On Systemic Racism, White American Buddhism, and the #BlackLivesMatter Movement

Unless you've been totally asleep or hiding under a rock, you're probably aware of the unrest in Baltimore over the police murder of Freddie Grey. Odds are that some of you are upset about the property damage that happened during the peak of the protests, and are amongst those calling for peace, just as was the case last fall when protests erupted in Ferguson, Missouri.

Here's what I think. The United States is, by design, a nation of violence. It was born through the execution of genocide against Native populations, and was built in large part via theft and slave labor. Our domestic and foreign policy continues to be driven by endless forms of theft and violence, and people of color across the globe bear the brunt of it.

Under these conditions, we should be applauding the fact that the vast majority of protests in Baltimore and elsewhere across the nation in recent weeks have been non-violent. Furthermore, white Buddhists and other spiritual practitioners would do well to restrain themselves from finger wagging at people of color led social movements that aren't conforming to their ideas about "Right action."

I wrote the following in response to some comments on a post made by the Buddhist Peace Fellowship on their Facebook page a few days ago.

White supremacy has infected the majority of white people living in the US to the point where they almost instinctively side with the mostly white ruling class. Otherwise known as the 1%.

Every last calm, rational, dare I say "peaceful" attempt by people of color and their allies to illuminate the endless ways in which the three interlocked poisons of white supremacy, capitalism, and colonialism is met with another triple treasure: minimizing, denying, and victim blaming.

And when the heat turns up to the level of revolt, including property damage and injuries, it's always fierce verbal resistance from the white masses, a ratcheting up of the oppressiveness from the state, and even more minimizing, denying, and victim blaming.

White Buddhists have a fondness for making appeals for non-violence, and yet far too few are actively working to dismantle white supremacy, and the oppressive economic and social systems that were built to keep it in place, keep us divided, and guarantee that the ruling class stays in place.

In meditation, we're often cued to watch for and unearth our habitual patterns. I have watched these patterns within the US Buddhist community and in the nation as whole unfold for a good generation now, but our history as a nation is built on this kind of call and response. There's never been a house that wasn't thoroughly divided, and riddled with the bullets of inequity, injustice, and systemic, cold blooded murders in the name of maintaining order. Whatever non-violent action has come in the past 500 years - and there has been much - has ALWAYS come against the odds, on land and air so saturated with violence that everything, right down to our water tables, is poisoned.

If you're feeling compelled to condemn the breaking of windows, the burning of buildings, "black on black crime," the injuring of police officers, etc - how about instead taking a pause, and doing some deep reflection on the legacy of this nation. On the endless cycles of violence here and abroad that have led us to today. On all the ways in which the white supremacy that Frederick Douglass, Harriett Tubman, and so many others were resisting in Baltimore well over a century ago is the same white supremacy the protesters are resisting today.

BPF's post contains an article from The Atlantic well worth the read.

I'd like to that it's vitally important to remember that the non-violent social movements that many of us uphold as models - such as the U.S. Civil Rights movement - took years, if not decades to develop. And along the way, there were uprisings that included property damage, injuries, and even deaths. Living in a society that does everything in its power to divide and oppress, and make war and violent conflict seem normal and inevitable, every generation needs to learn anew how to build sustained movements grounded in a diversity of non-violent tactics.

In addition, every new social movement is forced to counter the propaganda of the elite, which aims to render all tactics of liberation as violence. For example, many in the general public, especially amongst white folks, saw the freeway blocking or pop up lunch demonstrations in the months following the Ferguson uprising as illegitimate or somehow worthy of condemnation. Never mind that these are precisely the kind of non-violent tactics necessary to disrupt the narratives of white supremacy and get people talking about possible solutions.

When all other avenues of gaining attention and working to address grievances are shut down, is it any wonder that people sometimes resort to property destruction and physical conflict?

Like many of you, I long for a sustained social movement built on non-violence that leads us towards liberation for all. Let's make the effort to be allies to each other. Instead of assuming the worst of people that are out in the streets fighting for their rights, lets have a more generous understanding of what's going on. Which includes a knowing that there are already many individuals and groups within a movement like BlackLivesMatter working to build creative responses based in non-violent action. The mainstream media would have you believe otherwise, but then again, they're owned and operated by the very people that keep us divided and fighting amongst each other.

Yesterday, I was a part of our annual May Day march in Minneapolis (see photo), which this year merged with a rally and march for BlackLivesMatter. The crowd was highly diverse, and speaker after speaker pointed to the beautiful possibilities that could become reality if we come together, instead of remaining apart. It's time for a critical mass of white American Buddhists and other spiritual practitioners to step up, be supportive, and join the #BlackLivesMatter movement in whatever ways they can.

Eckhart Tolle and Social Activism II

I received a couple of comments on yesterday's post that I'd like to give extended answers to.

Was Once wrote:

"I have found that almost everything has it's lifespan, and now I have stepped back (some) to let my natural compassionate self to blossom. It will all fall down or not, but I see the end of my life and it felt like wisdom finally pulled in."

There's an ebb and flow of activity from what I have seen and experienced. Sometimes, you really need to turn inward and focus on yourself, where you are at. In the midst of activity and action, it's easy to loose touch with the buddha-nature energy that illuminates our greed, hatred and ignorance. And if you've been practicing for a long time, it's easy to think you've "done enough," forgetting that the path is vast and endless. Or get seduced by the idea that "you," specifically, must "do it all" in order to be worthy.

In general, this is one of the big challenges for the activist community (or folks committed to service in places like homeless shelters, hospices, etc.) Many have put spiritual or religious practice aside, or rejected it outright, including things like secular forms of meditation. And others who are spiritual or religious simply get caught up in the swirl of constant activity. There's always something to do. Developing the awareness necessary to see when you need to step back, or when to move on, isn't emphasized in these groups for a variety of reasons. And as a result, too many end up burning out, becoming highly reactionary, or totally in crisis. It's a pattern I'd like to make a dent in.

Anonymous wrote:

" if you live in a country where people are so ingrained with the politics of their fathers, and the generations before, that they will take up violence on account of a ‘cause’ and with very little consideration, or inner awareness this focus on the individual is a necessary, and essential, building block, for creating change."

It's necessary, but not sufficient. Let's face it, though, his primary audience are folks in post industrial nations. He's not speaking to people living under dictatorships, in war-torn countries, or other highly volatile situations. That doesn't mean that his writings and talks haven't spread to some in these places, but they aren't the people regularly attending his lectures, buying up every last thing with his name on it, and filling his pockets with cash. When I wrote yesterday that he's marketed as a "non-threatening guru," part of what I meant by that is that he doesn't challenge the economic and social status quo. The CEO of Walmart or Exxon can find some inner peace through his writings, and perhaps learn to treat his family and employees a little better, without ever looking at how damaging the business practices of his company are. Or how damaging some of the larger structures and laws that uphold our economy are to both humans and the planet as a whole.

The thing is I'm not suggesting that folks like Tolle need to be as deliberate and descriptive as I am about social and political issues, and their intersection with spiritual practice. But when you have an entire collection of writings where little or no time is given to how we might consider those intersections, and see the public realm as a clear area of practice, something is off. Furthermore, Tolle basically tells folks that if they just take care of their inner lives, it will all be good. And that this is the evolutionary plan, something inevitable that they're just plugging into.

I think Tolle places too much faith in our capacity to overcome a hell of a lot of social conditioning on our own, and that millions and millions of people doing this will somehow break through all the collective conditioning and structures that currently oppress us. He fails to recognize or acknowledge that even our greatest spiritual/social heroes - Buddha, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., etc. - still had issues with social conditioning that impacted their work. Awakening didn't wipe out internalized sexism, for example. It took multiple lobbying efforts to get the Buddha to allow women into the original sangha, and I'm not convinced they ever held truly equal standing under his watch. The original Buddhist sangha was basically doing on a smaller scale what Tolle sees as the key to our evolution as a species and yet women had to beg to gain base level acceptance.

So, while I don't expect someone like Tolle to brilliantly break down capitalism, or advocate for radical action, I do think it's entirely fair to do what I've done in these past few posts. Because this guy has an influence on some of the very people who have the most power and influence in our societies today. And even a little movement from him towards supporting collective social action and directly challenging systems of oppression could go a long way.

*Dragon Float from May Day Festival, Minneapolis 2012.

Eckhart Tolle and Social Activists: Or What's Love Got to Do With It?

