Reflections: Compassion and Wisdom

Since the Winter Intensive I've read a few books and listened to several of Ajahn Brahm's dharma talks, which are easy to listen to in the background at work. My aim was to return to what I learned when I started sitting years ago because of a sense of uncertainty about what compassion and loving kindness actually are. The source of the uneasiness was, and still is, an internal conflict between what rings most true in what the Buddha taught and effectively responding to circumstances as they arise.

Speaking for myself, what rings most true in what the Buddha taught is that compassion, harmony and peace are more important than being right. I'm reminded of Rumi's lines: Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I'll meet you there. 

Compassion, harmony and peace are more important than any agenda. It's a difficult lesson, but compassion -- being present for the suffering of others -- is different from compassionate action. It's difficult to determine what truly compassionate action is without wisdom, and wisdom is only possible to the extent that I have an accurate view of circumstances and let go of preconceptions and judgements. Not only my own judgements, but also my reactions to the judgements and attempts at compassionate action of other people.

What happened almost a year ago? I began listening to my own internal dialogue as well as several voices around that said something was wrong with the way I was living my life and the choices I was making (or not making). I'm reminded of one of Ajahn Brahm's stories in which someone offers him a small amount of money out of gratitude. After a frustrating night making a list of all the things he might spend the money on, Ajahn Brahm returns to say along the lines of: Please don't do that again. I'm happy with the way things are. At the same time, I'm sure Ajahn Brahm realized it was a wonderful learning experience.

Shunryu Suzuki once said: “Each of you is perfect the way you are ... and you can use a little improvement.” That's true for each of us. Part of what makes us perfect is our ability to recognize, accept and attempt to learn from our own imperfections. 

In that vein, this is my apology to Sweeping Zen, Brad Warner and especially Mike Cross for being a part of this phase of my learning. 

This is also my thanks to numerous unnamed individuals whose voices I've tried to listen to in these intervening months. 

The Happiness Project ...or How to Save the Human Race (IV)

When I first thought of the title "The Happiness Project ...or How to Save the Human Race," it was prompted by seeing a poster of a person covered in scars. It wasn't pretty. That's basically how each of us are on the inside to varying degrees though, as a result of conditioning and accumulated disappointments.

The trouble with those scars is they change how we react and respond to others. Our speech, behaviors and even goals change to compensate as we become more wary, less trusting and more defensive, changes that are caused by anger, hurt and fear. The process happens gradually. It seems like it's the only acceptable way to be, especially when surrounded by people behaving similarly.

So I started writing a science fiction-type story in which people were genetically engineered to scar on the outside as an indicator of internal emotional distress. The aim was to see if people's behavior could be modified to be more kind, the underlying assumption being that people don't actually want to hurt each other. Then I thought of all the instances in which that assumption might not hold true. In the second version, the person hurting others was the person who was externally scarred and the only way the scars could be healed was with compensatory positive behavior...

In ordinary daily interactions are hurtful speech and behavior ever justified? Are they justified in the name of truth or karmic retribution? In the name of teaching? In self-defense to get the attention of people who don't appear to get the message using kinder methods? And what about those instances when we react to something different than what the person intended due to our own conditioning? Or what about when individual perceptions of a situation or expectations are different?

In response to thoughts like these I've been feeling that even the first line of the Universal Precept of the Seven Buddhas "Not doing wrongs" is as impossible as saving all sentient beings. I can say for sure that I don't want to add scars to anyone and yet I'm sure I have. I'll be working on developing some compassion for myself to cope with that, compassion hopefully not too tainted by sentimentality or self-righteousness.

These are some of the questions and thoughts I'll be taking into sesshin this weekend. Last Sunday we celebrated the conclusion of the Winter Practice Intensive. We chanted the Prajña Paramita Hridaya and Emmei Jikku Kannon Gyo and one by one lit incense at the altar.

Serious Fun versus Having Fun Being Serious

A question that's been in the back of my mind in recent months concerns the difference between serious fun and having fun being serious. I think the difference between the two can help determine whether the way each of us lives life is via 'will power' (asceticism) or 'wisdom power' (the way that the Buddha taught).

By suggesting we have small desires I don't think Buddha meant that people shouldn't have fun. Rather I think he meant we should live in such a way that desires don't get so big that they're unattainable. Desires and goals never end up being what they're cracked up to be anyway, even if we attain them. It's better to do what we can to appreciate the present moment.

