At Lake Superior

Just returned last night from a short trip to Gooseberry Falls State Park along the shores of Lake Superior. Seeing as I live in the center of the continent, Lake Superior is the closest thing we have to an ocean. It's an amazing place that easily sets one's mind straight about how tiny and not so significant it is in the grand scheme of things.

A few fun facts about Lake Superior.

1. It's the largest of the Great Lakes of North America, and the largest fresh water lake in the world by surface area (31,820 square miles (82,413 km2).

2. One of the two largest indigenous groups in Minnesota, the Anishinaabe (or Ojibwe), named the lake Gitchigumi, meaning "big water".

3. Over 80 species of fish have been found in the lake.

4. The water surface temperature ranges seasonally between 32°-55°F (0°-13°C), meaning it's an awful cold swim most of the time!

On the rocks above the shoreline, I did zazen before heading home yesterday. Waves crashing in, gulls and crows squawking, cool wind hitting my still body as breathing occurred, blending in with everything else. There was no need to do anything, no need to even try and let go of what was arising in my mind. Sometimes, I think we get too fixated on the idea of attachment - ironic isn't it - and have this view that every last ounce of attachment must disappear from our lives for us to be truly living the Buddha way. But what is attachment beyond a warped sense of love which needs to be tended to. And what about translation issues, how the word "craving" might be more accurate, that it is our cravings that cause us so much suffering? Yet, isn't it also true that we get fixated on eliminating those cravings, so much so that we can loose track of the bigger world alive and at work within us, all around us?

In front of Lake Superior in the picture above is a yarrow, a powerful medicine plant. According to Greek mythology, Achilles used yarrow intensively to cure his war wounds - hence it's Latin name Achillea millefolium. According to herbal medicine traditions, the plant is not only a wound healer, but also a healer of colds, fevers, sore throats, infections, and skin irritations. I have personally watched the crushed leaves end the bleeding of a cut with such suction that the skin was nearly sown back together again in less than 10 minutes.

Like myself, the yarrow in the photo was a tiny presence in a vast landscape. Neither of us were really much compared to the giant lake, and yet isn't it also true that both I and the yarrow plant contained it all, every last drop. A good reminder to not do anything more than just be who you are, as fully as you can be. I bow to the tiny yarrow plant, and the giant lake behind it for waking me again.

Terrorism and Interdependence

Mainstream news reports here in the U.S. widely cover the actions of Muslim extremists as "terrorism," the same isn't true of the actions of homegrown, native born citizens. In addition, while organizations linked to Muslim extremists are routinely put on national terrorist watch lists, and are heavily scrutinized and sometimes shut down by the Federal government, the same isn't true for groups linked to native born citizens doing acts of terrorism here in the U.S. That is, unless they linked to environmental action groups like Earth First, whose members have been labeled terrorists for acts not of murder, but of property damage.

Frankly, the words "terrorism" and "terrorist" have become problematic because they are not used by power-holders in society in an evenhanded way. And I would argue that because of this, we are failing to get at the root causes of the violence that comes from school shootings, abortion clinic murders, the murders of GLBT people, and so many others.

Take the recent killing of Dr. George Tiller. Suspect Scott Roeder has not, as far as I have seen, been labeled a terrorist in any mainstream source of media. And yet he stepped into a church during a full worship service and executed Dr. Tiller point blank in the head. When the media fails to accurately portray what someone has done, that influences how people in society view the action in question.

In addition to the labeling issue, there are two other issues that should cause us to pause and reflect. Despite evidence that he had vandalized a woman's clinic in Kansas City, Kansas twice in the week before the murder, neither local police nor the FBI addressed the situation. Finally, prosecutors in Kansas have decided that Tiller's murder does not qualify for the death penalty. (Now, I am firmly against the death penalty, but I find this element of the case very interesting.)

If he was an immigrant Muslim would he be treated differently? Is the fact that Scott Roeder is a white, native born Christian playing into how he, and the case, is being treated?