Fellow 21st Century Yoga contributer Be Scofield has a provocative, new essay out on the limitations of Eckhart Tolle's spiritual writings, particularly when it comes to addressing systemic social issues. Some folks just roll their eyes when they see the name Tolle, but I think if you want to understand the modern, American spiritual landscape, you gotta pay a bit of attention to his work. Before we go on to look at a few points in Be's essay, I want to state where I stand on Tolle.

First off, I don't think he's a charlatan. The guy seems to me to have some clear insight into how our minds work, and the ways in which humans get trapped by their thinking and habit patterns. In addition, he has figured out how to bring together elements of different religious traditions in a way that speaks across them and beyond them. I'd say this is a positive, especially in terms of spreading insights to the masses. I also like the guy's general optimism about humanity's potential, and that he sees practices like meditation as being a means towards awakening on a larger, collective scale.

On the flip side, like Be, I disagree with Tolle's sense that "inner work" alone will somehow solve the systemic misery that plagues so many in this world. Having read a fair amount of his writing, and listened to some of his talks, I find his general approach to be far too individualistic in focus for my taste. Not only is social and political action downplayed or dismissed outright, but you rarely hear talk about communities, serving others, or anything else associated with being together in groups. Just as is true of a lot of American convert Buddhism, in Tolle's writing you can't help but notice how heavily individual psychology and psychological theories color what's being said.

Beyond all that, there's the fierce, capitalist machine behind Tolle's work to content with. Nearly everything this guy touches these days is being turned into a product intended for "your awakening," and I don't get the sense that he has any problem with that. In fact, I think the packaging of Tolle as a non-threatening spiritual guru has not only lead to wildly higher sales and spreading of his message, but also wholesale rejection of his work by those like myself actively resisting capitalism, colonialism, and the commodifcation of spiritual practice.

Along those lines, let's take a look at a few paragraphs from Be's essay:

In A New Earth Tolle goes so far as to claim all of the atrocities associated with Communism could have been avoided had their been a shift in their “inner reality, their state of consciousness.” Again, his absolutism in regards to the power of internal transformation is quite extreme. If communists would have only stilled their minds, connected to their bodies and dis-identified with their false egoic self he believes countless lives would have been saved. It’s important to understand that when Tolle is referring to shifting inner consciousness, he is specifically talking about stilling the mind, not shifting inner social or political consciousness. Of course the issues are far more complex than Tolle presents. No simple solution like cultivating presence, stillness or embodiment would have changed a profoundly complicated socio-political experience that spanned vast territory and numerous decades. Furthermore, he falsely believes that spiritual awakening supports his social and political positions.

Tolle is suggesting that what communists needed and what environmental polluters need is internal spiritual transformation – not education, training, relationship building, diversity training, political understanding, environmental awareness or anything else. Why? Because Tolle believes in an all-knowing divine power that once channeled knows exactly what to do. This universal intelligence is unfolding and working through humans. If only environmental polluters and communists were to connect with God the world would be a much better place. For those who successfully do, they are contributing to more joy, peace, creativity and happiness on the planet. Spirit is unfolding in a direction and it supports Tolle’s social and political agenda and reflects his social location as a wealthy, heterosexual, white male with $4 million in the bank and a Jaguar in his driveway.

Social positioning, and specifically a lack of critical consciousness around his position in society, are major players in Tolle's philosophy. It's so much easier for folks from privileged backgrounds to focus on "inner" transformation, and to dismiss addressing systemic social issues. Not only do they benefit from the status quo, but they're are less likely to see how the status quo creates suffering in their own lives, let alone anyone else's. Be's absolutely right to point out this failure in Tolle's work to critically examine social positions, and how they're plugged into systems built on patterns of injustice and deliberate oppression.

However, I have to say that the qualities Tolle focuses on folks cultivating - being present now, joy, stillness, and general awareness - are pretty lacking amongst social activists as a whole. There's decidedly too much ego, reactivity, and unexamined motives driving individuals within political and social movements, and also the collective actions of the groups they belong to or associate with. Instead of figuring out how to place the outrage, sadness, and fears into the furnace, where they might be transformed into wisdom and wise action, too often social movements either explode or sputter into the ground through power grabs, ego battles, and undigested patterns of greed, anger and hatred.

Which leads me to where I disagree with Be. Be writes:

The reason, of course, that environmental experts don’t recommend mind-body practices like meditation or yoga in order to stop worldwide pollution is because they are entirely unrelated.

This is just the opposite extreme to what Tolle's arguing, no more or less dualistic in my opinion. And while I don't think everyone involved in social justice movements needs to suddenly become a yogi or meditator, it sure wouldn't hurt for more folks practicing these things to be a part of such movements. And furthermore, that a general culture of cultivating qualities like compassion and awareness be normalized amongst activists, regardless of the forms taken to bring about those qualities.

The systems developed under colonialism, and patriarchy before it, rendered a myriad of things separate in social consciousness and practice. Foremost amongst these being the creation of the categories "spiritual" and "secular," and then the slow depositing of various activities and ways of thinking into either box. Perhaps that period of separation was helpful at some point in human history, but it's clearly become little more than a driver of oppression and misery. And when I say that, I'm not saying that everyone should be "spiritual" or something. What I'm saying is that the categories have become calcified, to the point where the vast majority of folks fail to see them as expedient means at most.

What am I talking about here, you may be asking? I'll try an offer some concrete examples. Take a person's view of the environment, specifically those who aren't concerned about exploitation, global warming, or human impacts on the planet. Or who have some concern, but whose greed or ignorance override that concern.

Person X

Claims the identity of secular, and rejects religion and all forms of spirituality. Elevates human reason above all other qualities a person might possess. Sees the point of life to fulfill your needs and desires. Might have some concerns about his children's future, for example, but is mostly focused on how to have a "good life now." (One of Tolle's limitations, by the way, is his obsession on "the now" and failure to temper that with something like a seven generations approach to viewing and acting in the world.) Enjoys "nature, but feels humans are "better" or "smarter" somehow.

Person Y

Claims the identity of Christian. Views the planet as a God given resource to be used to fulfill human needs and desires. Believes the afterlife in heaven is where "the good life" truly is, and that life on Earth is mostly about being trials and tests by God. As such, she isn't really concerned about the future of the planet, or even her children/grandchildren because what's important is their salvation, not the preservation of the Earth.

Person Z

Claims the identity of spiritual/not religious. Sees the popularization of meditation, yoga, and other "consciousness" practices as the key to a better life for all. Any concerns about the future of the planet are turned into a messianic approach to spreading the "good news" of yoga, meditation, shamanism, and the like. Pays little attention to politics and systemic social issues, seeing all that as being "lower vibration" stuff.

The main point behind these rough, incomplete sketches is the sense that solidifying around the deepest level separation of spiritual/secular can lead to some disastrous consequences for (in this case) the planet. And it's not just about folks on the extreme messing it up for everyone else. Each of has this dualism playing out in our lives because it's in the cultural water, and pretty much all of us taken a drink to some degree or another. So you may not be an oil tycoon profiting off the tar sands, but odds are your daily actions are still negatively impacting the planet in some manner or another.

Which brings us to love. And our collective struggle to understand and embody it in it's various forms. Be writes:

Love isn’t progressive, socialist or limited to any political position. People of all ideological persuasions fall in love, make love, experience love and act in love. Is global transformation really based on raising the “love” vibration on the planet? After all, Glenn Beck’s latest gathering was called “Restoring Love.” There was lots of “love” amongst Protestant and Catholic Christians in Nazi Germany. Love for spouses, children, families and God. People were kind, caring and compassionate to members of their own kind while turning a blind eye or supporting to the horrific crimes of the state. What frequency did their love vibrate on and how did it matter in the larger scheme of things? Love is not the sole property of either progressives or conservatives. If both a pro-choice and a pro-life activist group based all of their methods, techniques and actions in love who would win?

One of Be's biggest concerns in this piece, and in others I have seen, is the view that cultivating certain qualities and/or doing certain spiritual practices are THE means needed to get to a more progressive, inclusive society for all. I share that concern, and agree that practices like yoga can be used by anyone without having a transformational impact on their politics and social views, and that simply cultivating qualities like presence or basic compassion aren't nearly enough to liberate the world from systems of oppression and injustice.

But love. Love has the capacity to blow through separations of all sorts. To break through and heal the kinds of thinking that create solidified divisions in the first place. It's not limited to, nor even necessarily represented by, the forms Be presents in the statement above. It's easy to get cynical about something like the power of love to liberate folks from systems of oppression, just as it's easy to get suckered by some limited form of love (like love of family or country) as the recipe for a better world.