From what I've observed, when people approach life from an ascetic perspective, 'fun' runs the risk of being of the binge variety and risks causing headaches and other damage. In other words, it's not fun. Unless bragging rights, ego aggrandizement, and following in other people's footsteps is what qualifies as fun. For myself, I can say it's not.

Speaking for myself, even though I believe in wisdom power and would prefer to live my life that way, I think I've spent much of my life living from an ascetic perspective. It's what I was taught. Plus, since my intelligence is less of the classical variety and rather something else that is less readily measured I've had to work harder than most to get to where I was in life. When combined with the fact that I tend to drop off my own views and be overly patient with people, I think I've lost my sense of what 'fun' is, which is a strange feeling. These days I even have a difficult time determining whether people are kidding around or being serious.

Which approach is more beneficial and easier to learn from? Whether in the elementary school classroom or in college, teachers know that students learn more readily when having fun in the process. Comedians of today and court jesters of ancient times are and were able to point to partial, if exaggerated, truths that others could not. (As an aside, I wonder how many court jesters of ancient times lost their heads?)

What is fun? For myself, I can say that these days sitting and staring at a wall or going for a walk are as much fun as anything else. Although I will say that too much of anything is liable not to be fun -- which is another way of looking at what Buddha may have intended with 'small desire'.

One way or another, life goes on.

Reflections: Angels of History

You, created only a little lower than
The angels, have crouched too long in
The bruising darkness
Have lain too long
Facedown in ignorance,
Your mouths spilling words
Armed for slaughter.

 - Maya Angelou

Language must have evolved because of a longing to decrease our sense of separation from the rest of the Universe. When did words cease to function as what they were intended for?

Each one of us is ignorant in our own unique way. If we weren't, we wouldn't be human beings. It's good to remember even as I wish it weren't true.

Photo credit: Isolde Ohlbaum

"This is how one pictures the angel of history. His face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet. The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing in from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the angel can no longer close them. The storm irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward." - Walter Benjamin 

* In honor of Martin Luther King Jr Day. It's a sunny 5oF with the wind out of the WNW at 13 mph. The photo and quote are from Carolyn Forche's book of poems: The Angel of History.

An Early Poem and Some Thoughts

A poem I wrote sometime in the '80s:

The Illusion of Ice

report:
Life as a lake bridging shorelines STOP
Fresh frozen notions we skate across STOP
We are on the apparent surface of August STOP

warning:
Whole cities have crumbled like this STOP

rescue:
MAYDAY, MAYDAY The chopper blades can't cut it.

(Under the Pepsi-Cola sunbrella a margarita sloshes: That shaft of light is going too far, I tell you. Nothing runs that deep.)


***

Emptiness does run that deep as I think most folks reading this know. And that emptiness is part of reality is something I think few of us would disagree on as well.

What is reality? One possible answer is very simple: Reality is experience.

Each person's experience is different and unique. That's one reason each person's mind is the universe. Each person's perceptions of reality is going to be different.

For each of us our consciousness of our own individual reality is right. Even if that perception is deluded. Delusion is a consequence of how the mind works. It's when we try to convince others that there is a collective reality we all have to agree on that each of us becomes wrong. If people try to argue that I didn't experience what I know I did, I'm likely to disagree. The same is true for each of us.

We each bring a unique past, personality, aspirations and emotional tendencies to anything we encounter. Each of us is deluded in our own unique way. It's as true in real life as it is on the internet.


We've seen several recent tragedies in this country and around the world. These tragedies represent some of our worst nightmares and I am thankful that I have never personally experienced any of them. I can't help but feel for those who have.

Each of us is torn between wanting to help and our responsibilities to ourselves and those close to us.

Emptiness is undefined and unconditional. Unfortunately, we can neither correct our delusions or help others by solely relying on and retreating to emptiness. Delusion and the effect it has on all of our lives is not something we can cure by working only on ourselves.


I'm still planning on Internet silence on workdays for the Winter Intensive. It's about time I started working on my notes for Bussho, the next Chapter in the Shobogenzo, as well.

