Google Search

Showing posts with label about. Show all posts
Showing posts with label about. Show all posts

Saturday, February 22, 2014

What Tibetan Buddhism Can Teach Us About Happiness

Home Dharma Dew

San Francisco, CA (USA) -- One of the most geographically isolated cultures in the world may contain the secrets to happiness that the rest of us have been looking for. Perhaps in part because of the country's remote location, the Tibetans have become the guardians of a deep, well-preserved wisdom tradition that modern science is only now catching up to.

But with the "mindful revolution" spreading in the West and a growing amount of research funding being dedicated to the study of contemplative practices and the science of compassion and altruism, the secrets of this ancient tradition are finally being recognized globally.

"Tibet has probably the greatest treasure trove of ancient contemplative knowledge, science and wisdom about how to influence the mind from the inside out," Joe Loizzo, founder of the Nalanda Institute for Contemplative Science, told The Huffington Post. "The Tibetans have an unbroken lineage of oral knowledge and technical expertise ... both in medicine and in psychology."

Early Indic cultures developed public systems of training in mindfulness -- including the Hatha Yoga tradition and Tibetan Buddhist mind training -- to ensure that the skills of contemplation and positivity were taught to everyone, explains Loizzo.

A Harvard-trained psychiatrist and a Columbia-trained Buddhist scholar, Loizzo has spent his career merging "the scientific and the spiritual," bringing ancient teachings on contemplative practice to modern Western psychotherapy and preventive medicine.

"There's a growing understanding that we need to move back in the direction of the contemplative traditions -- the ancient wisdom that says slow down, pay attention, be kind, be at peace -- whereas our modern wisdom has said that we need to just push forward and move into the future. We're realizing that's not sustainable for us either as a civilization or for our individual minds and brains. It's wearing and tearing us down just like it's wearing and tearing the planet down."

Loizzo spent years studying with Tibetan teachers in exile in India and in the West, and is convinced that the Tibetan Buddhist tradition -- which emphasizes training in mindful awareness and compassion -- has something to teach us all about how to live better lives.

Here are four essential lessons from Tibetan Buddhism that can help in your own pursuit of happiness.

Get intimate with your own mind.

We need two main things to become happy, according to the Tibetan Buddhist tradition: mindful awareness and loving compassion. The theory goes that the combination of attention and loving-kindness -- both of which can be built through contemplative practices like meditation -- can help bring the brain into its most plastic, growth-oriented state and support the development of a greater state of consciousness, Loizzo says.

Meditation -- "the quiet, humble work it takes on a daily basis," as Loizzo puts it -- is the cornerstone of the Tibetan contemplative science. Through a meditation practice, we can begin to overcome negative thoughts and habitual emotional responese, and start to live from a more calm, centered place, he says.

“Above all, be at ease, be as natural and spacious as possible. Slip quietly out of the noose of your habitual anxious self, release all grasping, and relax into your true nature," Sogyal Rinpoche advised in The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, a guide to meditation and Tibetan Buddhist philosophy. "Think of your ordinary emotional, thought-ridden self as a block of ice or a slab of butter left out in the sun. If you are feeling hard and cold, let this aggression melt away in the sunlight of your meditation."

The research is now there to back up the benefits of this time-worn strategy for stabilizing emotions and boosting the brain's capacity for joy. Studies have shown meditation may be effective in reducing anxiety and depression, lowering stress levels, reducing loneliness and boosting emotional well-being.

"Twenty years and a thousand stories that have given me an unshakable confidence in the truly boundless potential we human beings have to heal ourselves and transform our lives," Loizzo wrote in his 2012 book, Sustainable Happiness.

Practice compassion, at every moment.

Most Eastern spiritual traditions involve some form of practice around compassion, or "loving-kindness." In Buddhism, there is a meditation for loving-kindness,“metta bhavana”, which involves sending kindness to yourself, loved ones, community members, people you may dislike, and eventually, all beings. In the Tibetan tradition, monks practice tonglen, which consists of breathing in suffering and breathing out happiness, so as to reduce pain and spread peace among all beings.

"What's unusual about the Tibetans is that they have what I call an industrial-strength version of this discipline," Loizzo says of loving-kindness practice. "These practices allow us to turn our sense of life as a battle, a struggle for survival against everybody else, into a communal experience of connecting with friends and the larger world. That, we've learned, is so important to our quality of life and our personal sense of meaning in life."

The Tibetans have devised powerful ways of helping people learn how to become more compassionate that are now being used in the Western world. A 2012 Emory University study suggested that compassion training derived from ancient Tibetan practices may boost empathy, and other studies have shown that loving-kindness meditation could increase positive emotions and lead to more positive relationships over time.

Connect with others who support your journey.

The traditional "Three Jewels" of Buddhism consist of the Buddha (the example), the Dharma (the path) and the Sangha (the community). In this tradition, the community is just as important an element as any other in living a happy, purposeful life. Increasing your happiness and well-being is a difficult thing to do alone. It requires the support and love of others, and a sense of belonging to a community.

"Modern neuroscience is showing us that we're really wired to be extremely social creatures," Loizzo says. "We're happier and healthier when we do that in a committed way ... We need to learn to connect with others with mindful openness and positivity, and to deal with the daily slings and arrows and work through those and maintain a sense of connection that's positive. This is something we practice in spiritual communities."

Strong social support networks have also been linked to a number of health benefits, including lower stress levels and increased longevity.

Embrace death -- don't fear it.

In Western cultures, our attitude toward death is largely characterized by fear and denial -- and this can, consciously or unconsciously, cause a great deal of suffering throughout our lives. But a central aspect of the Tibetan Buddhist philosophy is the belief that death should be embraced, and the concept that dying can be the "crowing achievement" of a life well lived. Although this attitude stems in part from a strong belief in reincarnation, you don't have to believe in an afterlife in order to better accept the impermanence of life in the here and now. The Tibetans believe that meditation can help us to come to terms with the nature of life and death.

When Loizzo is working with patients who are suffering from chronic or terminal illnesses, in addition to practicing meditation and loving-kindness, he goes through a traditionally Tibetan practice of asking some of life's big questions: What has been meaningful to you in your life? How do you face the impermanence of your life and the inevitability of death?

"Being able to embrace the idea of death and being present ... some of the women say it gives them a new lease on life," says Loizzo. "The ancient traditions made a science of trying to understand the death process and make meaning out of it ... This kind of approach of facing reality, even the parts that scare us, has tremendous potential for healing."

Asking these questions can help bolster an acceptance of things that can't be changed or controlled, which Buddhist teachings have long touted as a key to reducing suffering. Now, this ancient doctrine has science on its side: A recent study from Australian researchers showed that during the difficult changes of later life -- moving into residential care and losing independence -- an acceptance of what can't be changed may be a significant predictor of life satisfaction.