Let's go further. The anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, as led by Troy Newman, has spent the past seven years focusing almost solely on the work Dr. George Tiller. They moved their headquarters to Tiller's hometown of Wichita, Kansas in 2002. Newman and others have written books about Tiller, publicly demonstrated at Tiller's clinic, and have linked Tiller's abortion related activities to cold blooded murder. Now, none of that is really out of the ordinary. All pretty standard activity for anti-abortion groups (across the U.S. anyway.) However, what isn't standard is statements like this one. At the execution of Reverend Paul Hill in 2003 (Hill had murdered an abortion doctor nearly 10 years earlier), Operation Rescue leader
Troy Newman said "There are many examples where taking the life in defense of innocent human beings is legally justified and permissible under the law." Furthermore, in a book he co-authored with Operation Rescue's Senior Policy Advisor, Cheryl Sullenger, he suggested that murder is justifiable when working to protect the unborn. In addition, the same Cheryl Sullenger was convicted in 1988 of attempting to bomb abortion clinics in the San Diego area.

Now, I am not attempting to pin responsibility for Dr. Tiller's murder on Operation Rescue. However, when at least two of an organization's leaders have been linked with violent statements and/or actions of a similar nature to the crime in question, and have led an organization whose main work has been a public witch hunt of the very man who ended up being murdered, how can we say there is no connection? If we in the various Buddhist communities believe anything of the teachings of interdependence or dependent co-arising, how can view acts like this as individual actions alone?

Right wing, white dominated Christian organizations like Operation Rescue seem to get a free pass here in the U.S. You don't hear about FBI raids, state or local police investigations of these organizations. And the news media may do some investigatory coverage on these groups, but rarely, if ever, will you see the kind of exposes that follow groups linked to Muslim extremists. In addition, those who commit violent, terroristic acts in the name of the causes these groups espouse are treated as sick individuals who acted completely alone.

In the wake of D. Tiller's murder, will there be a thorough investigation and public examination of Operation Rescue? I sadly doubt it. And until things like that change, the terrorism being done in the name of Christianity here in the U.S. will continue to create much suffering and misery for us all. If we can make the link between extremist Muslim groups that advocate terrorism and those who commit terrorist acts, then we better well make the same links between Christian groups and individuals doing the same.

*This column was inspired by a letter posted at Algernon's blog, Notes from a Burning House. http://algerblog.blogspot.com/

Please check out his letter, and if you are inspired, send one of your own to groups like Operation Rescue.

Sincere Practice

Thanks to all who participated in the discussion about racism and the National Review cover. Everyone was civil, respectful, and had thought out ideas, which isn't always the case when disagreements arise over volatile issues.

Now, back to Suzuki Roshi, from Not Always So, a book of his talks that was published a few years back.

"What is sincere practice? When you are not so sincere it is difficult to know, but when you are sincere you cannot accept what is superficial. Only when you become very sincere will you know what it is. It is like appreciating good art. If you want to appreciate good art the most important thing is to see good work. If you have seen a lot of good work, then when you see something that is not so good you will immediately know that it is not so good. Your eyes have become sharp enough to see."

I remember back in grad school hearing something similar about writing. My poetry teacher, Deborah Keenan, would appear at the beginning of each semester with a packet of photocopied poems. Not a few, but many. And not from a few authors, but many. he wanted us to read widely, but also read those who were - to use Suzuki's simple term - good. It was really something one day when I came across a poet's work that I didn't really like, but recognized was still very good. There was a leap beyond preference to awareness of the talent and skill present in those pieces. It was kind of an awakening for me because I also realized that I could learn a lot from poets whose work I didn't really like.

Let me give you an example: Margaret Atwood. She seemed to pop up an awful lot in grad achool for some reason. And I often wanted to take out my writer's mallet and wack her back down like in those Wack a Mole games. Her work seemed to me to often feel bitter, fatalistic, and down right suffocating at times. And yet, it was impossible for me to say her work isn't any good. In fact, she's a hell of talented writer, and prolific too. She's written over a dozen novels, over a dozen volumes of poetry, several short story collections, volumes on literary criticism and politics, children's books, even a few TV scripts and a libretto. One thing I have always been attracted to are people with broad minds, that cross boundaries and work to tie together the most disparate of things. And Atwood has definitely been that, if anything.

At some point during grad school, my interest landed on Canadian poetry and history. And soon after this, I discovered Atwood's book Survival, which among other things, attempts to create a framework to view the development of creative writing in Canada historically. Well, that's no small feat, and she sure gives it her best. I wrestled with that book for weeks, looking up the writers she mentioned, reading their work in dusty old books on library shelves, and finding myself writing comments all over the book itself.