My Life is my Own and No One Else's Business

This is not the post I've been working the last couple of days. But in a taped teisho on Sunday it was mentioned that, these days, we have access to so much information from the television and the internet that some neuroscientists have wondered whether the brain is capable of processing it all (I apologize for not knowing the source of that report at the moment). Today has been one of those days in which I've wondered if that might be a correct assessment, although I haven't actually spent that much time on-line. And the assessment may be worse than I think since much of I see these days is accompanied by information in the sidebars, which even though I don't pay attention to, may be information my brain takes in subliminally and then indirectly affects how I perceive my reality. So even though I supposedly have a choice in what information I admit into my consciousness, that's not entirely true. (I'm thankful I don't own a television or play video games on my phone which I know many people do.)




My in real life Sangha begins it's winter practice intensive at the end of January. The winter intensive is followed by a sesshin. What I've decided is that for the winter intensive I going to declare as close to internet silence as I can given my job and responsibilities (I haven't yet decided whether I will limit internet silence to workdays or also include weekends.) When sesshin ends, I hope my consciousness no longer encounters all the indirect innuendo I've been seeing. I also will be trying to decide what to do with my life, what my options are. I know I need to be around people more than I have been, the fact that I am not is part of what people, the ones who care, have been responding to.


Right now, I'm going to sit. I'm late.

Where am I now?

I've always trusted in my own goodness. Trusted in the brightness of my own light.

I've also trusted that people would see my goodness and respect it. And I know some people do see it.

Those that don't, I've always figured they would eventually. Because I keep bringing understanding and awareness to what I see here. (Though I also admit I don't have the time to investigate all that's said and my view of the blogosphere is limited.)

I have high self-esteem, though I know it may surprise some folks given the difficult times I've faced and my isolation.

For unfortunate reasons, things didn't work out the way I thought they would when I started this blog. I have brought a tremendous amount of understanding, awareness and effort to that and to the people involved.

But some people have judged me due that failure and more people have judged me on account of the behavior of those others. A bit of a negative feedback loop.

I don't enjoy it. And given the difficulties I'm facing it doesn't help. I have and can bring understanding and awareness to it rather than be judgmental.

The fact that I've tried to bring understanding and awareness to the behavior of others has been used to judge me as being loose. And that's not true.

I still trust in my own goodness. I still trust in the brightness of my own light.

I still believe in the goodness of people even though that goodness may not always manifest in the way I'd prefer it to.

In case people haven't perceived it themselves, I have to point out that I'm still cutting off more of the few ways I express myself on-line to correct for the effects that the mistakes and the mistaken views of others have had. And, for what should be obvious reasons, I find that discouraging.

Ender's Game and the End of 2012

I'll be the first to admit I don't want the year to end on the tone of my last post. But I also feel the post was necessary for me to write.

As I've said recently, I've been ignorant of living within the cloud of feminism, and I also have become aware of another cloud that I have been living within and yet been ignorant of, namely the Internet.

It was good to write my last post to correct views that I've allowed to arise, primarily due to the fact that I was blind to my own role in the "Internet cloud."

Some of the questions I've spent a good portion of 2012 thinking about and sitting with are:
- How much a part of reality are the internet and interactions on the internet?
- How much can (or should) life on the internet substitute for real life in three dimensions?

When I started this blog, my intention was to increase interactions with friends that I'd made on Twitter, which were taking the place of a Sangha that I'd lost due to a move. I viewed my blog, etc as semi-private. Recently, I've begun to see that in switching from a passive to active role on the Internet, I was taking on more social responsibility than I was aware of. (My blindness of the effect of taking an active role on the internet can be explained, if not excused, by the many years I'd used it passively for information gathering as a scientist.)

What has made me see the social responsibility attached to an active role on the Internet, as opposed to the semi-private diary of thoughts exchanged among friends? In part, by analogy, the science fiction novel Ender's Game. To quote Wikipedia:

Set in Earth's future, the novel presents an imperiled humankind who have barely survived two conflicts with the Formics (an insectoid alien species; normally called "Buggers" by most of the population). These aliens show an ant-like group behavior, and are very protective of their leader, much like Earth ants protecting their queen. In preparation for an anticipated third invasion, an international fleet maintains a school to find and train future fleet commanders. The world's most talented children, including the novel's protagonist, Ender Wiggin, are taken at a very young age to a training center known as the Battle School. There, teachers train them in the arts of war through increasingly difficult games including ones undertaken in zero gravity in the Battle Room, where Ender's tactical genius is revealed.

As the first series ended, it was revealed that when Ender and his friends were practicing their tactic maneuvers on computers they were actually fighting the real war against the Buggers. Ender and his friends just didn't know. (Apologies for the spoiler if you haven't read the series.) 