View the original article here

Friday, February 21, 2014

7 Pieces Of Evidence That Prove The Matrix Is Really About Buddhism

Home Bodhi Wood

As an action/sci-fi flick, The Matrix is a total thrill-fest, combining badass Kung Fu fight scenes with the sole reason you wanted a black trench coat for a while. It was one of the most exciting films to come out in the 90's and introduced mind-bending ways of making movies.

But as a work of art, it’s utterly ripe for insane amounts of analysis. Film students or just general enthusiasts can spend months, or even years focusing on aspects of it; dissecting it scene by scene and line by line, looking for cryptic clues and complex meanings. Even though most people just want to see a fast-paced film where Keanu Reeves wears sunglasses and has two hair styles, there are others who read so much in between the lines that they’ve gone cross eyed.

Of all the theories out there, there’s one which not many people are aware of. And that is that the Wachowskis – either by design or by accident – wrote and directed a film that’s actually about the teachings of Buddhism.

Wait, what?

Yep. You read that right. One of the most popular actions films in recent cinema history has a deeper meaning that teaches peace and enlightenment. Don’t believe us? Here’s why we think so.

7) The Name “Neo”

Right off the bat we have Keanu Reeves as nerd-cum-saviour of humanity, Neo. If you rearrange the letters in the character’s names, you can spell the word “one.” In fact, Neo is referred to as The One throughout many parts of the film. It’s no coincidence then that his alias is an anagram foreshadowing his own destiny.

Of course, this sounds like a bit of a stretch. After all, there are plenty of films throughou history that have a central character referred to as the one, or a prophet, or even the saviour of human kind.

So, how does this relate to Buddhism then? Much of the Eastern philosophy reflects on the desire for people to become at one with the world; to empathise with everyone and everything on Earth (possibly the universe). Now, it’s true that Neo doesn’t exactly show his most peaceful side throughout the film, but him being a chosen one does elevate him to a sort of messianic status to become the leader of a more free world. Similar to Buddha himself.

Not convinced? Keep reading.

6) Awakening In The ‘Real World’

What’s even more interesting about Neo being an anagram of “one” is not only the fact that it relates to who he is in relation to the film (a prophet who has come to save the world), but how it references another very key part of Buddhism, specifically Buddha himself.

As the founder of Buddhism in 520BCE, Siddhartha then became known as the first Buddha. The word itself literally translates to “the awakened one.” Now, you don’t have to skip too many scenes in the film to see how this is relevant.

Much of The Matrix involves Neo/Mr Anderson coming to terms with the fact that the world he lives in is an illusion and that he must wake up so he can experience the true world. Fulfilling an ancient prophecy, he is taken down the “rabbit hole” and shown the truth about the world. He is literally a modern version of one who has awakened to a more enlightened state – a reincarnation of Buddha in our contemporary period.

5) The Modern World Isn’t Real

Let’s examine some of the core philosophies of the film. It’s apparent how Neo can be seen as representing a sort of reincarnated Buddha figure, but what about the rest of the film? One of the main teachings that Morpheus imparts to Neo is that the world in which his alter ego Mr. Anderson lives does not actually exist. He tells him that it’s an illusion, in which your mind simply interprets the other signals (touch, smell, etc.) and creates the world as a sort of virtual reality setting.

In the world that we know and live in, there is corruption, anxiety, stress and material desire. In the real world of The Matrix, there is freedom. Albeit it’s not exactly nirvana, but the characters in the film continue to insist that they have been set free by Morpheus. Neo was freed to protect the world, release others from their mind prisons and prevent further suffering (what Buddhism refers to as “Samsara”).

He can also never go back. Much like not being able to unsee something once you’ve witnessed it, a person who is awake can never be “un-awake” again. The scene in which Morpheus tells Neo this is interesting in that he also talks about a man who saw the world as it was; who freed the first people. Sound like someone you know? I’ll give you a hint. His name starts with a ‘B’.

4) Martial Arts

The Matrix is a rare treat in that it successfully blends Western attributes with Eastern ones. Take the famous lobby scene for example, in which Neo and Trinity gun down a room of security guards. An interesting point to make at this stage is how Trinity’s name could easily relate to The Holy Trinity in the Christian faith. She obviously represents Western philosophies while Neo represents the East.

Taking Buddhism into account, we see Neo being trained by Morpheus in various forms of martial arts, a traditionally Eastern self defence technique. While this doesn’t relate entirely to its teachings, there are a sect of Buddhists who do practice the art. Martial arts is not only about learning to fight, but also about mastering ones own mind and body. Both mind and body are a key aspect to the teachings of Buddha.

There is also a very Eastern feel about the training dojo sequence. Morpheus takes on the role of master and engages Neo in combat, asking him to show how much he has learned. The entire sequence is reminiscent of one of many martial arts films and is a huge step away from the ‘guns blazing’ methodology that many action films prefer (though we do see this later on).

3) Impermanence

Now, the idea of someone dying and being dead for the rest of the film is not something you can link to Buddhism. Death is final. You don’t need teachings or philosophies to be able to know that. What can be linked, however, is the idea of dying in an imaginary world.

During Neo’s training, he is taken to the top of a skyscraper and asked to leap from one roof to another. Failing the first time and plunging to the ground, he is extracted from the matrix world and re-emerges in the real world. Noticing his mouth is bleeding (despite the training occurring in a virtual realm), he questions Morpheus.

“I thought it wasn’t real,” he states.

“Your mind makes it real,” Morpheus says.

He then informs Neo that were he to die in the fake world, he would die in real life, saying that “the body cannot live without the mind.” This again brings to light the Buddhist ideas of how important the mind is. By training it, resting it (via meditation) and basically not dying in the matrix, a person can master it.

In fact, we even see this put to the test in one scene where several of the other characters (all of whom have been inserted into the matrix program) have their outside life support plugs removed. Dropping like flies, this shows that Morpheus was indeed right; that dying in the fake world is the same as dying in the real one.

2) Reincarnation

One of the most recognizable beliefs about Buddhism is the idea that a person is reborn after their physical body expires. You don’t need to know anything about the philosophy itself to be able to describe, even vaguely, what it means to be reincarnated. And yes, The Matrix features it. Twice in fact.

The first instance is when Neo first wakes up in the real world to find himself cacooned in a pod attached to tubes. While in this instance he hasn’t been reincarnated after death, it is still a rebirth in some form. More astute film buffs and students will argue that death has occurred in a very metaphorical sense, in that Neo’s perceptions of the world he once knew are now dead and new insights have been born.

The much more obvious example is right at the end when Neo is disposed of by Agent Smith. While death is indeed permanent, Neo awakens once more from ultimate demise and is reincarnated into The One, exactly how Morpheus has been referring to him throughout the film.