If anything, the intersection of social justice and love is a koan, one we might take devote ourselves to, even if we never gain any final resolution.

Buddhas and Social Action

“In daily life we see people around who are happier than we are, people who are less happy. Some may be doing praiseworthy things and others causing problems. Whatever may be our usual attitude toward such people and their actions, if we can be pleased with others who are happier than ourselves, compassionate toward those who are unhappy, joyful with those doing praiseworthy things, and remain undisturbed by the errors of others, our minds will be very tranquil.”

- Yoga Sutra 1.33, Translation by TKV Desikachar

This passage zeros in on the relational quality of yoga. And just as is the case with Buddhist teachings on our relationships with others, there is a strong emphasis on equanimity here - the kind most of us struggle to locate in our everyday lives.

Given my own predisposition to serving in the world, and to doing what I can to help right injustices, what I find so wonderful about a teaching like this is that it's a reminder that the most powerful place one can come from is built on a foundation of joy and equanimity.

In Buddhism, a similar teaching is found in the four divine abodes, where lovingkindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity are the foundations from which all that is good in life springs forth.

For me, the biggest challenge is to remain "undisturbed" by the errors of others, especially when those errors are greatly destructive, oppressive, and highly productive of misery. This is a frequent difficulty when doing social activist. Sometimes I begin from a place of not being disturbed, but then am overwhelmed by the disturbed experiences of others around me. The initial outrage towards injustice frequently turns into collective forms of being disturbed. In fact, it's almost expected that folks demonize those committing serious crimes and offenses, and to use that energy to fuel their actions. Something I think is dangerous, and often destructive, even when "we" are in the right.

Being in service to others can bring with it similar challenges. You not only often have to deal with the immediate suffering of those you are serving, but frequently this escalates into recognizing forms of collective injustice and oppression. When I was teaching ESL, I had students dealing with slumlords, cruel immigration officials, confounding state and federal bureaucracies, and so much more. It wasn't just the struggles of my particular students that I faced, but also a recognition of how many others were in a similar position because of various poorly constructed and/or deliberately oppressive systems.

It's important to note that "undisturbed" doesn't mean untouched, or unfeeling. It's really a quality of not being flipped over by, troubled by, or excessively excited by something, all of which make it very difficult to have clear perceptions and to do intelligent, beneficial action.

Shutting down and becoming numb in the face of suffering isn't hitting the mark, nor is being disturbed in the ways I spoke of.

That's where cultivating the qualities mentioned in Yoga Sutra 1.33 or the Buddhist Divine Abodes comes in. We aren't doing spiritual practices like meditation or sutra study for ourselves. It's really about how we are in the world, interacting with others and the planet. Even when we are sitting still and not interacting in the normal sense of the word, there's still something going on. Something that sends ripples far beyond ourselves.

It's seems to me that bringing that quality, the stillness and movement within stillness, to what we are doing in the world can shift us towards beneficial action. Social activism and service work are often governed by beliefs about what's right and what's wrong. But it's important to hold that somewhat lightly, and to remain open to the new and unexpected of a given moment, collective movement, or exchange between people.

In this way, the truth that liberates can be liberated to do it's work on us.

*Photo is from May Day March 2012.

Hyatt Hotel Boycott Hits the North American Yoga Community

More and more people are starting to organize against injustice across national lines. While offering support to justice efforts in other nations is nothing new, what is fairly new (in the last generation or so) is the increased presence of movements that are linked to an issue, with actions occurring at the same time in multiple nations. The global boycott of Hyatt Hotels is one such movement.

Recently, yoga blogger Roseanne Harvey offered a post linking the Hyatt boycott to the high profile Yoga Journal conferences, which occur at various times across North America. They are expensive events, well attended by primarily economically privileged white women. In and of themselves, despite the presence of quality yoga teachers, they tend to be representative of many common criticisms of modern North American yoga: classism, lack of racial diversity, overly focused on asana, etc.

Harvey's post focuses on the increasing pressure Yoga Journal is facing to join the boycott of Hyatt, and move their conferences elsewhere. I support this effort, and urge readers to check out Harvey's full post, linked above, for more details.

Why the boycott? Here are the four main organizing points:

Hyatt’s subcontracting is destroying good jobs and exploiting immigrant workers.
Hyatt housekeepers suffer abuse.
Hyatt has refused to remain neutral as non-union hotel workers organize.
Hyatt turned heat lamps on striking workers during a brutal heat wave.

You can read more about each of them here.

I wanted to share a short sample letter that another yoga blogger, Carol Horton, included in a conversation on Facebook. Any reader interested in writing Yoga Journal can use it as a template.

As you may be aware, well-known yoga blogger Roseanne Harvey recently posted an article on It's All Yoga, Baby, explaining that Yoga Journal has been asked to join a global boycott of Hyatt Hotels protesting their exceptionally poor treatment of low-wage hotel workers.

I feel strongly that it would be a huge mistake for Yoga Journal not to join the NFL, NOW, and other groups in supporting this boycott. Beyond the politics involved (which I support), the image of conference goers crossing the picket line is a public relations disaster waiting to happen. It will definitely reinforce all of the negative stereotypes of yoga being only for thin, rich, white women for years to come.

Conversely, if Yoga Journal joins the boycott, it will be in good company and show that it truly supports the idea that yoga is for everybody.

Thanks so much for your time and consideration of this issue.

People of privilege tend to see activism and political efforts as totally separate from the realm of spiritual practice. Appeals to purity, a need for "no distractions," or simply a desire to "transcend" the "worldly" are all excuses I have been told by folks who believe in this separation.

When you are suffering directly from the policies and decisions of corporations and/or governments, it's a lot more difficult to ignore.

In my view, however, there's no separation between the suffering of those who work at Hyatt, and my own suffering. It's all interrelated. And so, even though I am not directly impacted, I am still connected to it. The same goes for those workers and any others oppressed by the anti-gay policies of Chick Fil A. My recent post on Chick Fil A focused primarily on animal rights, health, and the environment, but I was rightly taken to task for appearing to minimize the oppression folks are experiencing because of Chick Fil A's policies and funding of anti-gay organizations. Just as with Hyatt, I am not directly impacted by the company policies of Chick Fil A. I may be at least indirectly impacted by some of their funding efforts however, and in any event, as I see it, the vow to liberate all beings includes speaking out against injustice whenever possible.

Comments and/or additional information any of the issues spoken about above are welcome. May you all be well.

Yoga Isn't Changing American Society

how can we truly be surprised that “yoga”, as it has been packaged and sold in the West has not made much of difference in the way things work or rather don’t work in America, at least within the confines of the “system“? Yoga is still very much a white person’s extra curricular endeavor in America. Or something that occasionally happens at The White House. Or something people do on Comcast ON-DEMAND. All this yoga, and we’re not getting to the root of the problem, which is the healing of our collective relationship to Mother Earth.

Holistic healing is still very much a luxury in this country, with a few exceptions. It costs a lot of money to choose natural, homeopathic healing and food in this country, which is part of why everything is upside down and backwards. The easiest way to be healthy is to live simply and in accordance with the principals of Nature.

Those are the words of Holly Westergren, who used to run the wild ride of a blog Namaste, Bitches. I had something of a love/hate relationship with her blog, mostly because I could never decide whether she was cutting through the bullshit, or simply being a different flavor of yoga snob. Regardless, I love the flavor of her offering above, although I also found myself wanting to write a response to it as well.

Let's start with the first sentence. For most of its history, yoga was the practice of an elite few. The major teachings were kept secret, and the masses were kept away. In all the reading I have done, I have yet to find anything close to a social change ethic, or guidelines for a just society, in the teachings. While sutras in the Buddhist Pali Canon regularly talk of social relations, community structures, and the like, yoga teachings are primarily - from what I have seen - focused on individuals.

In that sense, it makes a lot of sense that "yoga has not made much of a difference" in the oppressive structures of American society. It hasn't really in India either, despite several thousand years of existence there. This doesn't dismiss the impact yoga has had on the lives of countless individuals. That can't be taken away from anyone. But yoga as a catalyst for social change hasn't been a very common theme.

"All this yoga, and we’re not getting to the root of the problem, which is the healing of our collective relationship to Mother Earth." Right. Exactly. In fact, I would argue that the Earth has been cut out of the vast majority of our religious and spiritual practices. Or has been added in like a condiment through fluffy songs, naive appeals, and heady rhetoric.

