still more entries
10:53 AM 02/01/2007
February 1st. In old traditional Gaelic culture this day was known as Oímealg or Lá Fhéile Bríde, although the latter was always the most common name, even for the Pagans. It is also Candlemas, which most people these days know absolutely nothing about. I'll light candles as a ritual offering for the next several days, though my own observance has nothing to do with the Christian holiday.
It is two weeks before traditional lunar new year and the Tibetan Buddhist Monlam Chenmo. In the neighborhood I live in, the Vietnamese and Chinese will be blowing up hundreds of thousands of firecrackers and doing dragon/lion dances. The Tibetans will be having their parties. I believe this will all happen on new moon night next (the 18th).
The weather around here is now appropriately frigid with the normal evening dustings of snow (known locally as 'lake effect snow'). My fever of yesterday evening seems to have broken, which is good...because I thought it could have been the beginning of the flu or something more than just a cold.
This whole Barack Obama for President thing is starting to get on my nerves. I am sure that Obama is a good human being and all, but to be honest, I find it really hard to know what the man stands for, let alone the fact that he has little experience. I know he has written two books, and he has made many rousing speeches about 'bi-partisanship' and all the rest, but the man has yet to say anything of substance. Everything he says now is saccharine feel-good nothingness. Political-speech-speak. This just goes to show me that it is not necessary to be effective at one's job in political office, all one has to do is be a good charismatic actor. None of these modern politicians has any sort of a backbone. None of them actually stand and deliver. But the saddest fact is that the rest of us don't even care, so long as we have our Ipods and internet. We don't care about the world.
And let's dwell on that "world" for a minute. The most meaningful non-speak phrase ever invented is "international community." There is no such thing. There are only a few world powers and several smaller nations, all trying to get one over on each other. Look at China: invades Tibet and East Turkistan in 1950, claims that these two nations were always Chinese, and gets the rest of the world to go along with the ruse. That situation is now so bad that today's Chinese find it nearly impossible to even think of Tibet or East Turkistan as ever being independent, past or future. (I'd mention inner Mongolia and Manchuria, but those nations have been almost completely ethnic cleansed by the PRC government.)
You can't blame average Chinese people from the PRC for the crazy nonsense their government does. But a few salient facts should be pointed out whenever a citizen of the PRC criticizes the Free Tibet movement and its supporters. First off, the way the PRC and many of its citizens talk of Tibet is similar to the way white Europeans talked about Africa and the "Far East" when they were colonizing those areas. In colonialist ideology there is the "metropolis" or "motherland" which must always be united and supported by its "children," the colonies. The natives' religion is a superstition. And the natives themselves are wild savages who need to be educated and their infrastructure needs to be developed. The project of colonization is actually benefitting the colonized. And so on. The ideas are the same and the practices are the same. China's image worldwide is being damaged by the PRC's refusal to address the wrongs it is doing to Tibet.
11:44 AM 02/01/2007
Now, instead of Naked Raygun and Effigies songs stuck in my head, it's Husker Du. I seem to be going through a personal eighties punk/post-punk rock memory lane walk these days. I wonder why.
It could be the weather. Winter cold seems to always make me dig up old albums. Hell, just the other day, I finally learned where the name "Husker Du" actually came from. Turns out Husker Du is a Scandinavian board game that was played by people here in the Midwest (where many Scandininavians settled). The shows you how little I know about my own home region in this country. And I should talk about that a bit.
Unlike many unfortunate sops whose eyes are star crossed by the east coast (NY, Philly, DC, or Boston areas) or west coast (LA or SanFran), I am actually satisfied and proud to be Midwestern. Of course, I grew up and live in Chicago, which is pretty much unlike the rest of the region, but unlike many other Chicagoans who feel trapped in a major metropolis that seems out of place, I like the fact that I am in the midwest. I could go on about the open skies and extreme weather changes, the hot sweaty summers and the subzero winter nights....but it's the people, really, that I like the most: usually friendly, unexpected sarcasm and intolerance for pretense (as in the "who the fuck does that a-hole think she is?" sort). I also think, based on my experience here and in other regions of the country, that Midwesterners tend to know more about the outside world than people in, say, New York city. (New Yorkers tend to think of their city as the axis upon which the world turns, even as they work five jobs to pay the rent.) Although I must put in a warning that this is only a comparison between the East Coast and Midwest. Actually, I find the people of the Northwest to be the most informed, but....
Of course I am being hasty and over-generalizing here, but it's my thought train, not yours.
2:13 PM 02/01/2007
"I never get confused 'cause I don't really know."
-Husker Du (from the song "I don't know for sure")
As the Discordians say, "Only the madman is absolutely certain." In Buddhist teachings, being sure of one's self is delusion. Let me explain before you prejudge the idea as crazy. It's not about confidence, often called self-confidence. That has nothing to do with being certain or sure of oneself. That is more to do with knowing one's own capabilities. Actually, that sort of confidence comes from emptiness or, in this thought train's terms, not-being-sure of oneself. What this means is that one doesn't finalize or fixate. One doesn't get caught up in ideas such as "that's just the way I am" and other such delusions. You neither think of yourself as the worst or the best person; neither are your problems intractable, nor are your successes permanent. This impermanence is reality, no matter what we wish.