At this point he now sees how the world really is (green code that a person must decipher). He battles Agent Smith with a calm demeanour and utilising his Kung Fu skills. In this instance, he has obviously reached a state of enlightenment; essentially the ultimate goal of Buddhism.

1) “There Is No Spoon”

While Neo is clearly supposed to represent Buddha (or at least Buddhism at its core level), it can be easy to gloss over the idea for one simple reason: he doesn’t much look like the leader of one of the oldest Eastern philosophies in the world.

All theories can be thrown out with that basic observation, but if you want even more evidence that The Matrix is more than just a nod towards Buddhism, you can clearly see it in the scene where Morpheus takes Neo to see the Oracle.

While sat in the waiting room, Neo sees several children who are quite clearly gifted (one child is seen levitating letter blocks above her head). One notable character is the bald boy who is seen bending spoons with his mind. He hands the spoon to Neo and imparts not only great words of wisdom, but also the most famous line from the film.

He tells him that he cannot bend the spoon with just his mind and that he must realize the truth. “There is no spoon,” he says. Dressed in traditional Buddhist garbs and with no hair, the young boy could easily be mistaken for an ordained monk. His words speak a great truth and his calm expression suggests he too has been set on this path of discovery. Like Neo, he has been set free from Samsara.

So, now are you convinced?


View the original article here

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Buddhist Practice Is About the Kind of Person You Are

Home Dharma Dew

The world has always needed people who are kind and wise and who can effectively and skillfully relate to the cries of the world. It would seem that Buddhist practices and values are designed to produce such people. That is what attracted me to Buddhism as a young man, and has kept me in the Buddhist fold for my whole adult life.

However, over the decades much of what I have learned about Buddhism concerns the ways these lofty promises have been exaggerated or unfulfilled -- perhaps partly due to my own idealization and wishful thinking. Of course Buddhism exists in the human realm and is practiced and taught by flawed and corruptible human beings.

How could it be otherwise? It is true that Buddhism has produced some extraordinary people. It is just as true that Buddhist individuals and institutions--past and present -- have caused harm and suffering. We have only to look at the continuing drumbeat of bad news regarding present-day Buddhist teachers, leaders and institutions to realize that Buddhists -- like people of every faith -- come in all shapes and sizes.

Once Thich Nhat Hanh was asked to summarize Buddhism in one word, and he said, "Ahimsa," which means "non-harm." Following his example, when I am asked to briefly explain what Buddhism is about, I say, "It is about the kind of person you are and what you do." Of course it is about more than that too, but if it is not about that -- if it is only about some heady ideal of perfect enlightenment unconnected to character and action -- then I wonder what use it is.

On that point, I like the Chinese Zen story about an eccentric Zen teacher known as the Tree Master -- since he lived in a tree. Once a high lord, on hearing about the Tree Master's wisdom, visited him and asked, "What is the deepest truth of Buddhism?"

The Tree Master replied, "Do good, avoid evil, benefit beings." These are the three pure precepts of the Bodhisattva, which would have been known to every person of that time.

The lord, perhaps affronted by the apparent triviality of the teacher's response, said, "Why, even a three-year-old child knows that!"

The Tree Master retorted, "Yes, but even a hundred year old man can't fully practice it."

The Tree Master knew that the world of flawed human beings includes intrigue, treachery, betrayal, ambition, pride, rigidity and duplicity -- even among those who profess to be deeply spiritual. All religions -- East and West -- seem to partake of this darkness to some degree. Many adult converts to Buddhism have yet to fully accept this -- perhaps because so much of their knowledge comes from books or reading, which tend to display Buddhism's best face.
Once a senior monk from a training monastery in Japan was visiting a large Zen center in America, and was astonished to see the meditation hall full of Americans silently meditating. The Japanese monk turned to his American host and said, "How do you get them to meditate without beating them?" Apparently in Japan it was unusual for Zen monks to actually like meditation.

In the 1970s, I once asked a highly regarded Japanese Zen teacher how many enlightened Roshis there were in Japan. The teacher paused and finally replied, "Four or five." I was taken aback. I had naively assumed that there were hundreds more just like him. That was an important lesson for me. Saints are rare, whatever the country or the era.

That being said, Buddhists ought not to be discouraged or disillusioned by hearing the news of how things really are. After all, "how things really are" is what the word "dharma" means. While I have at various times been dismayed on hearing bad news about some Buddhist individual or institution, I keep taking refuge in the thought that this too is Dharma. To know how things really are and to face those facts with clarity and courage is our work as Buddhists.

May that work long continue.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lewis-richmond/buddhist-practice-is-abou_b_3570465.html
---------
Lewis Richmond is a Buddhist writer and teacher. Follow him on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lewrichmond


View the original article here

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Buddhism, Islam, and a serious talk about fundamentalism - Patheos (blog)

Last week’s attack in Woolwich, London surprised and horrified me as much as anyone. It was quickly claimed that the men had shouted Allahu Akbar, “God is great” at the time. One early video showed one of the men also apologizing that women had to see what had happened and that the problem was atrocities in their own land (note, one of the two was born in London, the other in Nigeria), saying, “remove your government. They don’t care about you.”

Commentators rushed to fill in the gaps with terms like “Islamist,” “Baghdad style violence” and “terrorism.”

A steady tide of belligerent racism and Islamophobia ensued.

First a mosque was attacked. Then another. Then another. Then another. The count now is 10. Six days and ten Mosques… At least one Muslim has been murdered in what police suspect is a racially-motivated attack.

And Sunday morning I awoke to news that England’s resident racist political movement, the EDL, had rioted a few miles from where I live (note, there is a case to be made that they are not racist, just xenophobic in case that might seem better). Elsewhere in the UK EDL members were arrested for ‘racist tweets’ ahead of their own marches. And for a bit of background, you can see this 2010 Guardian investigation.

After the attack, the EDL looked a bit like this:

Wearing logo embossed ski masks.

Which just begs the question: why the matching ski masks?  (warning, offensive language):

YouTube Preview Image

And vowing vengeance. – yep, they posted it.

Now, I don’t mean to get too far away from the topic of Buddhism, Islam, and fundamentalism, but it’s worth noting that my own worry on the streets of Great Britain tonight is for what people in the EDL and similar groups might do next. 

london woolwich attack julie siddiqi Meet Julie, she is a Muslim community leader in England. Read her story.

The fact is, Muslims across the country reacted to the crime with the same shock and horror that I did, quickly condemning the act and discussing their own efforts to deal with violence in their communities (this is one article that you must read).

So what part could Islam have possibly played in the attack?

The answer is by no means simple. As with any religion, there are numerous passages in the Muslim holy book, the Qur’an/Koran, that might be used to justify violence in certain situations. However, there are also other equally, and often more, compelling passages that demand restraint, kindness, and pacifism. The Huffington Post recently hosted a live discussion with two Muslims and one ex-Muslim to help draw out the finer points of this matter and while they tend to meander a bit in terms of their specific topic and rely on various sorts of evidence to support their claims, I highly recommend it as an introduction to various ways Islam can be interpreted and lived today.