The thing is, how can those of us in the Global North countries heal that deep disconnection with the planet when we have done next to everything to separate our physical selves from it? Urban dwellers walking on concrete, driving cars, living in houses with every last crack closed off, doing our spiritual practices in pristine spaces equally closed off? Given how our economy has become structured, the bulk of rural dwellers aren't that much better off. Driving long distances into sealed off workplaces and then returning home near or after dark, only to wake up and do it all again the next day.

I'm not terribly impressed with the ecology inside of cars. Or modern buildings.

Lately, I have had fantasies of taking jackhammers to sidewalks, streets, and paved over inner city parks. Efficiency and profit are terrible mistresses, but frankly we've given ourselves over to them, forgetting our vows to the one we have been married to all along.

As a child, I remember playing in the lilac bushes that surrounded the yard of our house. Drinking in the aroma every spring; taking refugee in the canopy every summer. That was the love that ushers forth from interdependence.

It's always there, but so often we don't see it, feel it, at all. It's as if all those yoga postures and rounds of meditation haven't broken down the damn of disassociation. There are cracks all over the place though, to the point where perhaps I will witness the flood in my lifetime.

We can't, and really shouldn't want, to go back in time to what romantically might be called "simpler times." But we must bring forward the wisdom of those days, to the point where it doesn't matter if someone is doing yoga, or Zen, or praying to God.

Getting to the root really is about roots. And soil. And stones. And water.

Embracing Change

I seem to be in the middle of giving birth to a vision. It's built upon the merger of my spiritual practices and the social activism and community service work I have long been involved in.

Last week, I shared the fundraising campaign I am doing to support my current work in the community. Since then, I have found myself envisioning something bigger. Something that isn't quite formed yet, but feels vital and alive.

Today, I started a new page on Facebook that I hope will become a digital community for people interested in doing social change work in new, more creative ways than simply working for non-profits or volunteering in their off hours.

Are you driven by social justice? Passionate about the health of the planet? Has your spiritual path led you to community service or activist work? Do you want to move beyond the practices and constraints of the 9-5 workplace?

If you answered "YES" to any of these questions, then the Community Changemaker Collective is a place for you. Here, you'll find like-minded people decided making their communities better places to live. You'll find writings, weblinks, and other resources to inspire you. You'll also find discussion, story sharing, and support.

Join the revolution! Together, we can build a better world, one community at a time.

Here is the link to the new community page. If you are on Facebook, and are interested in seeing what unfolds, I invite you to like the page, comment on posts, and add your own. Furthermore, share it with your friends and family as well.

*Image is Frida Kahlo's The Love Embrace of the Universe, the Earth (Mexico), Diego, Me, and Senor Xolotl. 1949.

Integrations

First off, I would like to share this post that I wrote on one of my other blogs. The nuances of oppression have been on my mind in recent months, as I have engaged in various work within the Occupy movement. The post above is a reflection of on being a man, facing sexism, and recognizing some of the ways in which patriarchal structures damage men - even as we benefit in other ways.

Secondly, if you have some time, please take a listen to this interview. I love the way spiritual practice and social activism are blended here. The call for recognizing and remembering the humanity of those you consider enemies resonates deeply for me.

From the interview description:

In this dialogue, I interview Rose[Sackey-Milligan]about her early years during the Civil Rights Movement and her personal entrance into the African spiritual traditions.

We then discuss the relationship between spirituality and social activism and investigate the gifts and limitations of both spiritual and social activist approaches to change, while advocating for a deeper integration of both. We also explore the deep impacts of racism and race experience in shaping human consciousness.

May you all be well. Enjoy the rest of the weekend!

Engaged Buddhism and Identity Issues

Over at his blog Notes in Samsara, Mumon has a post that takes up engaged Buddhism and being engaged in one's daily life. In it, he offers the following observation about what commonly falls under the engaged Buddhism banner:

too much of it is cause tourism - and by that I mean it's something people use as an escape from their own position, if the issues in which they're engaged are far removed from their own existence.

Cause tourism. You know, that's a pretty useful term there. And while I might not fully agree with how much of it is going on amongst Buddhist circles, it's definitely something that happens - far too often.

People running off to poor countries to "save the children." Others starting up organizations that end up being more about helping a small number of individual activists maintain upper middle class lives than they are about truly transforming the world. There are plenty of examples of how "vowing to do good" - one of the pure precepts - goes quite bad.

But I'm not interested in that today. What interests me is the rest of Mumon's statement. Particularly this: "if the issues in which they're engaged are far removed from their own existence."

As someone who has been involved in various social justice oriented work and activism for nearly twenty years now, one thing I have learned is that the majority of social issues that challenge humans - or the planet for that matter - are happening right down the street. Or in the next neighborhood. Or just across town. Or less than an hour or two drive from your doorstep.

When most Americans think of slavery, they think of something happening in direly poor nations far away from them, if they think slavery exists at all. (Plenty believe it's something entirely from the past.) And yet, every year, stories of slavery or near slavery emerge right here in the U.S., often involving highly vulnerable, undocumented immigrants, some of whom were forcibly brought to the U.S. in the first place.

Images of Ethiopia, and other Africa nations, are almost always associated with starvation, and rampant malnutrition.

What about the people in your neighborhood? In 2010, 17.2 million households, 14.5 percent of households (approximately one in seven), were food insecure, the highest number ever recorded in the United States.

One of the challenges of living in materially wealthy nations is that for the most part, there are just enough buffers available to provide middle and upper class folks with "a way out." There are the geographical separations that keep people "away" from those who are struggling, and the places they reside in. There are also a myriad of what I would call masks and band aid props that allow people with some means to remain mostly separate from those who don't. Everything from zoning laws that prohibit groups of unrelated people to share the costs of housing, to homeless shelters that are willing to "help out," but are staffed with people who won't challenge systems of injustice play a role.

One of the main reasons why many well meaning people gravitate towards "cause tourism" is the fundamental failure to recognize the fictions of their identity. Both the individual fictions, and also the broader collective fictions. Western Buddhists focus a lot on those individual fictions - the stories we have about ourselves that cause us so much misery, and which our attachments to limit our ability to express the greatness that each of us is. However, when it comes to really deeply uncovering and interrogating the default collective narratives many us of us simply take as "normal life," a lot of Western Buddhists fall far short.

What is this "one's own position" Mumon speaks of? How much influence upon it has collective social forces played? How much freedom do "I" have to move in a different direction, if such movement would result in more justice, compassion, and liberation?

And that is just dealing with the "I." Mumon mentions in his post, and I have had others in my sangha say similar things about taking care of family, and dealing with the issues that are right in front of one's nose. I empathize with that. Furthermore, I don't think anyone should "do" more than one can do. There's a serious lack of self care amongst people in activist circles. There's also a serious lack of self care amongst people who are, either by choice or circumstance, in care-giver roles for disabled, ailing, or otherwise challenged family members and friends.

However, it's serious time for more of us to ask why this is? Why are families so easily treated as individual units responsible for all the struggles they experience - when such families are not, and could never be considered - isolated in terms of their location within communities?

The sixty year old woman who is struggling to care for her 85 year old mother is not separate from her neighbors, for example, even if her and her mother are living miles away from the next neighbor, or are socially isolated from those living just down the hallway or across the street. Furthermore, they are not separate from the social dynamics and systems that led to the conditions they live under currently.

Some might consider all of this to be an intellectual exercise, but I am witnessing people from widely different backgrounds, with widely different levels of social and economic means, asking questions, re-examining choices, and in some cases, directly challenging the very notion that "my problem" is mine alone, and that the only "reasonable" response to something like an ailing parent is to turn inward, and put all of one's extra energy into care giving.

So many of us have allowed our creativity and imagination to be stolen from us. And so many have allowed their basic goodness and abilities to be privatized, to the point where something as simple as group care-giving amongst friends and neighbors is simply unthinkable.

Please don't take this article as an indictment. Furthermore, it's not really about any one, specific choice. Focusing most of one's energy for a time on caring for an ailing parent might be the most appropriate choice for some folks. The point I am making is broader. It's about how our identities get constructed, and how we act - often unconsciously - from a sense that certain things are true, fixed, and solely individual in nature.

Your thoughts?

Zen Practice in Action

The word brought up visions of invasion, people marching in to take over. I also saw a consciousness of us holding down specific territories (turfing) that seems to persist as the way to conquer. Then I wondered about the consumption of our attention and time being occupied leaving little energy for us to find ways to feed and house each other. How are we going to survive the mess we are all in?

