and more entries
12:12 PM 02/03/2007
When people say that they have lost themselves or need to find themselves, they are using confused language in an attempt to deny the fact that whatever bad emotions or circumstances they are experiencing is as much themselves as any other. The self as we know it is ephemeral and shifty; a never-ending process, not some fixated soul or essence that merely travels through life. When someone tells me they have lost themselves, I usually chuckle and say "But you're right here."
When there are problems and difficulties, it's better to try to pinpoint them and their causes. Then, instead of saying "I have lost myself and need to find it," one could be more direct and honest and thus have more opportunity to change whatever it is that needs changing. We often like to "feel ourselves" or "feal real" when everything is good and going our way. But when there are difficulties and our minds are unsettled or upset, we like to think that that is not who we are. We are lying though. In a relative sense, the difficulties and traumas and sufferings and upset are as much who we are as the happiness and satisfactions. But this is relative, because the self as we normally think about it really doesn't exist. We have simply taken it way out of context and blown it way out of proportion. Ego is bloated whether you think of yourself as god's-gift to the world, or whether you think of yourself as a miserable failure. Both are delusions. The self is none of that because the self has no essence. It is impermanent and conditioned by other impermanent factors and conditions.
If you try to seek the self's essence, it will be like peeling an onion to get to the ultimate core of the onion: You get left with a lot of pieces, parts, labels, ideas, feelings, memories, and experiences which only seem to be united by consciousness. And if you are mindful when you get to that stage of seeing through it all, you will then understand something about shunyata/emptiness. It doesn't mean you don't exist. It means that you are relative to everything around you and even your own moods, thoughts and identity markers are relative to other factors and conditioned by them - while being further conditions for your perceptions and experiences.
While we as living beings are precious, this self thing isn't such a big deal, we only get confused into thinking so. Loving oneself, meaning valuing one's own life and those who share it with you, means you don't need to blow out of proportion all the problems you may face, nor do you get blown off course by them. Since the self is impermanent, and in fact nothing is permanent, none of your difficulties are intractable or permanent. They are not fixed entities. The whole Buddhist education project is designed with various methods to get you to realize this, since the aim is liberation from suffering and dissatisfaction.
If you spend your whole life simply avoiding what you dislike and trying to grasp what you like - while ignoring all else - of course, in your mindful moments, you will feel a sense that something might not be quite right. Something may be missing. This is because life is so much more than simply trying to get who or what you want and trying to get rid of who or what you don't want. Spiritual life, from the Buddhist approach, is about seeing through this seemingly endless cyclical ("going around in circles") game.
3:00 PM 02/03/2007
Spam now accounts for 94% (!!!) of all email traffic. Our politicians are now finally admitting that there is a broad scientific consensus that humans are the main cause of global warming or climate change, though GW Bush still seems to think that it may up to debate (which is not surprising since he and his faithful cohorts still think that evolution has not been proven as fact by mountains of evidence and data as the best explanation humans have so far for our origins and physical development on this planet). (Yeah I know that was a cheap shot, but sometimes the cheapest methods are the most effective.) Another startling fact is that, contrary to what people in America may think since 9/11, terrorism as a tactic has been well on the rise sharply since the latter 1960's...it's just that Americans inside the US have never experienced much of this until 9/11...and actually since 9/11, thankfully there hasn't been another terrorist attack in the US.
Now that this thought train has left the station and is gathering speed, it's visiting the Free Tibet issue again. If you are not interested, you know what to do. (Skip to the next entry down or do whatever it is you do while pretending to read this.) Terrorism and violence in Central Asia, including Tibet, is on the rise and will only continue to get worse, especially in the Tibetan case as Tibetans become increasingly desperate as they watch their people and nation get extinguished by China. Over 50 years of HH the Dalai Lama's noble non-violent efforts at seeking Tibetan freedom and survival have lead only to successes in world wide knowledge and some places in exile where Tibetans can survive, but inside Tibet itself all reports are grim. And today's younger Tibetans are questioning whether peaceful compromise has done any good to free their country. It appears that the PRC has used the Dalai Lama's scruples against both him and his people. Non-violence is a central ideal and practice in Buddhism, but at some point....it seems like doing nothing...like laying yourself down and and slitting your own throat so your aggressor won't have to be inconvenienced.