For my part, I would suggest that the part Islam played here was incredibly superficial and that the motivations of these men had far more to do with their own 1) sympathies for the suffering of Muslims in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, 2) feelings of inability to help those people, and 3) anger toward those involved in the killings. That is, of course, too simple and the details will yet emerge as to just how things came to be this way. One Englishman, who recently watched his own step-brother drawn into a radical group wrote:

They came from all sorts of backgrounds. Some from Christian households, some from immigrant families, some with mainstream Muslim parents. Others, like my stepbrother, were white and came from ordinary middle England towns. There was no single demographic.

Some explained that they had been inspired to convert by things that had happened in their lives. One man whose sister had died of a cocaine overdose blamed Western society for “allowing her to die”. There was another who had watched George W Bush, after the 9/11 attacks, saying that “you are either with us or against us”, and had decided that he didn’t like him and was therefore against him.

All had taken their search to extremes because they were extremists. It was part of who they were – or had grown up to become. I wouldn’t say they were born that way, but at some stage in their short lives they had come to believe that they couldn’t live in the world they had been brought up in, and had turned against it.

The fact that the men in Woolwich attacked a military service member suggests the defensive nature of the attack (as odd as that might sound… If they just wanted to kill non-Muslims or random English people they could have killed several who gathered at the scene after the initial attack. But they didn’t. They only killed the soldier and then attempted to kill armed police when they arrived.) They were going after those who they felt -either rightly or wrongly- were responsible for, or acting as armed representatives of those attacking fellow Muslims elsewhere. They attacked a soldier and armed police, not ordinary Britons, which suggests that this definitely wasn’t an act of terrorism (note the part of the albeit nebulous definition that slips in:  ”and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)”).

I also have trouble with the term “Islamist.” I suppose it is generally just a shortening of “Islamic fundamentalism,” but when this convenient shortening happens to only one religion, it seems a bit unfair. For instance, do we talk about the Westboro Baptists as a Christianist hate group? No. They’re called “extreme” or “controversial.” And I don’t suppose we’ll be hearing about the horrible “Buddhismist” preacher Saydaw Wirathu of Burma (James Ure is quite right in describing his teachings as Hatred and Anti-Muslim).

Which brings us to the rather horrible suggestion that I have seen in places too numerous to mention: that there is something intrinsic to Islam that is at the root of Islamic fundamentalism. To back up just a moment, you see – if we call it “Islamism” it is so easy to conflate it with “Islam.” There is no need to talk about the broad spectrum of the religion, from the most liberal and/or secular to the most fundamentalist. For instance, it would be irresponsible to say that “Cardinal Dolan incites Christianist Hatred toward Homosexuals,” somehow equating the rather conservative (and I would suggest abhorrent) views of this one particular Catholic leader with Christianity as a whole. If you have a hard time seeing the extremism of the Westboro Baptists or “traditional marriage” Catholics, then think of Christian groups like the LRA, Jonestown, or the KKK.

These last three are not “Christianist” organizations. They are extremist, fundamentalist, far-right-wing, etc. At least that is how we think of them. Because we all know that most Christians are nothing like that.

But whenever a Muslim commits a crime, it seems that the media (and, I’m afraid, many of the people I know) still need to have a conversation about “the problem of Islam.” Warren Jeffs. Is he part of “the problem of Christianity“? No. And given the current love affair that the West has with Buddhism, do you think we’ll ever see a headline: “the problem of Buddhism”?

Of course this is because Buddhism is not a problem. Nor is Christianity. Nor is Islam or any other religion.

The problem is fundamentalism – often fueled by poverty, things like PTSD from being raised in constant fear of violence, warfare, the threat of indiscriminate bombings, shootings, unfair trials, disappearances, torture and so on.

If you spend enough time surrounded by these things, I really don’t think it matters what ideology or religion you identify with: you are quite likely a broken person who needs help. But in societies where help is not given by the state, it is far too often the radicals that step in, offering help with a hefty – but unmentioned – price tag.

This is why Buddhists in some countries will snap into their own versions of Islamophobia, as James Ure’s post – see above- discusses, or racism. Some Western Buddhists or others might use these cases as a reason to look down on Asian Buddhists in general or specific groups in particular, but this would be to completely miss the point of the causes and conditions that brought these individuals to their current state. I am tempted to say that there are common socio-economic-historical strands to be found between the radical/fundamentalist elements of such groups as the EDL, fundamentalist Muslims in England and elsewhere, some Buddhists in Sri Lanka and Burma (and Thailand, while we’re at it), Muslims in various countries (I don’t know enough to try to pin down specifics), and Christians in other various countries (again, leaving it to you to fill in where is most appropriate).  We could also throw in the early developers of suicide bombings: Hindus in Sri Lanka.

I fear I have meandered a bit myself.

The point I hope to impart you with is that 1) Buddhism is not intrinsically peaceful, despite what many superficial analysts suggest, 2) Islam is not intrinsically violent, despite what far too many journalists, particularly bought and paid for by the right wing, will tell you, and that 3) fundamentalism is more of a socio-economic or political issue than it is one of religion. Part of what makes religions survive is their ability to speak to many people with their broad variety of statements and justifications. All religions, in their foundation or early development, have justifications for violence in some form or another and no religion that I can think of has survived for more than a century without some of its members being both a victim of violence and a perpetrator, suggesting that none of what happened last week or what has happened since is anything all that new.

Hopefully we can all come to see that religions are not all bad, nor all good. I tend to think that they must do some good (even if it is just a big placebo effect) for their adherents, or else they wouldn’t survive. And many secularists are no doubt trying to figure out how to replicate the best/most useful aspects of religions without all of the superstitious stuff. But until that sets in, if it ever does, we really have to learn to live with one another without the simplistic and often stupid labels and attacks against one another.


View the original article here

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Presidential election: What the Dalai Lama can teach Obama, Romney about leadership

Home Dharma Dew

Washington D.C., USA -- After the first presidential debate, polls showed that the majority of Americans felt that President Obama had been too polite and not aggressive enough. He was faulted for his apparent lack of emotion and disinterest in the debate. Governor Mitt Romney's spirited attacks on the president captured people's attention. As a result, during the second and third debates, the president resorted to the same disrespectful behavior that Romney exhibited. Both candidates interrupted one another,  bared their fists and let the punches fly.

This got me thinking both about the personal qualities that Americans expect to see in a president and, of equal importance, a president's moral values. With several European countries on the verge of economic collapse, the political situation in the Middle East deteriorating and tension between the U.S. and China running high, the next president faces an incredibly complex, volatile international situation that directly affects our future. The president's inner values will guide him in charting the course that America takes. This may mean launching a new military offensive or resolutely adhering to the practice of non-violence.