The paragraph above is from a post by Zenju Earthlyn Manuel's blog, an excellent blog worth taking a closer look at by the way. I feel she brings up some great points about the choice of the word "occupy," which also has triggered many indigenous activists and their allies as well, given the legacy of the past half millennium.

Having spent significant time now this weekend either at our "Occupy" protest in Minneapolis, or discussing it with people in other places I've been at, I believe there is both the possibility to transcend that word, and also to be hindered by it. While it's "just a word," it's also a powerful reminder, really, of how the entire continent of North America was "settled." How our commerce, governments, and other social structures were shaped.

Yesterday afternoon, I started seeing bright yellow signs with the words "Occupy MN (Minnesota)" on them. They were peppered amongst those on the marches through downtown, and were handed out to people in the plaza. I had this moment of deep aversion upon first seeing them. Followed by a sense that the word itself might perhaps become a point of public "practice" - to use Zen talk - that in coming together under what might be considered old paradigm languaging, perhaps - if this lasts long enough, that language could serve as a pivot point to a new approach and way of going forth. Already, people are writing articles and making videos speaking about the interconnected web of diverse interests present in these gatherings, and how the lack of centralized power, and a single controlled narrative is a strength. Something I agree with, and also recognize as being befuddling to anyone who is still wedded to the current mainstream.

Furthermore, I can feel my Zen and yoga practices getting tested. In every conversation, and non-conversation. In how I write. In what I choose to do, and not do. Today, I woke up with a head cold and decided to mostly rest. And yet I felt the tug to be "down there" - at the protests - and recognized some old patterns behind that tug, such as the need to "prove myself," and to "sacrifice my health and well-being" for "the good cause."

And it wasn't like I did nothing in relation to the movement unfolding before us all. I spoke to several folks at my Zen center about what's going on, partly prompted by the fact that someone saw me being briefly interviewed on local TV about the protests. I'm writing this post now, and filled my Facebook page with articles and photos. And I even debated a friend online who is a staunch Democrat and thinks the whole Occupy Wall Street "thing" is basically a "naive," "muddled" outcry.

Even looking at that list, none of it was required. I didn't "need" to do any of it. It mostly just happened organically, starting with the morning conversations and flowing into the rest of the day.

Odds are that this burst of action/activist energy I'm experiencing will ebb and flow just like the movement, and all movements do. Learning to remain open to and riding this is something I don't recall experiencing when I did social action work in the past. (This blog, for example, will not become "an Occupy movement" blog - which is probably a huge relief to many regular readers :) And yet, I can feel how all the writing and thinking I've done on this blog over the past few years in relation to spiritual practice and social action are informing how I am right now, in this moment.

In other words, it's palpable all the practice that's been done. It helps me see the underlying potential of a grassroots social movement without attaching too much (I won't lie- I'm not completely unattached) to any outcome.

May you all be well.

Buddhist Nun Accused of Being an "Unlicensed Vendor" in New York City

Police in the city of New York recently arrested a Buddhist nun over her attempts to raise money to help rebuild her burned down temple. Officials argued that she was acting as an "unlicensed vendor," and during a court hearing, the district attorney offered a deal that included a guilty plea. However, she refused, suggesting that the charges should be dropped in the interest of justice. I agree. Handing out prayer beads and collecting donations shouldn't be cause for arrest.

I can't help but think that former NYC Mayor Rudy Guiliani's crack down on the poor policies are behind some of this. In the name of "restoring the quality of life," Guiliani and the NYC Police Dept. shut down and locked up panhanders, peddlers, and beggars, deeming these folks the cause of all the city's problems. Meanwhile, racially charged incidents coming from police actions rose sharply, including the brutal murder of Guinean immigrant Amadou Diallo, shot 19 times by officers who claimed the man's wallet looked like a gun. Yeah, right.

Although Guilinani has long since been replaced by the less harsh and perhaps more fair Mayor Bloomberg, New York city police continue to employ at least some of the old Guilinani-driven policies. And in the case of Ven. Hong Yuan, the nun who was arrested, something else is off as well, even if you agree with the pandhandling laws. A local newspaper, Our Chinatown, reported about Ven. Hong Yuan's fundraising efforts just days before her arrest. So, she's not some anonymous person whose story is impossible to confirm.

Arun, from Angry Asian Buddhist, writes:

The DA offered a plea deal where Ven. Hong Yuan will serve “one day of community service in exchange for a disorderly conduct, non-criminal guilty plea,” but the nun has refused.

We should support Ven. Hong Yuan in her pursuit of justice, especially in encouraging the DA to drop the charges against her. This situation is a fantastic opportunity for Buddhists to reach out and support each other across racial, cultural and geographic lines. If you follow Ven. Hong Yuan’s story, it should be clear that she could definitely use the assistance of supporters to show the DA that this nun has the support of an entire community behind her.

You can read more background at this previous post with information from the earlier articles at DNAInfo and Singtao Daily.

The current NYC District Attorney is Cyrus Vance. You can locate contact information for him on this website. Or for those of you on Twitter, you can take the advice John, of the blog Point of Contact offered:

@manhattanDA is on twitter. Why not take a moment and ask them why they are prosecuting a Buddhist Nun for handing out beads?

And here is the info. for anyone interested in offering financial gifts to Ven. Hong Yuan's temple:

Atlanta Pu Xian Buddhist Association, Inc., 3140 Shallowford Pl., Atlanta, GA 30341. The association can also be reached by telephone at 678-436-3607.

May all charges be dropped, and may her temple be rebuilt.


*Photo credits to DNAInfo/Shayna Jacobs.

Unravelling Structural Oppression in Buddhist Thailand

Maia Duerr from over at Jizo Chronicles and Liberated Life Project just returned from a month in Thailand. Having had many students from Thailand, as well as friends who have taught English over there, I'm always interested in what people's experiences are.

Maia writes:

During my time in Thailand, I’ve loved spending time with my friend Ouyporn Khuankaew. Ouyporn is one of the most courageous people I know, and a true example of what it means to live a liberated life.

This post opens up by pointing out that so much of what we think is the "truth" is really social conditioning from culture, family, and other sources that we have just accepted as the only realty. And as someone who has often questioned even the most basic things and ideas, one of the reasons why people struggle to break through social conditioning is that even questioning much of it brings great resistance from others.

Ouyporn’s life could have turned out like so many other women. But she took a different direction.

In 2002, she co-founded the International Partnership for Women’s Peace and Justice with Ginger Norwood. For the past nine years, she and Ginger have led retreats and workshops at IWP for activists and people from marginalized groups, including sex workers, trans-gendered, and people with HIV. (To learn more about IWP, see this story from Ms Magazine.)

Ouyporn is a self-identified radical feminist lesbian who teaches people how structural oppression works and how it can be unraveled. And in this intensely Buddhist country, she reminds women that the Buddha’s original teachings on karma were not meant to be used as an excuse for unjust conditions.

Interestingly, the IWP site is right next door to the house that Ouyporn grew up in. Her aging mother still lives there. So Ouyporn has managed the unique feat of staying close to her roots while at the same time living a life that is completely true to who she is.

I can only imagine how difficult this work has been for Ouyporn, and yet also probably very rewarding at the same time. Mistaken notions of karma as some sort of fixed destiny or punishment for past life misdeeds are pretty commonplace, even amongst people in North America. But again, I think a major reason for this is just an acceptance of ideas that have been spread around without examining them closely. Someone hurts another, then gets hurt themselves, and people think "Oh, it's their karma coming back around." I don't think it's as simple as that.

In addition, bring up the phrase "structural oppression" in any nation, and tie it to specific structures, and you can watch the sparks fly out of people's heads. "There's no structural racism! It's just some bad apples." How many times have you heard that one?

Anyway, I love sharing stories of people who are challenging the dominant narratives, and questioning the social conditioning that otherwise would run their lives. Ouyporn's work is inspiring.

May we all be liberated in this life.

Greeds: Corporate and Otherwise

Public displays of agreement across spiritual/religious traditions are always nice, but often feel a little fluffy. So, to find a shared willingness to publicly stand together and challenge the abuses that occur under the dominant economic model in the world is always a plus in my book.

This is a few months old, but it's worth sharing.

CHIANG MAI, Thailand/GENEVA, 17 September 2010 (LWI) – A group of leading Buddhist and Christians has underscored the urgency for faith communities to engage with government and financial institutions to transform personal and structural greed and help promote the equitable distribution of wealth.