Now, frankly I have to say that Survival is as much a mythology that elevates some very weak and minor writers to places of central importance as it is an uncovering of forgotten truths. However, the book did it's main work of keeping the reader engaged. So much so that I can write about it several years later, having barely picked up the book since then.

So, what the hell does this have to do with zen practice and Suzuki's quote?

Well, for starters, I believe sincere practice means being able to step past your peferences to see the greater picture. And to see that the greater picture contains your preferences just fine, no need to destroy them or worry too much about them. I can have a certain dislike for Atwood's work, and yet be enriched by it all the same. Or not at all. It stands without needing my approval, or anyone elses really at this point.

In addition, I really think there's a need for radical openness for sincere practice to be present. Reb Anerson Roshi recently visited our zen center, and spoke of this saying, "welcome the unwelcomed." This seems similar to stepping past your peferences in the above paragraph, but I think maybe different in that after awhile, there's not really any effort. It just happens.

But that brings up the third thing - that sincere practice is calling for a kind of working energy, that you can't just sit zazen a few times and be there, just like you can't just read a few poems, and then be a master of poetry.

Which reminds me - I need to get on my zafu soon. Happy reading, and sitting, to you all!

What's with the National Review Cover?

Well, even though I posted just a few hours ago, seeing this cover was enough for me to add another quick post.

For those who aren't familiar with the woman who is so oddly depicted as Buddha, she is Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the current nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. The headline under the magazine cover imagine, "The Wise Latina," is a reference to the following line from a speech Sotomayor gave in 2001:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Many conservative politicians and commentators have used this line, as well as a few of Sotomayor's case decisions, to peg her as a racist - never mind that racism, by it's very nature, is a social construction and action derived from the power and privilege afforded to the majority or controlling group of a society. Since Sotomayor is Puerto Rican-American, it's ridiculous to suggest that she is racist, or that her actions and words could be considered racism. I suppose a more accurate word, if you find fault with Sotomayor's actions or words, would be "prejudice." (I personally have no issue with either the above quote, nor the court decisions mentioned by conservatives as "racist."

However, what I do find troubling is this National Review cover, not only because it flirts with racist WWII anti-Japanese propaganda poster images, but also because it seems to be taking shots not only at Sotomayor, but also at Buddhism itself. Now, I think it's healthy to laugh and kid around about your religious or spiritual tradition. I have no qualms with cartoons and jokes that make light of foibles or eccentricities within a given tradition. In fact, I view it a big sign of trouble if you have no sense of humor about your spiritual life.

But this particular image seems to be doing something else. It's twisting the concept of Buddhist wisdom, and the image of the Buddha, into nothing more than a vehicle for delivering a cheap shot on a political opponent. Furthermore, it portrays a prominent Latina American using stereotyped Asian facial features - which makes one wonder what kind of message this image is really sending about race (and racism) in the United States. I'd say it suggests we have a long way to go on the road to a society beyond racism.

The Hopeful Continuation Narrative

"Can lifestyles that are unsustainable be moral?" asks Sulak Sivaraksa, a Thai Buddhist, social activist, and cultural critic. It comes from a wonderful little book entitled Seeds of Peace, in which Sivaraksa deeply reflects of the politics of capitalism, especially in his native Thailand, and then offers a new vision of society based on Buddhist teachings.

I have written about this quotation before, in an early post on the blog. Some of what you will read here is copied from that post. (Apologies to anyone who happened to read that post - although I don't think it was all that many.) Sivaraksa's quote continues to strike me as provocative, especially for those of us living in lands of over-consumption. It brings up not only big questions about consumerism, but also how we interact with the planet, the choices we make around war and peace, the way we run companies and our households - really, most everything we do.

Over the past few months, I have continued to hear a set of messages coming from world leaders, business leaders, neighbors, friends, and even strangers that I would describe as the Hopeful Continuation Narrative. The first message is that "the economy" is going to turn around soon, maybe in six months, maybe in a few years. The second message is that we must do everything we can to preserve the companies and financial institutions that are major cogs in the system. In other words, you let the banks go down, and places like General Motors, and there will be mass amounts of unemployment and misery. The third message is that, at least here in the U.S., the economic plans of the Obama administration are going to "work" and get us "out of this crisis." The fourth message is that all of us must sacrifice now - and are sacrificing now in the form of smaller paychecks, layoffs, etc. - for a "better" tomorrow.