 Against the backdrop of the negative campaigning of the 2012 election, his holiness the 14th Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso toured the United States. He spoke to sold-out audiences at several American universities including Western Connecticut State University, the College of William & Mary and Syracuse University, to name a few.

In his talks and his recent book “Beyond Religion: Ethics for a Whole World,” the Dalai Lama describes the need for an ethical system that goes beyond the confines of any particular religion. Secular ethics are possible because mankind's natural compassion is the source of all our shared ethical or spiritual values. He defines spirituality as the practice of non-harming/non-violence both with respect to oneself and others.

Universal secular ethics center around two principles. In the aforementioned book he writes, “The first principle is the recognition of our shared humanity and our shared aspiration to happiness and the avoidance of suffering; the second is the understanding of interdependence as a key feature of human reality, including our biological reality as social animals.”

The quality of discernment is the ability to recognize our interdependence. A good leader is someone who possesses discernment and thus makes decisions guided by the needs of the broader community rather than those of a particular self-interest group. Likewise, when questions of justice are examined in the context of a moral framework grounded in compassion and non-violence, the key values are forgiveness and a recognition of man's ability to change. Capital punishment, for example, violates a compassion-centered ethic because it is motivated by revenge and does not acknowledge a person's capacity for positive reform.

As the Indian Buddhist thinker Nagarjuna explains in his text “The Precious Garland,” a compassionate leader always acts in a truthful manner, practices open-hearted generosity, treasures peace and is guided by wisdom. He embodies the virtues of patience in the face of hardship and respect for all.

The way in which we perceive ourselves has a profound effect on our relationships with others. We point our fingers at others as the source of all our problems. Instead, we need to recognize that our true enemy is in fact our own self-centeredness and negative emotions. Through meditation, we can free ourselves from the destruction that such emotions cause in our lives and enjoy the satisfaction that arises from cherishing others more than ourselves.

In an October 11, 2012 interview that focused on the tragic self-immolations in Tibet, the Dalai Lama said that Tibetans are engaged in a struggle between the power of truth versus the power of the gun. The power of the gun is winning but only in the short term.  He doesn't admire the U.S.'s military power, including its nuclear armaments. Rather, he deeply admires America's values: democracy, freedom and liberty. The true source of the power of America rests in its ideals, not in its weapons.

Disarmament is nothing less than compassion in practice and must occur first within ourselves – a resetting of our own moral compasses and later in our relations with others. The Dalai Lama writes: “What is required, therefore, is both inner disarmament, at the level of our individual hatred, prejudice, and intolerance, and outer disarmament, at the level of nations and states. Rather than pouring salt on the wounds we have inherited from earlier generations, we must start to heal our divisions by committing ourselves to dialogue, cooperation, and understanding.”

Later he continues, “We can learn from the great achievements of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. to recognize that nonviolence is the best long-term approach to redressing injustice. If the twentieth century was a century of violence, let us make the twenty-first a century of dialogue.”

Let us hope that our next president heeds his holiness's advice.

-----
Losang Tendrol is a nun in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition and a contributor to The Washington Post’s local faith leader network. She teaches meditation and Buddhism at the Guhyasamaja Buddhist Center in Reston. The center was founded in 1994 and is affiliated with the Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition. The center follows the Gelugpa tradition, the same lineage as his holiness the Dalai Lama.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/presidential-election-what-the-dalai-lama-can-teach-obama-romney-about-leadership/2012/11/05/01d9f850-2780-11e2-b4f2-8320a9f00869_story_1.html


View the original article here

Thursday, July 14, 2011

How about a Buddhist vihar in Ayodhya?

A vihar dedicated to the Buddha, apostle of universal love being built on the disputed site in Ayodhya, might actually be a mutually acceptable and eminently sensible settlement for many Hindus and Muslims themselves, says Yogi Sikand on reading Ambedkarite scholar Balwant Singh Charvak's book

The conflict over the now-destroyed structure in Ayodhya, whose chief antagonists have consistently sought to pit Hindus and Muslims against each other, has a hidden dimension representing a third party which, if recognised, could well provide a meaningful solution to the still-unresolved dispute.

So writes Balwant Singh Charvak, a noted Ambedkarite scholar from Uttar Pradesh [ Images ], in a book which I recently came across appropriately titled Ayodhya Kiski?Na Ram Ki, Na Babar Ki ('Whose Ayodhya? Neither Ram's Nor Babar's'). Echoing several other Dalit ideologues who have made similar claims, Charvak argues that the disputed spot in Ayodhya belongs to neither Hindus nor Muslims but, rather, to an ignored third party -- Shudras and Buddhists. This spot, he claims, is where a grand Buddhist temple, dedicated to a Shudra rishi, Lomash (later identified, so he says, as a Boddhistattva or Gautama Buddha in one of his previous lives) once stood.

In his 230-odd page Hindi book, which is based on meticulous research, Charvak argues that there is no evidence of any Ram temple having stood on the site occupied by the erstwhile Babri Masjid [ Images ]. Indeed, he argues, the cult of Ram centred in Ayodhya is of relatively recent origin, and is certainly a post-Buddhist development. He contends that the disputed spot in Ayodhya was actually a hallowed centre of worship of 'low' caste untouchables and Shudras even before Ram's birth, for it was there that a Shudra saint named Lomash was born and where had set up his hermitage. His son Shambhukh, also a saint, was, so he contends, also born in the same place. The father and son were both renowned for their piety, and were immensely popular saints among the Shudras, who were shunned and scorned by the 'upper caste' Hindus.

According to the Ramayana [ Images ], Charvak writes, Shambhukh was killed by Ram for having violated the Brahminical code of caste conduct by engaging in tapasya or stern authorities in the hope of entering heaven, something that was forbidden to 'low' caste Shudras by the Brahmins and their religion. This indicates, Charvak adds, that Ram was an ardent defender of the inequitous caste system, which was premised on the degradation of the Shudras.

Because of its association with the Shudra hero-saints Lomash and Shambhukh, Charvak writes, the presently disputed spot was widely revered among the Shudras for centuries. Later, Gautam Buddha is said to have visited Ayodhya, and Charvak argues that it was near Lomash Rishi's chaitya or shrine, supposedly constructed on the disputed spot, that he announced, so Charvak claims (based on a reference to the widely-known Buddhist text The Questions of King Milinda) that he had been Lomash Rishi in one of his previous births.

In other words, Charvak argues, Lomash Rishi was actually a Boddhisattva.