Thirty leaders, scholars, economists and activists from the two faith groups meeting under the auspices of The Lutheran World Federation (LWF) and the World Council of Churches (WCC) affirmed that Buddhists and Christians shared similar teachings on greed, which should constitute the basis for engaging today’s economic crisis.

“Engaging Structural Greed” was the theme of the LWF – WCC consultation hosted by Payap University in Chiang Mai, Thailand from 22 to 26 August.

Participants stated that one of the main reasons for the current global economic crisis was the drive for the maximization of profits by capital owners, and they lamented the de-regulation of the financial markets. The present situation, they said, was a moral and spiritual issue.

“The dismantling of these regulations a few decades ago resulted in an environment for the explosion of personal and structural greed, leading to a debt and mortgage crisis, to unparalleled disparities between the super-rich and those who go hungry every day and to the accelerated degradation of the environment,” states the consultation’s final statement titled, “A Buddhist-Christian Common Word on Structural Greed.”

The consultation included Lutherans, Reformed, Anglican and Roman Catholic Christians, and Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhists from 14 countries, and aimed at continuing the host organizations’ ongoing engagement with questions of economic justice.

I recently had a short e-mail discussion with my father and step mother about the American health care system. One of the points I made was that companies should not be allowed to make piles of profits on human suffering, birth and death. There's no ethical position, in my opinion, to justify the obscene amounts of money being made in the insurance, pharmaceutical, medical device, and other "medical industries." My step mother kind of disagreed with me, saying she didn't have any problem with insurance companies making profits(that was the focal point of that particular discussion). We never did get into "how much profit" is ethical, but I think the basic problem with holding the "it's ok" position in this economic climate is that the bottom line is almost always the bottom line, no matter how much bullshit window dressing is applied.

Greed is such a snake you know. I remember taking some pens from work awhile back because I didn't have any at home. Even though I could have easily asked if I could have a few, I decided it didn't matter because someone else had given them to the school. That's a tiny example from my own life, which didn't really hurt anyone else, but which did reinforce sloppy thinking about objects within myself.

During our zen center's board retreat last month, there was a discussion about putting some dharma talks on-line that our head teacher and a few others have done around Buddhism and 12 Step programs. They're quite popular, and a few members of the board felt we could make some money off of them. Something about it struck me funny, but I kept using those talks as examples of "products" we could consider anyway. It was part laziness(I could have easily brought up another example if I had reflected on it for a moment), and it was part offering support for the enthusiasm of my fellow board members. This is one of the quandaries of being the President of the Board - balancing support for each person on the board with recognizing that a discussion needs to be shifted. In this case, I wasn't sure why I felt uneasy about the Buddhism and 12 Step material being sold online, so I let it go. And we ended up getting back together as a whole board (the original discussion had been in a small group setting), and suddenly the topic was raised, and both our head teacher and another board member offered their uneasiness with using that work to bring in profits to the center.

Now, it's important here to distinguish something. Our sangha isn't rolling in money, nor have we had any history of selling stuff online in the way places like Big Mind Zen Center do. We're a low budget, and until very recently, low tech community. It's only been in the past few months that we could consider bringing in money from doing something or selling something online.

However, when I consider the discussions that we were having about money and fundraising, and specifically the one that led into the Buddhism and 12 Step topic, I can see how there was an element of greed lurking about. The three of us in the small group all were trying to figure out what would bring in the money, instead of what might be of most value and support to potential students online. It's not that money should never be discussed, it's that the whole thing was gone about backwards. This is how our economic system tends to organize things. Profits first. Anything else, like ethical considerations, a distant second.

Greed is a snake. Actually, that's an insult to snakes, who are fine members of the world community, thank you very much. But anyway, I think you get what I mean. Believing that for-profit health care entities have human health and well-being first and foremost in their missions is absolutely foolish. Just as taking donated pens from my school and thinking that was ok was foolish.

And as such, I applaud the group of religious leaders that spoke out above, and wish that more of us would drop our allegiance to globalized capitalism and do the same. It's high time people put to rest tired cliches like anyone who denounces the injustices in capitalism must be a communist. Or that global capitalism may be flawed, but it's the best system "we" (whomever we is) have got. Even if it is the "best" (and I wish anyone interested good luck in trying to prove such a view that any economic system is "the best"), that doesn't make it ok to turn our backs on the real suffering being created every day under said system.

A Revolution of Values - Bringing Alive Again Martin Luther King's Radical Dreams

Tomorrow is Martin Luther King Day here in the U.S. Memories of a remarkable man, and of a movement made up of millions, will be brought to mind. Dreams of a more peaceful, healthy, just nation will be invoked. No doubt recent tragedies and violence will also be invoked. However, the full story of Dr. King's benevolent radicalness will mostly remain untouched. His "dream" of 1963 will be where most will stop, out of fear of upsetting the precarious balance we have in our communities, or out of ignorance of the later more penetrating visions Dr. King had, which ultimately threatened the very power bases of the nation, and probably led to his assassination.

Here is an excerpt from a speech Dr. King gave in 1967:

It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin...we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

It almost brings me to tears. This speech could be given today, almost word for word. And it would still be as piercingly true, radical in vision, and yet inspiring as it probably was to those who heard it over 40 years ago.

I am still learning from this man, and the movement that helped shaped him. It is up to us - the living - to embody more than just the now palatable to most hopes and dreams of that earlier Dr. King. No, it's up to each of us to bring forth "a true revolution of values," through which all our actions are manifested.

This isn't about American greatness, or American dreams - it's really about the world, the present and future of our world. Every time I return to Dr. King's words, I'm reminded of that as much as from any Buddhist sutra.

It's time to be inspired again. To dream fucking huge again. To step into those dreams boldly, fearlessly, dragging all our fears and doubts with us like the homely children that they are. To let go of the need to be right. To be knowing. To be comfortable. To be safe and secure. To give up the ease of drinking from the trough of cynicism or swimming in a swamp of sugary optimism. To forgo all the privatized dreams we have been fed and to sprout the bodhisattva seeds that lie dormant within each of us.

It's time. Even if a mountain of snow covers the way right now, it can be moved, it can be melted. But only together can such a feat be accomplished. There is no liberation to be found in "I." Liberation is a verb, is us dynamically working and loving together. My effort is necessary, but not sufficient. Your effort is necessary, but not sufficient.

May we each be inspired to awaken, to take our particular oar into the water, and help take the boat to the other shore together.

Mass Protests, Spiritual Teachings, and Unquestioned Privilege

There's an excellent post over at the blog It's all Yoga Baby, which was originally published at the ID Project's blog. In it, Canadian Buddhist and Yoga teacher Michael Stone details his experience during the recent protests of the G20 summit in Toronto, and the thoughts he had about trying to apply spiritual ethical teachings in such a context. Scrolling down on the comments, I appreciated Carol Horton's questioning of the value of mass protests in this day and ago, something I've wondered about a lot myself. Carol, the author of the blog Think Body Electric, says the following:

The really disturbing question is: what can we in fact do that might really have an impact on this type of very complex, huge, international institutional apparatus – not to mention the world beyond it? It’s very very hard to answer.

I'm right there with her. I've been involved in many protests over the years, and have found myself increasingly disappointed in the lack of focus, and actual impact they often have. Not all protests are failures, but the increase of military tactics used by law enforcement, plus the lack of coherent, sustained organizations of people behind them has really weakened protest as a force for change.

Anyway, I continued scrolling down the comments section to find this:

November 21, 2010 at 7:29 am

Yvan St-Pierre

What I find difficult with this kind of event as with a large part of the usual political debate, is what appears to be a much deeper barrier than whatever can be built with concrete and steel: it’s how our views of the human world are so entrenched that they can only clash with each other, as if there was no way we couldn’t step outside the conflict and attempt a really peaceful resolution.

When I read Michael’s book on ethics a few weeks ago, I was both deeply pleased by the capacity he had to step away from any rigid frame of thinking, at least from the perspective of Buddhist values, and also quite disappointed by his take on the western tradition of ideas, including what appeared to me like a very crude (mis-) understanding of thinkers such as Descartes or Adam Smith.

Yet for people like me, who’ve grown quite attached to that modern western tradition, with the same sincerity as that of the protesters themselves, events of this kind are also profoundly saddening, not only because people actually get hurt, which is bad enough in itself, but also because dialogue just seem impossible.

I don’t mean the dialogue between protesters and the authorities though, because it is this conflict itself that is the result of the missing conversation. What’s missing first is a capacity on all sides to accept that people who do not share our views may have good reasons for that, and that we should stop thinking that we have some sort of right to force other people out of their differing views.