With Ender's Game in mind, I think that our blogs and interactions on the internet play a much bigger role in reality than we might initially think. (And that's not even considering Facebook, where preferences and conversations are fodder used for commercial profit.) As far as I can tell, the reason relates to the idea of six-degrees of separation, which, if you think about it, isn't that different from Indra's net. The basic idea is that the maximum distance between people of the world, in terms of interconnection, is six steps:

Although I admit I don't know that much about the theory (I'm definitely going to read up on it), if you consider the rapidity and world-wide nature of interactions on the internet, the six steps may reduce to even fewer as the internet grows in influence. Any person with an active role on the Internet has a very real opportunity to influence collective thought. And our minds are not only what we use to process information on the Internet, but also what we use to live our lives, so while the internet is no substitute for life in three dimensions, it has a powerful effect on life for each of us here.

The Internet contrasts very favorably with television and even movies, where we are force fed information about how we should live, what our definition of success should be, and heavily biased information about world events that we use to guide our thinking about world issues. The Internet allows us to question. I get the very real sense that our independent presences on the Internet are a potentially powerful influence that can be used both directly and indirectly in debates of social issues, against main stream media, which is powered by conglomerate interests, and on a more even playing field against those with money and power: the Buggers. I don't want to be a political blogger (I very much like posting my Shobogenzo notes and the occasional poem and tracking my journey), but it's a mistake to think I can entirely avoid the social responsibility that I was unaware of when starting this blog. In battles for our individuality it's a good idea to try not to develop buggers of our own, though I admit it's easy to say and much harder to do. I think it's important for each of us to recognize that it's a responsibility that extends beyond the mahasangha on-line, since each of us lives within overlapping clouds, i.e. have multiple roles in our lives.

In an attempt to answer the questions I posed above, I think the Internet is a bigger part of reality than I previously might have guessed. And I also think the Internet can be used to influence and affect change in our real three dimensional lives. Nonetheless, the Internet is not a substitute for real life. Our experiences on the Internet are more direct and interactive than what we experience watching a movie, but from a practical perspective, reality is based on space and time. The Internet, although interactive, omits two-and-a-half of the five skandhas (form, sensation, and to some extent perception, of the five skandhas which are: form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness). The power of the Internet lies in that it affects our consciousness and the way we live our lives, but it's not reality any more than emptiness is form.



As I'm writing this post I realize that the end of 2012 is rapidly moving towards me and that even if I started walking, running, driving, or flying west I couldn't escape the transition. In fact, due to the sometimes confusing nature of time and space, as well as the way we keep track of time, if I were to try and run away from the transition into the new year, I'd run into the new year! And that's basically what happens to each of us if we try to avoid reality.


***

All my past harmful karma, 
born from beginningless greed, hate and delusion, 
through my body, speech and mind, 
I now fully avow.

***

One of my favorite songs I found this year:

Wishing all a very HAPPY NEW YEAR.

A Poem: A Longtime Favorite - A Walk

A Walk

by Rainer Maria Rilke

My eyes already touch the sunny hill,
going far ahead of the road I have begun.
So we are grasped by what we cannot grasp;
it has inner light, even from a distance -

and changes us, even if we do not reach it,
into something else, which, hardly sensing it,
we already are; a gesture waves us on
answering our own wave...
but what we feel is the wind in our faces.

The Happiness Project ...or How to Save the Human Race (III)

I'm not sure that this post has anything to do with happiness or saving the human race, but since the comment I submitted has not been published on Mining Aśvaghoṣa's Gold, I thought I would reproduce it here -- once again, following the comment I responded to and with a few edits. (I also made a few edits in the comment box and don't recall what they were.) I don't know whether I'm speaking with clarity or from delusion, but as I get ready to post this, I'm remembering that Avalokitesvara's compassion manifests in multiple ways (though I'm not certain how skillful I'm being) and that if my words are deluded "The flower of the dharma turns the flower of the dharma."



If you think you approached me with loving kindness, you are deluding yourself.

I think you approached me with a kind of anger towards men in general -- the kind of anger which is sometimes observed among women who consider themselves to be feminists.

The prejudice against men and our perceived sexism might be the female equivalent of the prejudice against women of the brahmin Udāyin (and even more starkly the Buddhist striver in Saundara-nanda).

You say that male prejudice is acceptable. But acceptable to whom?