The bigoted Brahmins of the area, fearful that the Buddha's charisma and teaching would attract people to him and that this would threaten their control and privileges, issued orders that no one was to give food or water to the Buddha and his bhikkhu followers accompanying him. Defying their diktat, a woman called Anitya, a Brahmin's servant, provided the Buddha with water, which so angered her Brahmin master that he beat her to death. This incident, so Charvak argues, took place at the presently-disputed spot, which added to its religious importance for the Shudras. Soon, the spot also became a hallowed one for Buddhists (many of whom were of Shudra origin) particularly because, or so Charvak says, the Buddha had visited the place.

Prior to the Buddha's visit to Ayodhya, or the Buddhist Saketa, the disputed spot, so hallowed to the Shudras, hosted a chaitya or shrine to Lomash, but after the spread of Buddhism, Charvak argues, a massive Buddhist temple or vihar was constructed on it in honour of 'Lomash Boddhisattva' and other Shudra saints. Charvak quotes well-known historians who have testified to the importance of Ayodhya/Saket as a great centre of Buddhism and of it having once hosted a vast number of Buddhist temples. However, Charvak argues, with the decline of the Mauryas, Buddhism, too, experienced a decline, and when, in the first century BC, the Brahmin Pushyamitra Sangha murdered the last Mauryan king and came to power over much of northern India [ Images ], he let loose a virtual genocide of Buddhists, destroying many of their temples, including possibly the Buddhist vihar that Charvak claims was built on Lomash Rishi's hermitage, the site of what Muslims claim to be the Babri Masjid.

When, in the early sixteenth century, Babar or his general Mir Baqi arrived in Ayodhya the ruins of this Buddhist temple, built on a spot that Charvak argues was for centuries holy for the Shudras and Buddhists, were lying scattered about, having, so Charvak says, long since been destroyed by Brahminical revivalists who were as opposed to the Buddhists as they were to the Shudras. Babar or Mir Baqi simply put together the scattered ruins to build what is now known as the Babri Masjid, Charvak writes.

In other words, he contends, the structure that originally stood on the disputed spot was not a Ram temple but, rather, a Buddhist vihar, and that it was destroyed not by Babar or any other Muslim but, rather, by anti-Buddhist Brahminical revivalists. Charvak backs his claim by asserting that relics unearthed during excavations around the disputed site show clear evidence of his claims and do not suggest any proof whatsoever of a Ram temple having stood on the spot. 

Based on references in an ancient Pali Buddhist text, the Dashrath Jataka, he also raises the possibility that Ram was born not in the present-day Ayodhya, on the banks of the Saryu river, but, rather in another place once also referred to as Ayodhya, located on the banks of the Ganga in Kashi, where, according to the Dashrath Jataka, Ram's father orginally ruled. If this is true, Charvak argues, the claim that the presently-disputed spot marks the place of Ram's birth is void.

Charvak is not the only person to have argued on these lines -- numerous noted Buddhist and Ambedkarite scholars and activists have made somewhat the same claim. That Ayodhya was once a thriving centre of Buddhism is well-known, as is the fact of Brahminical revivalists destroying vast numbers of Buddhist temples (as did many intolerant Muslim iconoclasts) or taking them over and Hinduising them across India.

Whatever the case may be, a vihar dedicated to the Buddha, the apostle of universal love, instead of a Brahminical Hindu temple or a Muslim mosque, being built on the disputed site, might actually be a mutually acceptable and eminently sensible settlement for many Hindus and Muslims themselves, who are fed up of the hate-driven politics of mandir and masjid being played in their name.


View the original article here

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Lama Surya Das Speaks to Danny Fisher about the 2011 Buddhist Teachers Council

Home Dharma Dew


Lama Surya Das Speaks to Danny Fisher about the 2011 Buddhist Teachers Council

For those who use the internet at all to help them track news about the growth and development of Buddhism in America, discussion of the recent Buddhist Teachers Council has been pretty hard to miss in the last couple of weeks. With the gathering being closed and by invitation only, and almost no information provided to the public about the event in advance of it, web chatter about the “Maha Teachers Conference” reached a fever pitch on Twitter and blogs especially. A Huffington Post article and some blogging by conference participants following the meeting offered some details, but also inspired additional questions.


<< Gathering of the largest number of American Buddhist teachers at any one time, recently held at the Garrison Institute. Photo courtesy of Roshi Joan Halifax

One of the conference’s main organizers, Lama Surya Das – the mighty American-born Tibetan Buddhist teacher, founder of the Dzogchen Center in Cambridge, and author of such books as Awakening the Buddha Within and Buddha Standard Time – very graciously and with typical warmth and humor agreed to answer some questions and clarify aspects of the event for curious readers. Here is our Q&A….

The announcement about the conference at the Garrison Institute website really didn't explain much about the purpose of and goals for the gathering. It stated only that about 230 teachers would be present and, among other things, would be considering "the promise and the pitfalls as the Dharma spreads more widely into medicine, science, healing, education, the arts and all aspects of Western culture," "how to preserve and adapt the Dharma in new conditions without losing depth," and passing the torch as it were from "elders to the next generation." Can you tell us a little bit about how this meeting came together, and what outcomes the organizers were hoping for?

This international Buddhist Teachers Council was over two years in the planning, yet we wanted to keep the materials and plans for schedule and topics fairly light, flexible, and open to emergent developments…among those who were actually present…when the time actually came around. Of course the general theme was according to Buddha's injunction that "Followers of the Way should get together regularly in order to help maintain a healthy and flourishing sangha and community."

Thus everyone we could think of was invited who represented the different groups and traditions of Buddhist teaching in the West, regardless of tradition, background, skin color, gender, personal prejudice, etc. Of course, the thousands of Buddhist teachers, translators, and academics etc. in the West could not all be accommodated, so we set out to fill the hosting Garrison Institute on the wooded banks of the Hudson River with 200-240 of the most leading, long term, dedicated, English-speaking and representative teachers spanning the entire spectrum of Buddhism in the West, while consciously including for the first time 45-50 young Dharma teachers (under age 45).

They were all there, or at least represented: from the monks and nuns to the house-holding laypeople, from the true believers to the new Buddhist atheists, from the meditators and yogis to the scholars and academics, from the sutra translators to the mindfulness-only instructors, from the organizationally and institutionally-minded center-and-temple builders to the non-institutional anarchist deconstructionists, from devout Buddhists and devotees to meditation teachers who don’t identify themselves as Buddhist, and so forth -- all flying their flags, banners and emblems in one way or another, whether gross or subtle. Why not?

Yet it heightened my awareness about the absolute necessity of broadening true diversity in our Buddhist groups and community, something more challenging than I'd ever thought it would or should be, and the challenges of holding harmoniously together in one place or coherent framework the various strands and currents of Dharma in the West.