Democratic institutions are just collective means to apply that idea, through a few relatively simple albeit imperfect mechanisms. Now, I’m certainly not accusing the mass of protesters to have deserved the repression they got, but I wonder why some of them may even have thought for a second that they had any legitimacy in using violence, especially given that we are fortunate enough in this country to have institutions that do allow us to voice our concerns peacefully.

Isn’t this violence precisely the result of attachment and identification to conflicting worldviews? An attachment that is so strong that some of us think it is worth destroying others’ livelihood, “by any means necessary”? Isn’t this a strange concept of peace?

I agreed with the first paragraph, and have struggled myself with the levels of anger present at anti-war rallies I have attended. However, as I went further into Yvan's comments, I , frankly, found myself getting pissed off. That's the honest truth. It brought me back to a hot summer day in 2000 in front of our state Capitol building, where a small group of KKK members held court while a few thousand of us attempted to send a counter message. There were opposing groups in the crowd, including some provocateurs from a black nationalist organization that were trying to pick fights. It was a very hot day. People were already angry that the Klan had gotten a permit to control the entryway of the Capitol building for an hour and a half. And just to add to the fun, there were 200 national guard troops, waiting behind the Capitol stairs, in full riot gear. The fact that the event remained mostly not violent - a few punches were thrown between two guys - was something of a miracle. And from that event, my mind went to the 2008 Republican National Convention that occurred here in St. Paul, and I wrote the following responses:

Reply November 21, 2010 at 12:44 pm

nathan

“Democratic institutions are just collective means to apply that idea, through a few relatively simple albeit imperfect mechanisms. Now, I’m certainly not accusing the mass of protesters to have deserved the repression they got, but I wonder why some of them may even have thought for a second that they had any legitimacy in using violence, especially given that we are fortunate enough in this country to have institutions that do allow us to voice our concerns peacefully.”

You clearly are living a privileged life, and probably have not been in the middle of mass protests in recent years. The tactics of police and other “security detail” involved in these kinds of protests now include provoking, interjecting violent, fake protesters into the crowd to stir up passions, as well as to deploy weapons on people before anything at all has happened. I saw all kinds of madness being done in the name of “security” here in St. Paul, Minnesota during the 2008 Republican National Convention. In fact, I’d say that part of my city was basically in lock down for a week – stepping a foot into the wrong area could mean risking arrest, and during protests, those areas shifted sometimes every 15 minutes. It’s all set up to upset people, and it’s ridiculous to expect every last person in a crowd of thousands – even if they were all yogis or buddhists – to remain completely calm and contained.

There’s no way to know for sure how the violence that happened in Toronto started, or what people’s intentions were. And frankly, take a look at what the media covers. I’ve met more than one activist who has given up trying to be heard by staying calm and rational.

Saying all this does not mean that I advocate violence. But property damage is different than harming people or animals. And before you tisk-tisk the protesters involved in violence, you might want to take a closer look at what happened. Canada and the U.S. are freer than a lot of other nations, but there’s a lot more repression going on these days. Step out of your comfortable, middle class neighborhood and take a good look around.

Reply-November 21, 2010 at 12:54 pm

nathan

“I don’t mean the dialogue between protesters and the authorities though, because it is this conflict itself that is the result of the missing conversation. What’s missing first is a capacity on all sides to accept that people who do not share our views may have good reasons for that, and that we should stop thinking that we have some sort of right to force other people out of their differing views. ”

Also, you don’t seem to have a sense of the power dynamics here. I’ve mostly stopped going to protests because of similar questions to the one’s Carol above posed. But you seem to posit here some kind of equal playing ground, where people are just not listening to each other. Nice pipe dream that is!

People protesting in the streets have already been shut out of the conversation. Whatever ideas they have were dismissed by those in power long ago. Mass demonstrations are an attempt to be heard when other attempts have failed. They are often kind of desperate acts, and it’s rare to see an actual sustained, intelligent, coherent movement like the Civil Rights Movement be the driving force behind such events. As such, it’s quite difficult to get any message of depth across, even under non-repressive conditions.

So, it’s probably a secondary tool at best. People need to find other ways to change corrupt, oppressive systems.

But if it all boiled down to just getting people in a room to listen to each other, we’d be in a different place. I’ve been “heard” by numerous Congress people here in the U.S. over the years – often as one person amongst large group of constituents – it rarely has done shit to change their votes. If you have money and power, you get heard. If you don’t, you have to find other means.

Perhaps my calling this person out as privileged, and basically naive, sounds harsh. Maybe it is based on my own faulty assumptions; I'm willing to own that. But I think it's important to be honest, and even blunt about some of this stuff, because otherwise we just continue to spin in circles. Kindness and compassion are essential in bringing about more peace and justice in the world, but how that looks, and what it means in a given situation depends upon what the situation is calling for. And in my view, it's absolutely critical that people who are out there talking about large scale social issues get a clue about the ways in which power dynamics and the structures of systems influence nearly everything going on.

People who haven't experienced it tend to vastly underestimate the power that repressive environments have over people. This is one reason why it's important to maintain a regular practice, and cultivate the ability to handle those "little cares," so that if you find yourself in a truly repressive situation, you might be better able to live out the intentions that you have.


p.s. If you're interested, I have new poetry up on my writing blog. Enjoy!

Just Who Do You Think You're Standing Up for?!

Over at the Reformed Buddhist, Kyle has a strongly worded post taking aim at the lack of public commentary from American Buddhists about a pair of Buddhist centers being denied legal support from local governments for new buildings. He contrasts this with the clear, and sometimes very visible public support some convert Buddhists have given to the U.S. Muslim community in general, and to the Park 51 project in New York specifically.

Personally, I think there is a fundamental difference between the Mosque issue and these other issues of religious intolerance. From the Mayors office in New York City, to the Governors office in Albany to even words of encouragement by President Obama, the group building the Mosque have been given the green light to start construction in NY since all the necessary statutory requests and permits have been approved by each of the governmental agencies involved. Conversely, there are currently two very significant religious freedom cases in progress, one in Walnut, California and one in Rankin County, Mississippi, where Buddhists have been denied by the local governmental officials the right to build religious buildings, and therefore have been blocked from their constitutional right to exercise and practice religion freely. What ever my personal feelings are towards taking a side in the New York Mosque public debate, how we act as a untied front can not and should not overshadow the very real, illegal, baseless and cowardly governmental interference in Mississippi and California. One issue signifies direct actions against our rights and freedoms guaranteed to us in the United States Constitution, the other, the NY Mosque controversy, is ultimately nothing more than taking sides in a public debate.

I disagree with Kyle about the utility of publicly supporting members of another religion that has been routinely demonized in this nation. Staying silent because something has become a political spectacle and doesn't have any other clear and direct action isn't my style - period. (Although, I wholeheartedly support sitting silently when that is what's called for :)

Let's consider the rest of what Kyle says. He's absolutely right that in both of the Buddhist center cases, people have an opportunity to speak up and perhaps influence a specific action of discrimination. We can write officials in these two towns, write blog posts, get the word out to others. And I support all of that, which is part of why I'm writing this post.

FYI: Kyle has a previous post with contact info available for the Walnut, California case.

However, one thing I'd like to point out is that in great contrast to the Park 51 project, which has been front page news for months, the first time I - a fairly big news hound - heard about these two Buddhist center cases was a few weeks ago. How many American Buddhists have any idea about them? Probably not many. How many know about the NYC Islamic Center debate? Probably a vast majority.

It's not at all surprising that Buddhists are commenting about the very public debate over Islam, but not about these two Buddhist center cases, or issues like them. Buddhists aren't the "sexy enemy" that many consider Muslims to be. The mainstream media won't make a ton of money reporting about such issues, and even though the Federal government is intervening in at least of the cases, there's zero public pressure for the kind of statement President Obama made about the Park 51 project.

Oppression manifests in many different ways, and much of it occurs outside of the general public's eye. Which makes it that much more difficult to address. This is why I believe it's important to not only tackle specific instances of oppression, but to do what we can to promote a more just and liberated world in general. It's much less tangible, and we may never see the results of said actions, but sometimes a meditation for peace in the middle of an angry crowd is the most skillful offering one can make.

Update: here's my letter to the Walnut, California officials.

Dear _______,

I'm a Zen Buddhist living in St. Paul, MN. I recently became aware of the conflict over a building permit for the Chung Tai Zen Center. I'm not in the practice of writing local officials about building permits; in fact, I don't recall ever having done so. However, the debate over the Cordoba House Project in New York City has brought renewed attention to legacy across the United States of religious discrimination, especially when it comes to non-Christian religious communities.