This evil self-certainty is the bane of all life and banishes most happiness. Just think about this for a while: think about how certain people are of themselves as being this that or the other. Whatever it is....a member of a nation, race, religion, or culture. A member of some caste or class. Think about all the atrocities and dehumanization that has happened simply because certain people or certain groups were certain of who they are, and that certainty meant destroying all others who were perceived as different or other or "savage" or "barbarian." Think about that. It's not only a personal delusion, it's a global delusion and problem. This certainty, otherwise known as ego, is the root of greed and hatred. When you are certain of your "self," you then divide the world into "self" (mine) and "other" (not mine).
Think about the most evil egos in recent history: Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Kim Il Sung, and so forth. These individuals were absolutely certain of themselves and of their ideas, and millions suffered for it. Sure, some self-assured and self-righteous people may be charismatic and inspire millions, but to what end? Isn't the most inspiring person one whose holiness of sacred character is selfless, like the scent of incense or of flowers? Think about the Buddha or Avalokiteshvara who lost his mind when he contemplated the pains of beings. The Maos and the Hitlers of this world certainly have made their mark on history, but compared to Patanjali or Jesus who have inspired and caused millions to develop themselves into better more matured beings, Hitler and Mao are to be forever known as what happens when humanity goes wrong.
People may now understand why I often dislike words such as "community" or "family," since these are often used with the implication that there are those beings who are not a part of such and therefore beyond one's moral concerns. Conversely, these terms are used in an ownership sense and then excused to control the lives and destinies of those people who either may not have been aware they are in the "family/community" or who may be perceived as deviating from the standard.
As Buddhists, the ideal is that we have foresworn our ego-grasping attachments to race, caste, family, nation, ethicity, political group, etc. We are still participant with these groups, of course, but we recognize the sanctity of life in all beings and especially in humans. I am not suggesting that because of this we must try to whitewash racial or ethnic hate-based actions and pretend that discrimination doesn't exist. In fact, our allegiance to all beings means we listen to everyone's story and appreciate the search for justice and redress of wrongs.
I don't know. I seem to have painted myself into a writing corner now.
11:22 AM 02/02/2007
My best friend had a new relationship end yesterday. Nothing like earth shattering or mind melting, just a disappointment. It makes me wonder. We all claim to seek happiness and love but some of us seem more skilled at avoiding these things and excusing our self-denial by flying the banner of self (finding the "self," working on the "self," etc ad absurdum) and independence. Though space and freedom are necessary, the myth of romance and the myth of freedom are screwing people over in major ways, enough to keep therapists in business for decades to come.
My own experience in relationships have taught me that no matter how much it may hurt, the taste of freedom (or in Buddhism "non-clinging") and understanding are the most important factors. Love develops out of these and is sustained by these. These factors are what allow commitment to be nurtured and strengthened. And when they are lost, no matter how much passion there may be, the center will never hold and the relationship disintegrates.
Many times however, because most people are extremists (i.e. they believe that either they are to be completely alone and independent or committed and less-free), they shy away or push away the very opportunities they may have to grow and develop the love they are seeking. It is obvious that while one is single, one can continue the self-righteous delusion and imagine oneself as, if not perfect, then the best they can be or "just who they are." In relationship, this delusion is one of the first to be threatened with extinction. Too many people would rather keep this delusion than to find happiness. Thus we have "romance." The mind-closing myth that one must feel longing in order to be "in love" and that once longing is gone, there is no love. This myth also teaches people about "soul mates" and other such drivel leading people to look for completion in another person.
If you are not complete yourself, you will never find it elsewhere. And anyway, that idea of "completion" is another lie. The "self" as we imagine it to be, as some fixed essence, is merely a useful social figment which we take out of context and blow way out of proportion. There is never an end to the process of development or "completion." The question which we should focus on is satisfaction and fulfillment. If you are not used to practicing the art of those two things in life, another person is not going to give them to you, though they may, if both of you are truly open, show you ways to practice them for yourself.
Relationship is a call and challenge to open us up to endless development and change. Those people who think that a romance will help them feel more complete or secure are only building a sandcastle against reality in an attempt to give their own ego more importance than it should ever have. Relationship (the pair-bond sort) is actually another form of renunciation. Everyone knows the usual renunciation embodied in the nuns and monks of Buddhism who give up all social and cultural ties so they can solely focus on practice for enlightenment (at least as an ideal). But in intimacy, there must also be renunciation, not of socio-cultural ties, but of self-grasping and attachment to this stupid notion of "me, me, me." But just as the monks/nuns renounce in a carefully developed environment, so too, relationship that is spiritual and not only functional, but passionate, must also take place in a carefully created environment which allows both people to feel safe enough to give up their self-grasping.