I have heard, from second sources and from conversations that there are currently Tibetan resistance cells across Tibet which are now making the fateful decision to once again use violence as a tactic, including terrorism. I have heard that there have been attacks already on Chinese settlers, workers and infrastructure inside Tibet. While this is saddening on one hand, on the other hand, all I can say to China and the Chinese in Tibet is: "You will reap what you sow. Your karma's fruit is ripening and now you will have to eat it." There are now reports of Tibetans storming or attacking Chinese embassies in India and other places. And whereas my fellow compatriot, the famous American Tibetan Buddhist Robert Thurman, has stated that if the Tibetan resistance resorts to violence they have lost their legitimacy, I disagree. Number one, I won't presume to think I can tell Tibetans what to do in their struggle for freedom and survival. As much as I will lend my voice and creativity to trying to show others the Tibetan struggle as I have come to know it (as an outsider culturally, but as a kindred spirit religiously and most importantly humanly), I will not pretend to be an arbiter as to what is right or wrong for the Tibetan Freedom struggle.
I will say that, though I respect HH the Dalai Lama's opinions, generally when it comes to his insight into global humanity and specifically when it comes to Buddhist teachings, I animatedly disagree with his "Middle Way" approach for Tibet's future. I do not see, after fifty years of conquest, colonization, racism and dehumanization, that Tibet would have anything to gain by being merely an autonomous appendage of China. To agree with His Holiness is akin to saying that a raped, battered and abused wife should not seek her independence and leave the husband, but that she should somehow seek to a compromise preserving the marriage (which was forced on her).
My own people went up against the most powerful Empire the world had ever seen - the British Empire. Obviously the Irish didn't have Buddhism or non-violence as part of a social ethos. They violently resisted the invasions, occupation and colonization several times. And somehow, early in the 20th century, when the Irish were for the most part assimilated and English-speaking (with the native culture marginalized and forgotten by most), they rose up again and established their independence. I am not saying that everyone should use violence to secure their freedom, but on the other hand, while in this world of today, the Gandhi tactic is not applicable to all situations. I don't think the Gandhi "ahimsa" tactic has worked out for Tibetans, unless we cynically think that somehow it has managed to preserve some semblance of Tibet from being utterly extinguished by China in a bloodbath.
Tibet, we must remember, was in violent turmoil since the first Chinese soldiers started the invasion in 1950. The underfunded Tibetan Army resisted and was crushed. (It was underfunded because the Tibetan government at the time sadly thought that since their land was so holy it would be protected, even though the 13th Dalai Lama clearly warned about what was coming.) We must also remember that the present 14th Dalai Lama made his now famous escape into exile during the massive and popular Tibetan Uprising in 1959 (which took the Chinese a year and half to finally crush). The Chinese today say that the Dalai Lama was behind the Uprising, but that's a puzzlement since His Holiness was always consistently against his more militant countrymen. Any one of you out there who thinks of the Tibetan struggle as being de-legitimized when Tibetans resort to violence should take another look at history. You should also consider that maybe a nation's people has the inherent right to defend themselves against aggression. Remember, the Tibetans didn't attack the Chinese in 1950.
Of particular interest in this situation is the 2008 Summer Olympic games in Beijing. What will some of these more militant younger Tibetans plan? What will happen in international opinion if Tibetans start using violence more and more? Will people drop their support? Will world leaders suddenly come out and admit that they support China against the violence? (Why not? World leaders and nations already support China on every other thing it does in Tibet.) Will all these American and European Free Tibet supporters suddenly lose interest since their fantasy of non-violence is yet again shattered by the reality of a people's desperation?