I honestly don't know the actual reasons for denying the permit for the Walnut,California. What greatly concerns me is that at least two members of your Planning Commission, according to the U.S. Department of Justice filing, appear to have unreasonable objections to the permit. Mr. Hall's suggestion that the center would be used to "recruit and influence" nearby middle school students is not only outrageous, but would probably never be uttered about a Christian church community in the same proximity. And the argument that the Zen Center would be a "tourist attraction" seems very similar to me.

My guess is that, given the intervention of the Dept. of Justice, your office and the others will not be giving out much information about this case. So, although I would prefer to know why this Zen Center building is being blocked, I will simply offer my view that this situation could expand into something more damaging if decent reasons aren't offered in some public manner. The Cordoba House project had people for and against it, but in the end, the press coverage was a big headache for the city of New York. Perhaps your town, and this Zen Center aren't as interesting to the media, but you never know what issues they will choose to take up and exploit for profits and sensationalism.

The Walnut Planning Commission might ultimately be in the right on this issue. Since I don't know the whole story, I am willing to entertain that possibility. You need to understand, though, that being a member of religious minority group in this country isn't always welcomed, and as such, sometimes we must speak out and make sure that our freedoms are being upheld, just like anyone else in this nation.

I sincerely hope that this conflict is resolved soon, and that all parties involved are given due respect and treated with the utmost fairness.

Sincerely,

Nathan Thompson
St. Paul, MN

Hot Topics: Socially Engaged Buddhism

There's been a lot of debate lately online about socially engaged Buddhism. This on the heels of last month's Zen Peacemaker's Socially Engaged Buddhism Symposium, which was held in the U.S. state of Massachusetts.

Posts from The Reformed Buddhist and, to a lesser extent, from Point of Contact argue against the notion of socially engaged Buddhism, suggesting that Buddhist practice should not be conflated with actions involving large scale social and political issues. Both suggest that it's just fine to be actively engaged with these issues, but that Buddhism should be left out of those engagements.

In another recent post, found over at Notes in Samsara, Mumon offers that those who view Buddhist practice as a means to "change the world" are clinging to a gaining idea.

The current post over at Notes from a Burning House points to the fact that when spiritual/religious folks attempt to rock the social/economic boat, they're often marginalized, shunned, and sometimes end up murdered. (Think Martin Luther King Jr. for example.) The post then goes on to ask where the middle ground is between hard core social activists and those who shun all Buddhist inspired engagement with the social/political realms.

Finally, the latest post over at Jizo Chronicles offers Diana Winston and Donald Rothberg's Ten Guiding Principles for Socially Engaged Buddhism.

For the purposes of this discussion, I think principle number two has the most relevance:

Interbeing and Co-Responsibility:
We look at our tendencies to separate “us” and “them,” and “inner” and “outer.” We see in ourselves the same structures of greed, hatred, and delusion that we seek to change. We realize that there is ultimately no “other” to fight against, yet we also recognize that some are indeed in positions of greater responsibility for suffering and oppression.

In response to a comment John from Point of Contact made wondering how the principles were any different from "mundane/non-engaged/boring Buddhism," I said the following:

I get the sense that you and others are wanting a separation where none can really be made. If you truly live the practice, anything you do in the social/political realm, regardless of whether you label it or not, will be influenced by your practice. People seem to be fussing a lot about the labels, but I really think that’s a red herring. This is an old, old debate between those who argue Buddhism is about working to disengage from worldly concerns, and those who see Buddhism as a path that includes coming back to “the marketplace” (Ox Herding Pics) if you will. I think everyone is on a continuum between these two extremes, from solitary monks living in the mountains to lifelong social activists whose work is deliberately guided by Buddhist teachings.

As for the list, #2 and #4 explicitly point to a deliberate interaction with and engagement of systemic manifestations of suffering. The list isn’t pointing to just everyday activities like washing the dishes, being kind to co-workers and strangers, etc. It’s suggesting that there are a wide array of ways we might engage in the world springing forth from our understanding of Buddhist teachings. All of it is part of the path in my view. No one person need be “engaged” if you will in all facets of action within the world suggested by these principles, but to suggest that all social action work is outside the realm of Buddhism is, as I already said, creating a separation where none can be found.

I'm going to be honest with you all: I've had some trouble figuring out how to respond to all these discussions. I have made a few comments, but mostly I've read and watched others engage.

The thing I keep going back to is the idea that for better or worse, one's belief system will influence how one acts within the larger social/political world. An atheist or secular humanist will look at things differently from a devout Christian or Jew. Perhaps, they end up making similar decisions, but the reasoning behind, as well as the path that led up to said decisions will be different. And I think it's important to consider those differences because they help us understand how the whole of humanity is interacting together to form the world we live in at this particular time.

Beyond this, I believe there are ways to be inspired by, or driven by, one's spiritual practice that don't lead to the kinds of oppression seen in theocracies, for example, or to the kinds of self-righteousness seen in individuals who believe their path is superior in solving social problems than all others. I understand that even saying this will cause some to believe that I'm no better than folks in the "Christian Right" arguing to outlaw abortions and for a return of prayer in public schools. Perhaps this is the case. I honestly don't know.

I just can't see how it's possible to divorce one's spiritual life from how one engages the big issues in the world.

Poverty Dharma(s)

Genju over at 108zenbooks offers the following provocative teaching in her post this morning:

In her retreat at Upaya, Joanna Macy spoke of being satisfied with just what we have. A retreatant asked how that could possibly be useful to the people in Haiti (the earthquake was very prominent in our thoughts on that day) who now had less than what had been already a horrendously impoverished life. Roshi Joan Halifax, adding to Joanna Macy’s response, pointed out that the dharma was aimed at our perceptions and she closed with this statement:

“Do not foster a mind of poverty in yourself and others.”

Yikes! When I first read this, it felt like a mountain we are called to climb without the use of our arms or legs. In fact, as soon as I saw the word "Haiti" I was ready to disagree with the whole thing, waiting for yet another soft, warm and fuzzy teaching from some privileged person aimed at "helping" the "poor masses." I've experienced enough of this kind of stuff now that my mind is on alert for it. There are benefits to thinking like this, but it also, in itself, can be an example of that "poverty mind" if one isn't careful.

“Do not foster a mind of poverty in yourself and others.”

One of the challenges this kind of teaching brings up for me is that it's only subtly different from all the languaging people in power positions have used throughout time to oppress others. The endless droning on these folks and their attendants do about "those whiny, pathetic people always asking for handouts." People of color in the U.S. know this kind of shit all too well, although they are only one example. I distinctly remember being poor enough to only have government cheese and powdered milk available in my house, and how the clothing my mother purchased at garage sales rendered me other amongst many of my elementary school classmates. It's hard not to develop a mind of poverty when you have lived in some form of material poverty, and have been repeatedly given the message that it's your own damn fault and that you or your family should shut the hell up and get a job, or a better job. In other words, it all becomes about material position, and so it's hard not to develop, and then foster in others, a "mind of poverty" because this is what is constantly being reinforced around us.

Yes, there is repetition in this post. Repetition is required for people to learn, or unlearn in this case.

Roshi Halifax and Joanna Macy are pointing to the ways in which we forget the boundless, totally generous functioning of this world. That beneath all the human constructed miseries there is that something greater pulsing through us in a totally generous, beyond poverty and wealth kind of way.

This is an important teaching for us, and yet one that isn't always easy to know how to apply.

How would a materially privileged person from a nation like the U.S. or Canada enter into a materially poor nation like Haiti and not foster the mind of poverty?

There is a rub because you can't separate the relative conditions from the absolute. If I, a lower middle class (by U.S. standards) white guy from Minnesota, went around a tent city in Port Au Prince and told people to "be satisfied with what they have," I'd probably get punched in the face. Or at least some dirty looks. This is the trouble with just repeating teachings to others, thinking they will instantly understand because somehow you think you understand.

One doesn't have to go all the way to Haiti to experience this fumbling about. I can think of countless times I have fostered some kind of poverty in myself and/or others. How I have hooked on to some form of "there is lack" here, and just went with it. How I have failed to hold both the real economic injustices that occur all over the world and the boundless, totally generous functioning of this world at the same time. Because when you are able to do this, you can speak clearly about those same injustices in a way that still fosters that boundless generosity - I've felt it in myself, and from others at times.

“Do not foster a mind of poverty in yourself and others.”

How can it be done? The answer might start with listening.