10 Questions for the Dalai Lama.

The thing that I like about the Dalai Lama and other Buddhist teachers taking questions from everyday people is that you get such a wide variety of queries that most people can relate to. Sometimes you read an interview of the Dalai Lama or other teacher where deep, philosophical questions are put forth from some journalist or documentary director.

At times, they are so in-depth and esoteric that I don't even understand what's being asked!! I do like deep, philosophical questions and dialogues from time to time but sometimes it's like drinking to quench my thirst from a fire hose. So, it's with joy that I present one of ten questions for the Dalai Lama from average folks who don't feel the need to show off how profound they are with their question:

Do you ever feel angry or outraged? —Kantesh Guttal, PUNE, INDIA
Oh, yes, of course. I'm a human being. Generally speaking, if a human being never shows anger, then I think something's wrong. He's not right in the brain. [Laughs.]

James: I really like how direct yet disarming he is with his answers. He gets right to the point and doesn't feel the need to go into a dissertation all the time as some spiritual teachers can, which is why I think he is so popular with every day people. He knows how to speak to his audience, and to each question. So, one day he can be speaking very simply and the next very in-depth. This shows to me just how much he is in tune with the present moment and the energy and essence of each person. Again, I don't mind in-depth discussions but I also like a teacher who is well-rounded to be able to speak with average people too. That is a common trait I think with those who are awakened, as Buddha was known to be able to teach differently to whomever came before him. He understand that because of different karma, not everyone learned the same way. And so it is with the Dalai Lama as well. To read his other questions from the Time magazine article, click on this sentence.

UPDATE: My friend Markus wrote the following on Facebook in reply to my posting the above question regarding anger. I thought it would be a good addition to the post, "Marvellous, thank you! Sometimes certain Buddhists seem to think that feeling angry or outraged is non-Buddhist and it would be better to stay Holy and Pure all the time. "Look at me, I'm a Buddhist, I'm always smiling and singing Kumbayah!"

To which I replied:

@Markus. I agree. Yes, if we Buddhists were supposed to be "enlightened" just for being a "Buddhist" then why are we still living in samsara? Simply being Buddhist doesn't mean you don't get upset anymore about things. From my studies and contemplations I've found that It's about understanding your anger. Why are you angry? Contemplate and meditate upon it regularly. Embrace it in meditation with a compassionate mind of understanding. Don't heap on the guilt as that's just more anger--directed at you).

Doing this allows us to see what makes us angry. Thus, what to avoid in the future to reduce it in the future but pretending to not be angry isn't any healthier than spewing that anger about. So, rather than somehow being perfect and ignoring your anger, it's about how to LIVE with that anger. That living directly with anger is through the Buddhist teaching of mindfulness. When we are mindful of what set-off our anger we can better prepare for the next time, so that we over-time increase our abilities to react differently. However, to somehow expect to magically make your anger disappear for good is perhaps falling prey to another of the three poisons, delusion.

It's also not about ending pleasure from our lives as some Buddhists believe. I don't believe it's about living a sterile and sanitized life. It's fine to enjoy pleasure--otherwise we'd be nihilists, which we know Buddha advised against. No, the way I see it, pleasure is fine but the problem to guard against is becoming ATTACHED to that pleasure to where you suffer deeply without it. According to the teachers I've read and listen to--that's the essence of what Buddha meant when discussing "desire."

If we were to avoid ALL desire then don't we have to stop being Buddhist? Because at some level we Buddhists WANT to be Buddhists to end all the suffering in our lives. Isn't that very desire to end suffering, "non-Buddhist" if we are to follow the logic and admonitions of the Buddhists who say we shouldn't desire anything or enjoy pleasure?

PHOTO CREDIT: Vincent J. Ricardel / Contour / Getty Images

~Peace to all beings~

Biocentrism.

I have recently come across an interesting science theory call Biocentrism as proposed by scientist Robert Lanza. I was fascinated with the many connections between it and much Buddhist philosophy. I will give you a quick run-down of what Biocentrism is about via wikipedia, which isn't the best source but it's the easiest for my purposes but I encourage you to read about it further. Biocentrism posits that life created the universe and not the other way around as traditional science has taught us. This blends nicely into the Buddhist concept that reality is what our limited and deluded mind makes of it. The seven principles of Biocentrism are as follows. Note the similarities between it and Buddhist thought:

1). What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness. An "external" reality, if it existed, would by definition have to exist in space. But this is meaningless, because space and time are not absolute realities but rather tools of the human and animal mind.

2). Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be divorced from one another.

3). The behavior of subatomic particles, indeed all particles and objects, is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves.

4). Without consciousness, "matter" dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.

5). The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The "universe" is simply the complete spatio-temporal logic of the self.

6). Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.

7). Space, like time, is not an object or a thing. Space is another form of our animal understanding and does not have an independent reality. We carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life.

James: Then there is this following excerpt from a different article about how scientist Robert Lanza rediscovered this idea that Buddhists have believed for eons. It is a nice image of what is being talked about with this theory and startlingly reminds me of Indra's Net metaphor:

The farther we peer into space, the more we realize that the nature of the universe cannot be understood fully by inspecting spiral galaxies or watching distant supernovas. It lies deeper. It involves our very selves. This insight snapped into focus one day while one of us (Lanza) was walking through the woods. Looking up, he saw a huge golden orb web spider tethered to the overhead boughs. There the creature sat on a single thread, reaching out across its web to detect the vibrations of a trapped insect struggling to escape. The spider surveyed its universe, but everything beyond that gossamer pinwheel was incomprehensible. The human observer seemed as far-off to the spider as telescopic objects seem to us. Yet there was something kindred: We humans, too, lie at the heart of a great web of space and time whose threads are connected according to laws that dwell in our minds.

James: As Nobel physicist John Wheeler once said, “No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.” I look forward to reading more about this theory as I am very fascinated with interactions between science and Buddhism. If everyone and everything is interdependent and interconnected then I see no reason why Buddhism and science have to be mutually exclusive. It seems to me that many of the theories posited by both are quite similar.

PHOTO CREDIT: University of Chicago Press

~Peace to all beings~

Practice Can Not Be Measured in Time.

Munindra-ji is used to say that in spiritual practice, time is not a factor. Practice cannot be measured in time, so let go of the whole notion of when and how long. The practice is a process unfolding, and it unfolds in its own time. It is like the flowers that grow in the spring. Do you pull them up to make them grow faster? I once tried to do that with carrots in my first garden when I was eight years old. It does not work.

We do not need any particular length of time for this process of letting things be.

~Joseph Goldstein