Remember that Tibetans have been largely doing what they are supposed to, according to "world-community" standards of morality. They have not launched any war to liberate Tibet. They have tried diplomacy and dialogue. They have tried moral persuasion. And while famous celebrities and world leaders pay lip service to the Tibetan cause, they stand back and allow China to do as it wishes. Every leader outside of Beijing probably loves the Dalai Lama, but not one of these leaders has recognized the Tibetan Government in Exile....not one of them recognizes that Tibet is a seperate nation that is now occupied by a colonial master. Not one of these leaders recognizes the Tibetans' basic right to exist. The world says "violence doesn't solve anything" and yet, more world leaders are willing to negotiate and settle with the Palestinians precisely because of their use of violence and terrorism. I am sure that today's younger Tibetans have noticed this disparity and are growing impatient with the hypocritical "world-community" and its dysfunctional United Nations ruse. They may have to look to themselves and, yes, that may mean that the future holds no promise for the possibility of Tibetan Freedom unless desperate actions are taken. Who can say? I am only raising questions and issues. I think that maybe today's Tibetans have realized that though everyone around the world knows about them and claims to care (and actually does help in some ways), the world as a whole cares little about the actual future of Tibet as a free country. China's market of hundreds of millions of consumers is too grand of an economic carrot for the world.
The Tibetans have a right to be free and I am not going to pass judgment or believe their struggle is no longer legitimate if many of them now start to resort to violence. It's sad that it has come to this, but China's chickens are coming home to roost now, the result may be a regional war in Central Asia, but only in as much as China tries to grasp onto its colonies. China does not need Tibet, nor does it need to hold onto Tibet for it's own national health, but as long as China maintains that Tibet is an 'integral part of the motherland,' Chinese people are playing the role of the petty colonialist. China's efforts to conquer and assimilate Tibet are bad intentions whose results will most likely now be bitter for them, much as the French nation's experience in Vietnam.
Boe Rangzen!
10:58 AM 02/04/2007
Super Bowl Sunday. The Bears are playing in it again, after 20 years. Bears vs. Colts. A midwestern rivalry between Chicago (Chi Town) and Indianapolis (Nap Town). Chicago is the monster metropolis that is swallowing up all the land along the western shore of Lake Michigan with its highrises and noise. Indianapolis is the more typical midwestern city whose inhabitants don't pretend to be somewhere besides the midwest (unlike many Chicagoans). I will say that Nap City also only has one highrise.
Sometimes when I read or listen to film critics going on about a film, I get the impression that the critics simply like to hear themselves talk, as if they are trying to show themselves how smart they are. I speak with some knowledge of the subject both since I have studied film and I usually get categorized into some sort of "creative" or "artist" label by others. It's weird because the language of film (combining cinematography, lighting, design, editing, script and acting) is usually how I approach analyzing a film. When I read or listen to most of the popular film critics, it's almost as if they have no concept of actual film, they are just trying to make their own likes/dislikes into something appropriately intellectual sounding. I understand that film critics have a place in society, but I never care about their opinions.
Then, of course, there's a certain feeling I have which is summed up in my thinking that critics are irrelevant at best and self-righteous at worst. The majority of them, no matter the field (painting, photography, literature, film, music) don't actually practice in the field they claim to have the authority or expertise to critique. I have seen this happen in photography where an 'editor' or critic has no clue and yet tries to make their simple bias sound like some intellectual objectivity - which makes it even more silly. Critics should note that they are tolerated but creative people, when they need judgment, advice or help, often go to someone else in their field, not to critics. Usually what we creative types do to screw with the critics is to submit the same or very similar pieces of work at different times, or with an element or two subtly changed just to see what the critic is going to come up with. It's fun all around.
I save a particular non-like for literary critics. They can't push a pen or type out letters unless motivated to show how they are intelligent enough to know if the writer is succeeding or failing. And yet, that's why we writers have editors...so what do we need critics for? What I learned in both writing and in photography was that a good editor (in the case of writing) and a good critique of work or a body of work (in the case of photo), as painful as it may be, can point the way to extract the purest "gold" and help us develop that so that the work becomes something better. But critics lack that ability since they are only out to show how smart they are.
12:06 PM 02/04/2007
Instead of taking time out, or a little spiritual vacation (as Buddhists might say)....
Instead of going on a retreat to find yourself, maybe you should take a break from the self.
Let me clarify since some of you out there might be Yoga practitioners and use different terms from Buddhists.