What strikes me about these messages is that there is the deep assumptions that lay behind them. A: our happiness and general well being are linked to a thriving capitalist system. B: government propping up of established institutions will allow us "average people" to continue to have work, income, housing, etc. C: it will all go back to "normal" in a short while, we just have to weather the current storm.

Implicit behind all this is the view that the current economic system, which is more and more global in it's reach everyday, is the "best," most intelligent way of working with the stuff of the world. I think it's really important to see how economics is not just about money and companies, but really about how we as humans interact with the material world completely.

I have asked, and continue to ask the following questions:

1. Do we really want the economy to "turn around," to go back to something resembling what it has been? In other words, do we really wish to continue to support, participate, and drive an economy that thrives only when there is over production, over consumption, and excessive amounts of greed?

2. How do Buddhist ethics and wisdom teachings fit into a life enmeshed within a globalized capitalist model?

3. What have gained from putting our energy and time into the current economic model and what have we lost?

What's fascinating to me, even as I find much of our current economic system wanting in terms of ethics, is how it has provided us with a clear glimpse of interdependence. When you see stock markets falling at the same time across the globe, for example, or banks struggling on every continent - it's more difficult to believe that things are separate and have no effect on each other.

It seems in all this we as a species have an opportunity to really examine what it is our lives are built out of, and to ask the kinds of questions that destablize stories like the Hopeful Continuation Narrative, which currently are considered common sense. What comes after that, I don't know. Maybe a whole lot of change, maybe not.

I think these words from Sulak Sivaraska are a helpful guide. "To alleviate suffering, we must always go back to our own spiritual depths - to retreat, meditation, and prayer. It is nearly impossible to sustain the work otherwise. It is easy to hate our enemies - the industrialists who exploit us and pollute our atmosphere. But we must come to see that there is no 'other' ... It is greed, hatred, and delusion that we need to overcome."

Desire to Communicate

The last post had generated a lot of interesting comments. Thank you to everyone who has added something to the mix.

It strikes me that one of the pivotal issues behind all of that which I discussed in the last post is how we address conflict. The title of one of Reb Anderson Roshi's books, Being Upright, always comes to mind when I think about conflict in my own life.

Many times, I have fallen too far backwards when in conflict with others. The passivity of withdrawal, or false agreement, or repressed silence is what I mean here. It's kind of like sleeping in zazen.

Other times, I have fallen too far forward when in conflict with others. The agressiveness of anger, harsh criticism, or flat out nihilism is what I have in mind here. Kind of like trying to force your mind to have no thoughts at all during zazen.

This "Being Upright" is what our meditation posture looks like, feels like, acts like - just as it is. And I think it also is useful for envisioning one's self in the middle of conflict and being at peace with it. Not too far back, and not to far forward. Easy to write; not so easy to do.

Here's are really interesting Q and A from Trungpa Rinpoche's book Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism.

"If you have conflicts with other people, making it difficult to relate to them, what do you do?

Well, if your desire to communicate, which is generosity, is strong, then you have to apply prajna, knowledge, to discover why you are unable to communicate. Perhaps your communication is only one-directional. Perhaps you are unwilling for communication to come from the other direction as well ... we have to be careful to see the whole situation, rather than just being keen to throw something at the other person."

I'm really interested in this view of communication as generosity. Really seeing it in that way changes how it is approached. In a way, if you are attuned to the moment, and open to what is being called for, then you can't help but be generous. This might mean pulling back and staying quiet. Or it might mean praising someone's strong points, even if they also are displaying a lot of weaknesses. It might also mean clear, precise criticism driven by an intention to help someone see something they are missing. Or a calmly stated correction to someone who has spoken falsely, or wrongly, about something.

Trungpa Rinpoche says "Essentially, we have to provide some kind of space and openness." So, whatever is it we intend to try and communicate with someone, our job is to do so in a way that allows the other some room to work with.

In addition, it's really important to be open to receiving something in return, even if it comes in a form that isn't so easy to digest. In other words, it might be helpful to ask yourself now "How am I going to deal with the next 'ego insult'?" Instead of waiting for the next "fuck off" or "you're an idiot" to arrive in your e-mailbox, practice now, so it might not be such a shock later.