You accept that Aśvaghoṣa was prejudiced against women, and that he manifested that prejudice in his poetry, because, you opine, he was of his time.

In the same spirit of acceptance, I accept your opinion -- as an extremely stupid opinion.

My response:

Either you fail as a good listener or your last response is invitation to address some issues that would be good to address. I’ll risk responding, since I’ve considered you to be a friend -- even though I think walking away, or at least not feeding the fire, might be the wiser decision. It would be sad, after both of our efforts, but I’m beginning to accept that may be the reality.

Responding to your comment:

- I accept I’m deluded, although I’m not sure it’s about loving-kindness. I think every person on the planet is deluded – the more serious question is to what extent. I think the delusions of people that don’t question their own views and actions are the most problematic.

- I would rather male prejudice against women didn’t exist. Most of my life I have functioned as if it did not. I made the assumption that I would be treated with equality, yet as I sit with my karmic inheritance I can see numerous instances in which I was not. Which response is more helpful, especially since most of those people are no longer in my life?: (a) Should I be angry at those people? Or (b) Should I accept the reality that sexist attitudes exist and that I should be better prepared to recognize, call attention to, and finally, defend myself against those attitudes? For myself, the answer is (b). The primary reason is that anger towards people who are no longer in my life and about a past which I can’t change would only cause more damage to myself, whereas (b) is realistic and productive. I wonder what your own answer would be, if you were in my shoes?

- I made the rhetorical argument that Aśvaghoṣa was a sexist. I did not say that I necessarily think it’s true. In fact, I said:

“ I’ll admit that I can think of reasons that Aśvaghoṣa might be excused, but for this comment that’s not my point.”

”That Aśvaghoṣa might have been a sexist doesn’t bother me much.” (Since I can’t do anything about it, one way or another, it would be a waste of my time and energy to be bothered by it.)

“The extent to which Aśvaghoṣa was sexist is something none of us can ever know and is besides the point. For example, he may have written Saundara-nanda the way he did to keep his audience attentive, since a mahakavya is an epic poem written for entertainment.” (I seem to recall you drawing a parallel between Aśvaghoṣa’s mahakavya and “All in the Family” the day after I made this comment, so I thought you understood that I do not necessarily believe that Aśvaghoṣa was a sexist.

What am I feeling right now? Honestly, hurt and resentful.

I feel resentful at having to accept the feminist role, especially given the negativity associated with that term. (I wouldn’t be surprised if you, yourself, are reacting to the negativity associated with being called a sexist. Labels are nasty if a person isn’t willing to look past the stigma associated with them to the partial truth they may contain. Each one of us contains the myriad dharmas.)

I also feel resentful at having to accept, not only being a feminist, but an angry one. I’m not a person who gets angry easily. Nor am I comfortable using anger. It’s interesting to observe that I began to feel the need to use anger, mostly in self-defense, right before I left for Antaiji. (I think I learned how to do this, by example, from Mike Cross himself.) 

Since I’ve never met you, I don’t honestly know if you’re sexist. But if you’re not sexist, you still should be made aware of the fact that the way you have treated me, both directly and indirectly, has played a role in my need to react and/or respond to people in self-defense – even if some of things you’ve said since you began on Buddhacarita were intended as an admonishment for others for behavior you contributed to creating*, since most people, including myself, can’t read your mind. 

Here’s a profound truth I hope you can process: I accept you for who you are, even if you are a sexist. I accept you for who you are, even if you show yourself to be incapable of realizing how much hurt I’ve already processed on your account – not only due to your own words, but also due to other people’s reactions to them. I accept you for who you are, even if you show yourself to be someone that I have to walk away from since we often end by arguing and hurting each other. As evidence for my accepting you for who you are, I suggest you read what I’ve recently written and ask yourself if I haven’t been standing up for you as well, in spite of how deeply your words have hurt and in spite of the fact that you often appear insensitive to my circumstances, which you contributed to creating, and use my circumstances to judge who I am. I’d be most deeply hurt if you attribute the fact that I accept you for who you are to my being a shallow person, especially if you’re inclined to feel that way on account of the fact that I am of the female gender – whether I’m a feminist or not.

(P.S. You might be interested to hear that in the course of writing this comment I’ve found a way a person writing a thesis might be able to make a good argument for Aśvaghoṣa not being a sexist.)

* I've also considered that that very behavior might be an attempt to point to, if not admonish you, for your own. I don't know.