Let me clarify but also show where Yoga (at least from Patanjali and the Hindu or Vedic stream) and Buddhism can come to agreement. When I say to take a retreat from the self, in Buddhist terms, it means that ego-grasping is the source of suffering and dissatisfaction and that we should give ourselves a break...learn to get over ourselves...learn to open up. In Buddhism, we call this "no-self" or "anatta" (as the Pali word seems to be the most commonly used in the West) or "anatman" (in Sanskrit). It basically means we are fooling ourselves into thinking that this "self" is some fixed graspable essence which we can discover at the source of our individuality. In Yoga, this "self" is called the "small self" or the "ego." The dissolution or shattering of this "ego" is a profound experience, and Buddhism calls this the realization of emptiness/shunyata. Yoga calls this the realization of "Higher Self." In either case, practitioners must be careful not to assume that this realization can be reified into another more improved version of ego (what Trungpa Rinpoche called 'spiritual materialism').
One thing I may not be able to resolve: the Buddhist realization of shunyata/emptiness or non-duality and the Yoga ideal of non-duality which leads to 'all is one." This is because the Buddhist realization of non-duality is simply that. It doesn't mean that all things are now really one, it simply means that duality is a product of the deluded mind. Diversity doesn't collapse into some implicate unity lying underneath or beyond the surface. But in either case, let me get back to the original train of thought...
Instead of taking a retreat to find yourself, what you need is to take a vacation from the self. In Buddhism, this is why we practice meditation. And after some experience with practice, we eventually start to actually meditate....resting in the gap between thoughts, emotions and all that. We can see and explore, with insight, that this 'self' is really a composition of causes, conditions and experiences...none of them fixed, permanent or intractable. This is why the Buddhist aspiration is Buddhahood, and the methods we use can evolve us towards that. Relatively speaking, there is not any being anywhere that is essentially anything or anyone. Thus, we can mature and awaken into our Unconditioned life. We can become Buddhas. And we vow to do so, now, while we have this chance as a human being endowed with precious freedom if we would only see that.
Instead of taking a retreat to learn how to better deal with samsara, take the retreat that will teach you to see through samsara. The false border between samsara and nirvana is in your mind. You may think that just because you can glimpse this, you need not do anything else. However, the view is the start of your spiritual journey. The path, if you will. In Buddhism, this is the traditional way of entering the path. One must listen to the teachings and then actually see the view for themselves. Skilled teachers/mentors are those who can bring you to this point.
You can drop the heavy load you have been carrying, this 'self' and its fixations or reifications. You no longer need waste or tie up your energies into reifying your 'self.' You can actually discover your truest life and the nature of reality. Once this once blocked or tied up energy is now released, you may feel all sorts of bliss. This is a good sign, but it's not the goal. The goal is complete and irreversible realization of your Buddhanature, the fullest blossoming of your human potential.
How much time do you spend on this? We spend most of our waking hours on working for our necessities and distractions...our pastimes. Maybe if we spent even just one hour a day in retreat from this ego-project, from this mechanically repetitive samsaric conditioning, we could reach Buddhahood in this very life. What a sadness indeed that most of us will never give ourselves this greatest gift, but what a happiness to know that despite that, our mentors and the community of awakened beings will never abandon us. And this Buddhahood is ultimately where we will all end up, as surely as a child grows up into adulthood. What a world that will be!
11:24 AM 02/05/2007
The Bears lost the Super Bowl, in case some of you out there live in isolated caves (with internet connections somehow). It wasn't even a good game. The Colts dominated it right after the Bears' spectacular kick-off touch down that in retrospect was the only time the Bears showed a spark of winning. That's how it goes though. If it were any other team but the Bears facing the Colts, I'd have cheered on the Colts since they have a fierce team with the best QB in the NFL (who now can have the satisfaction of retiring with a Super Bowl win). I guess the Bears will have to be satisfied with being merely the NFC champs until next year.
Every day for the last few days, it's just been getting even colder. I think this morning it was close to minus 12. Now in the near noon, it is about 0 degrees here on the lakefront, and that is the warmest in the region. And as of writing this, I am planning on taking a six block walk (actually closer to a mile or so) to the friend's house where I normally make my online postings and other work requiring reliable online access. I guess I'll wrap myself up in layers and wobble like a penguin. I also guess that I won't be shaving for a while.