Let's go even further. Maybe those kind of blunt things roll off your back. Or you just ignore them. How about something a little less easy to tease out? Something like "I'm surprised you say it's ok to have an abortion. How can you be Buddhist and pro-choice?" My guess is people get comments like this often: not overtly nasty, but testy none the less because they call to question one's identity - that is, if there is strong attachment present.

So, it might be a good idea to practice receiving these kinds of comments as well. Because really, if you think about it, communication is not only what we say and do, but also how we receive what others say and do.

Online Practice?

I was scrolling through the blogs on my list the other day, and stopped at one of them to see a new posting. As I read, I was surprised to find that the usually very thoughtful and articulate blogger had said some things about another blogger that I perceived as just plain personal attacks. Now, there's no lack of nastiness and petty behavior on the internet, but my surprise was that this was coming from someone who seems to have a pretty strong Buddhist practice going, and definitely pays attention to the subtleties of Buddhist teachings.

So, I did something I have only done a few other times online: I sent the blogger a comment questioning the use of disparaging language towards another.

The result was a very fruitful and respectful dialogue that brought up all sorts of questions for both of us.

Right now, I'm interested in how internet use, and specifically blogging and other sorts of online spiritual dialogues can be done in such a was as remain to true to our deepest values and intentions. In other words, in my case, how does one blog and dialogue online in a dharmic way? And even more to the point, how can we disagree, question, or even show compassion in this format?

In some ways, I think this is another example of the technology developing at a much more rapid pace than the human mind's ability to work with it. We can do all sorts of things with the internet, and have made connections that were unimaginable even twenty years ago, and yet at the same time, people routinely say things about others online that they would never say to someone in person. Check out any chat site dealing with politics: discussions often quickly turn into pathological shouting matches where the "other" is turned into the most awful devil imaginable, or said to be the most stupid person or people on the planet. Go to the sports discussion pages, and you'll find people threatening to kill each other because they disagree about the talent of Tom Brady or the greatness of the New York Yankees. Slip into the romance and sex chat rooms and you'll find all sorts of destructive fantasies being played out, and all sorts of degrading talk occurring. And even here in the land of spiritual people - the oh, that kind of stuff doesn't happen here land, right? - yeah, even here, you'll find people battling it our over who is more "pure," or who is "better" because they are "more traditional" or "more non-traditional." It's all pretty crazy if you ask me.

There are numerous examples of the content of people's online writing having very direct consequences in the "real world." People have been not hired or fired based on comments made on their Facebook or Myspace pages. It's clear that some politicians, including current U.S. President Obama, have gained office partly out of the efforts they and their supporters put into online writings. There have numerous cases of teenage girls being seduced online by adult sexual predators, and then those same writings have been used to prosecute the adults in question. There have been other teens who have committed suicide as a direct result of comments made to them or about them online. The list goes on and on.

But these kinds of things are pretty easy to see. They are the high impact cases, the ones where it's easy to see that someone's words have done something - have changed things in some way.

What about the "little stuff" though? What about the "fuck you" to some other blogger? Or the anonymous personal slam of someone commenting on a blog piece? Or those pissing matches you got into with someone online that you have justified as "just blowing off steam"?

If you wonder about any of these questions above, try this: take a look at the comments section of Zen Teacher Brad Warner's site - http://hardcorezen.blogspot.com/. Spend 15-20 minutes just reading the comments section and then notice how you feel. Then think of the blogger himself, and how he might be experiencing all this. (I get the sense that he doesn't read the comments all that often anymore, but at some point, I can imagine he did.)

I guess my question is this: Are we dropping the dharma - our spiritual teachings about interacting with each other - off at the door when we come online? And if so, what does that say about our practice, and our experiences online as spiritual practitioners?

There a few things that I think are important to remember in all of this. First, there are some serious limitations to human interaction on the internet. We don't get to observe body language, or speech tone, for the most part - so major parts of communication are cut off right there. Second, we're all struggling to express ourselves in words - and when it comes to talking about the big, deep questions of life, words struggle to express it, and are at best, pointers towards that which we are trying to actually speak of. Finally, like anywhere else, the internet is a location of samsaric activity - in other words, suffering is unfolding on here just as it does in the rest of the world, no matter what.

These are my initial thoughts about this. Maybe some of you have more. I welcome comments, but mostly I hope to spark some questions for us here in cyberspace to contemplate.