Mind you, my approach to relationship is influenced by Buddhist teachings and practices, but the wisdom behind those is inherent to life itself. So you could read this and say to yourself, "well that's cool. But i'm not Buddhist so it doesn't apply to me." But you should think about it before you so casually dismiss it with a label of your own prejudiced devising. I have also been blessed with the benefits of knowing how to develop the sort of environment conducive to practicing for enlightenment while in relationship, whether it always works out or not is up to the faults and mistakes that both people make.
Point blank, if you are looking for someone or something to plug up or fill in the hole you feel you have in your life, you are locking yourself into a prison of more delusion. Only you can "fill the hole" or maybe instead of trying to cover it up, you should get to know it and perhaps learn to see that the hole is there simply because you are ignoring parts of life. In this case, it's a blindspot which can be investigated and dealt with. No one else can do that for you and the beauty that is inherently there will be missed completely if you simply just seek to fill it in with some relationship or to cover it over with distractions.
2:15 PM 02/02/2007
"Love, enjoyed by the ignorant, leads you to bondage.
That same love, tasted by one with understanding, leads you to liberation.
Enjoy all the pleasures of love fearlessly, for the sake of liberation."
-Cittavishuddhiprakana (English translation from Sanskrit is my own)
To be fearless doesn't mean pretending to be without fear, it means acknowledging fears and giving them their due place...waking up to the emotions and clearly facing the causes. Fearlessness means having freedom to act despite the fear; being autonomous or not under the control of fear; it means cooling down and having a sense of space so that you can act. It means dispelling the delusion that your choices are limited by the initial claustrophic and isolating feelings that arise as the by-products of fear. Being fearless means recognizing fear in yourself and in others and learning to be more skillful in choices, intentions and actions in light of this knowledge. All beings tremble at the fact that their lives will someday end, and yet we can learn to not allow this fear to paralyze us. We can burn down the walls that we place around ourselves. Isolating ourselves and placing walls around our lives is a fool's game in that no matter how protected we try to make ourselves, we will not be any less vulnerable. To be fearless means accepting that vulnerability is an essential condition of being alive. It means being awake to our own fears and desires - so that we can act upon them in ways that develop our capacity for happiness and liberation. You can disagree with this and continue to choose to dim the light of your own innate Buddhanature, but if you are on a spiritual path, your fear is the gatekeeper which will not let you grow if you don't learn how to mature and deal with it.
Fear, or as some style it, The Fear, is what motivates almost every action and thought in today's global society. It has blinded us from the things we should be anxious and energetic to address while distracting us into escapes, whether spiritual, religious, ethnic, romantic, or entertainment. But true spiritual development starts with recognizing this Fear. In Buddhism, the first truth is that life as we know it, this process of conditioned and conditioning circumstances is full of suffering and disatisfaction. To be blunt, you start with those scary, unsavory and uncomfortable aspects which are part of life as we know it. We fear death. We fear being lonely. We fear getting sick. We fear loss. We fear not getting what we want. Accept this fear because accepting it means you are now ready to grow up. Buddhism, as well as other spiritual systems, points out that this fear based life, with all of its suffering is not all there is. Thich Nhat Hanh said "suffering is not enough."
Even if you have everything you want and are where you want to be socially, you will still need to address The Fear, the disatisfaction of life, when you start to see decline (in health, or status) and your eventual death. To be 'spiritual' doesn't mean you light candles and wear crystals and go to seminars or read spiritual books. To be truly spiritual means letting go and growing up. It means confronting this Fear and learning to be free - while you begin, it may only be free despite your fear, but if you are diligent in your practices (no matter your tradition), eventually you will actually be free to see through fear. You can see it as it truly is: impermanent, subject to conditions which are also impermanent. Thus you can let go of it, instead of fixating on it or trying to deny it. In Vajrayana Buddhism, we explore this "fear." It has tremendous energy that can be harnessed in our project/process/path of learning to love all beings and liberate ourselves with them. In fact, if you can't get past the reactivity caused by fear, you might wish to rethink your ideas about being "spiritual."
Courage, or fearlessness, is knowing that it's okay to cry and it's okay to be disappointed from time to time, all the while not getting caught up in any of it. For when you cling to nothing whatsoever, you can handle everything. If that is something that you find impossible right now, you can at least remain open to learning how to make it possible - otherwise you need to foreswear the whole "spiritual" thing. Again, I base this on my practice of Buddhism, but I think this point is where spiritual traditions around the world agree.
True humility comes from freedom from fear, since when one is fearless, there is no need for aggression and hatred - force may at some times be necessary, but not hatred or aggression. In Mahayana Buddhism, one who takes Bodhisattva vows must also not be blind to the sometimes necessary or expedient use of forceful methods in order to free others from suffering. Such a case may be when you see someone being assaulted and you have the chance to intervene to stop the attack. Those who claim pacifism, may abstain from acting at all because they have confused themselves with the blanket assertion that force is always wrong. That's cool. But Bodhisattvas (and you are one if you have taken the vows, whether publicly or privately), must intervene in ways which will be effective, even if that means force to stop the aggression. (If people would understand this one point of Buddhism, they would then not be confused about monks and nuns in Tibet being militant about freeing their country from China.)
Disagree all you want, but again, this is my thought train, not yours.