One bright young star, a married Dharma teacher, mother and author, explicitly questioned at a plenary session if it was our group's conscious intent to come out of this large council with the intent to further “The Mindful Society,” as had been mentioned in the original invitational materials. Why not “The Enlightened Society,” “The Awakened Society,” “The Harmonious Society,” “The Peaceful Society,” “The Wise Society,” “The Compassionate Society,” or fill-in-the-blank, she penetratingly asked? Several others, including some European voices, stated their feeling that the large council and its interpersonal process was too mindfulness-tradition oriented and west-coast or even American-style for them.

How much joy and love, wisdom and experience, dedication and commitment and creativity and originality there was in the main gathering room, coming in so many directions and at almost tangible in so many different ways and dimensions. I was very moved much of the time with the feeling of meeting for the first time many true brothers and sisters on the path, especially the young'uns (30's and early forties). I liked and appreciated almost everyone. There was a little status-seeking and posturing and jockeying for position, and raising the banner of their own center, guru or project, but it was fairly minimal, given the outsized personalities present and the unremitting passion we all bring to these things. The second three days with 185 teachers was too busy and fragmented, I felt, and included too much process (about how we were going to spend our time together) and not enough content for me, though there were definitely some historic moments, insights, good laughs, memorable stories to take home and recount, and even some revelations.

Maybe it would have been best to drop the idea that there would be any issue we could really get into deeply, given the time and numbers of diverse people present – and instead just relish the positive qualities of coming together in this way and moving forward together for the benefit of the Dharma and the world, which needs it so much.

Over the years, I've found that one of the definite benefits of these gatherings is to help nurture and nourish people who may be working in isolation. Too many good-hearted  people find themselves in a teaching role without much or even any teacher training, and only practitioner training, or without a living master-teacher to supervise and encourage them further on their own path of enlightenment so that they don’t get stuck or plateu’d, not to mention side-tracked or burnt out, along the Way. Some of us have been discussing for years the need to develop and further refine effective and suitable models for thorough teacher training programs. How lonely it is for so many teachers, challenging, and both isolated and isolating -- especially in our own post-modern and increasingly secular and economically stressed culture. And how dangerous it is to be isolated; too many teachers who have fallen by the wayside are examples. I like to remember the African saying: "If you want to go swiftly, travel alone. If you want to go far, travel together."

Gelek Rinpoche, the Asian elder at the council and spiritual advisor of the Garrison Institute, told us that when the Tibetan refugees first came out of Tibet in 1959, several dozen of the leading Tibetan lamas eventually gathered after some time at Dharmasala with the Dalai Lama and had a council to discuss where they were, what possibilities and potential were available, what to do, and how to survive, preserve their precious heritages both spiritual and cultural, and flourish themselves and with their refugees communities in the new world of India. Lama Gelek mentioned that he sees this kind of council as part of continuing in that important and necessary direction.

All in all it was very collegial, without much politics or hidden agendas, and harmonious. Some good things are already starting to come out of it, like the first nonsectarian gatherings of Vajrayanist teachers in the West, following long behind the  Zen teacher and Vipassana teacher meeting tradition held almost annually over the past two or more decades.
I understand from talking to another participant that the conveners saw this as one in a continuum of meetings that have been happening over the years and have typically been smaller. Is this correct? If not, can you put this into context for us in terms of other ecumenical Buddhist teacher gatherings that have happened? How was this one particularly significant?

This meeting was the latest in a series of ecumenical or trans-sectarian (triyana) conferences begun by some of us with the Dalai Lama in March of 1993, for ten days in Dharamsala, India, principally at my and the Dzogchen Foundation's initiative and leadership. (See the two-hour Mystic Fire video In the Spirit of Free Inquiry from that first groundbreaking conference, including 40 Buddhist meditation teachers from many if not most of the traditions and from around the world, Asian and Western.) This week-long conference with the Dalai Lama was repeated in 1994 and 1996, with a core group and some changing participants, depending on peoples schedules and interests, with the Dalai Lama's keen interest and participation in a circle discussion in his large audience and living room. After that the meetings moved West, and took place at Spirit Rock, at Mt. Madonna Center, at Green Gulch Zen Center, in Boston, at the World Trade Center several months before 9/11, and elsewhere on a fairly ad hoc basis every year or two with many of the same organizers informally aligned with me and soon Jack Kornfield as the informal Western Buddhist Teachers Network, with the Dalai Lama as our senior advisor and nonsectarian Buddhist sponsor. All this work culminated in a large gathering of almost 300 Buddhist teachers with the Dalai Lama, Maha Ghosananda of Cambodia, several Tibetan lamas, Asian Theravadin monks and nuns, and other leaders East and West at Spirit Rock Center in Woodacre, Marin County, CA, for several days in 2001.

At lunch one day during that meeting, the Dalai Lama told us that it was now up to us to keep meeting, and he gave us his blessings and encouragement to continue to do so.
Smaller subgroups of Dharma teachers have continued to meet around the country, beneath the radar, over the years, as wanted and needed, to discuss various matters of mutual interest, including various possible forms of collaboration, current issues, personal issues, and the like. Questions often involving such things as monastic and lay practice today, gender equality, social justice, diversity, hierarchy and democracy, translation and study of traditional texts, balancing study and practice, the changing face of Buddhism and religion in the world today, preservation (authenticity) and adaptation (innovation), breadth and depth, integrating mindfulness and spirituality into daily life, engaged Buddhism, Buddhism's encounter with modernity, the essence of the teaching and study of liberating Dharma, pedagogy, training students, teacher training, and so forth, etc.

This one – which owes much to the efforts of Jim Gimian (publisher of Shambhala Sun) and other Dharma teachers on our ad hoc inviting committee, including Judith Simmer-Brown, Norman Fischer, and some of the staff at Garrison (such as David Rome and Erin Koch) – was deemed as significant for a couple of prominent reasons, by the organizers and a few other interested parties and savvy elder advisors…

1. To gather the pioneers and elders of American Buddhism and Buddhism in America and discuss the present and future of Buddhism here and in the world, and particularly its continuance, legacy, and special qualities for benefiting the world, while many are still alive, perhaps for the last time. (Many have passed away in recent years, including most recently Charlotte Joko Beck Sensei, John Daido Loori Roshi, E. Gene Smith and Ven. Gerard Godet of the Tibetan tradition, and Robert Aitkin Roshi.) Numerous Asian teachers resident in the West have also passed away since the last gathering, in 2001 at Spirit Rock. A great deal of questioning, inquiry, discussion and learning – informational and philosophical both – came out of this aspect of the gathering. One respected pioneer teacher and meditation center founder stated what he thought the absolute bottom line was in terms of authorizing a student to teach and carry on his line. Others discussed what is the very essence of Buddha Dharma, where their personal practice is currently at, and so forth.

