Jesus, though, as my friend and I discussed as we ate our lunch in the shade of some very lovely trees, differs very little in substance from what I learn from the Buddha much later in life: the good part is all about love, generosity, and the spirit of compassion—a part that unhappily seems to have been forgotten by fundamentalists and extremists on all sides.

After lunch, we took a pleasant stroll through the gardens to the new (since my last visit, years ago) Chinese garden, with its beautiful pagoda, green ponds and walkways—refreshing even in the current Southern California heat—talking of professional experiences, and personal matters, and books we love. A very civilized way to spend the afternoon…!

(As a philosophical footnote, a new subscriber wrote to remind me of Gary Snyder's dictum: "Just because you're a Buddhist, doesn't mean you have to be a good Buddhist." Hmmm...)

(And, for good measure, as a political footnote, check out this Rap for Obama