2. To discuss in a fairly informal and intimate setting, out of the public eye or the media watch, where we and Buddhism are at – or seem to be at – what it is, how it's unfolding and evolving, and what if any kind of future near and far we can foresee and wish to help shape, for the benefit of one and all. Thus the first three days of pre-council conference, from June 5-8, was comprised of small groups of a few dozen invited teachers, old and young, and the three day council itself (June 8-11) included almost 200 invited teachers.

3. The intent to explore the passing on of the lamp (transmission) and mantle of teaching/mentoring to the next generation teachers, generally and specifically regarding those who might be present and ready, willing and able to uphold our lineage(s) going forward. I must say that the NextGen group of Dharma teachers from around the Western world, mostly Americans, exceeded all expectations and stepped up to the plate in their inimitable, bold and insouciant way. Questions came up including how can the Elders best serve the new generation; how we as Elders can sustain, back and help the younger generation empower themselves while getting out of their way and genuinely serve as midwifes at their delivery; how the new generation of both students and teachers can experience the kind of immersion some of us benefited by being trained in over the early decades of Dharma moving from east to west (Sixties through Nineties), with many of the true pioneering, late, great Buddhist masters present among us at that time.

Can you help us understand why, beyond the simple space issues at the Garrison Institute, it was decided to do this one "out of the public eye or the media watch?" I ask because this seemed to be an issue that rubbed Buddhist bloggers and others the wrong way. Additionally, some of the past gatherings have been open – I was at the New York meeting in 2001 as an audience member, for example. And, of course, with issues of accountability and transparency getting pushed broadly every time a scandal arises in a Buddhist community, I suppose concern might be understandable among students.

This Buddhist (practice) Teachers Council – which was not for academics, scholars, translations per se, unless they were teaching dharma as a practice in the west – was a little different than the public and for-profit “Buddhism in America” conferences that Al Rapaport organized in Boston and in NYC and in LA as well. But, in fact, AP reporter Rachel Zoll, Jaweed Kaleem from The Huffington Post, and Tricycle and Shambhala Sun too were invited and there.

We decided that in order to have honest and open, frank exchanges about certain difficulties and issus, people would feel more safe and free, even in large groups, if a certain amount of confidentiality was provided, like in a support group, rather than a very public meeting or conference gathering with the public and whomever attending.

We thought that Garrison could and should videotape the discussions for our future use and archival purposes and as a record, but the teachers gathered during the first days of the six voted to stop taping for much of it in order to ensure deeper and more candid exchanges.
In his article about the conference that he wrote for The Huffington Post, religion reporter Jaweed Kaleem wrote, "Most attendees at the Maha Council were white, many were men, and the average age skewed toward the 50s." I talked to a few conference participants who felt that this wasn't exactly accurate. Can you share with us your sense of the conference demographics? Who was well represented? Who would you like to see better represented in the future?

These conferences are among the most diverse and representative of any kind of similar gatherings in the world, the western world, and certainly in the Buddhist community. Needless to say, we can continue to strive to do better and be more conscientious regarding gender equality, diversity and inclusiveness, and form and structure as well. Between 4-500 Buddhist teachers of all the various traditions east and west were actually invited to this MahaCouncil or Great Gathering, and approximately 190 actually came, many of whom actively participated on the spot in the emergent nature of the conference’s activities and forms, some of whom have volunteered to help organize further such gatherings.

Jack Kornfield was quoted in Kaleem's piece as saying, "There is still a pretty big divide between temples and teachers whose communities are of immigrants and those who are called convert Buddhists. I don't know how to address this." Would you agree with that assessment, and, if so, did any ideas for addressing this divide in the future emerge from the conference?

This is a tough one, and accurate. Few among us as yet seem to know how to adequately address this division, or even to what extant it is a problem and needs to be addressed. Ethnic immigrant communities are fairly insular in their country of origin and sect practices and activities, for example involving their native languages and priests and monastics in leadership roles, and involving native rites and rituals, faithful followers and devotees, family and lay community participation and orientation, etc. Western Dharma centers, of which there are several thousand in North America alone, are generally more English-language and meditation-oriented, for the most part, led by immigrant teachers and masters lay and monastic as well as authentic homegrown Buddhist teachers trained either in Asia or, more recently, the West. In these Western Dharma centers and Buddhist meditation groups and retreats, mainly populated by converts with Judeo-Christian roots, philosophical study and meditation training is usually emphasized over rituals and beliefs; questioning and discussion often plays a significant role; and students as well as teachers – sometimes, but not always – interact or even study and practice with teachers and kindred spirits from other Dharmic traditions, one of the unique hallmarks of Western Buddhism. Psychotherapy and other modern scientific healing and health modalities are also more prominent and popular among Western Buddhists than the ethnic Buddhists, which also sets the groups apart.

The absence of almost all of the invited notable Asian teachers long active in the West at the conference was somewhat disappointing, and may auger a new era and generation of Western Buddhism. I particularly missed their presence, though the cross-cultural issues are certainly there when we do get together and not everyone agrees they should and can be fruitfully included. However, it seems unfortunate that we don't have their experienced voices, perspectives and traditional concerns heard among our teacher sangha right now, and it may auger ill for both us and them going forward in these turbulent and uncertain times.

Lastly, what was personally beneficial or exciting to you about the conference? What would you want to share about it with others?

I think that perhaps the most beneficial outcome of these conferences, councils and gatherings is the vibrancy of Dharma exploration and development in this new world, and our mutual experiencing of the common ground and convergences we all share, as Dharma practitioners and teachers. Also, we come to further experience and appreciate the differences and divergences through making genuine contact with others we might not otherwise encounter or understand, especially those from other schools, sects and lineage traditions which rarely if ever encountered and new each other in the Old World.

My friends and colleagues often say that many of the most meaningful encounters we have had at these conferences and councils, over the years, occur among individuals and small groups in between the cracks of the various sessions and group activities, panels, and presentations – at meals and on walks, in the bathrooms, etc. I personally love seeing old friends and colleagues, exchanging views and experiences, and catching up with them and where their thought and path is at during this stage of life: what they're doing, struggling with, and accomplishing; and exploring together questions such as: What is the leading edge of our personal practice or our sangha community and its combinations of depth and breadth, traditional and adaptation, outreach and in-reach, in this time and place here in America and Europe. How can I and we best fulfill our bodhisattva vow of altruistic compassion in action in this age and stage of my life? And, where do we go together from here, in this great Dharma Barn-Raising in America the Buddha-Full?

---------

Rev. Danny Fisher, M.Div., D.B.S. (Cand.), is a professor and Coordinator of the Buddhist Chaplaincy Program at University of the West. Prior to his appointment at UWest, he served on the adjunct faculty for Antioch Education Abroad’s Buddhist Studies in India program. He earned his bachelor’s degree in Religion from Denison University and Master of Divinity from Naropa University, and is currently finishing his doctorate in Buddhist Studies at UWest. Visit his blog: http://dannyfisher.org


View the original article here