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

"Western Buddhists Don't Know Anything"

So basically says our old friend The Zennist, doing his best to ruffle the feathers of "Western" Buddhists again.

There are times when you have to face the facts. Something isn't right in Buddhism. Many Buddhist writers I am familiar with, not to mention the bulk of the Buddhist public, don’t read much of the Pali canon or the Mahayana canon, enough to know what it actually contains (this includes Asians). This is guessing, but I think their Buddhist reading list may only contain two discourses they’ve actually read such as the the Kalama Sutta and the Heart Sutra. Of course there are others. But these two seem to be the main ones.

First off, I wish I or someone could come up with a better term than "Western Buddhists." The whole west-east thing is tired.

Anyway, The Zennist's post is an interesting set of observations. I think he's onto something as well. The Kalama Sutta seems wildly over represented in the blog posts I have read online over the past two years. And at that, it's mostly reduced to a paraphrasing of section 10, which reads:

The criterion for acceptance

10. "Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.

I think it's probably fair to say that not a lot of Buddhists in general are very well versed in the original teachings. We are currently studying the Anapanasati Sutta at our zen center, and before this did a class on the Diamond Sutra and also one on the Third Chinese Zen Patriarch's poem Hsin Hsin Ming. I know other sanghas in the U.S. also have rigorous study of some of the ancient texts, but it's probably also true that other sanghas don't. The "Just Sitting" mindset amongst some Dogen-centric communities seems to lead to not much studying of anything besides Dogen. The same might be said of communities that only study Nichiren's writings. I'm just throwing out some examples here of groups that study a single teacher, sometimes to the exclusion of all others.

The Zennist continues:

The popularity of these two Buddhist discourses [the Kalama and Heart Sutras] tells us more about the modern ethos than Buddhism. In fact, if this is all of the Buddhism someone has read, they don’t know much about Buddhism, especially about its mystical side, for lack of a better term. In fact, the mystical side is really what Buddhism is all about or in the words of Bodhidharma, “The most essential method, which include all other methods, is beholding the mind” which is not our ordinary mind but is the very spiritual stuff of the universe.

I'm interested in this. There are times when I do think modern Buddhist writers and teachers focus too much on things like mindfulness while washing the dishes, or how to work with difficult emotions. These are very important, but they aren't the whole works.

There's been some interesting posts recently on the blog On the Precipice about the value of monastic practice, and the need to give it more support in "Western" nations. I left the following comment on today's post:

One thing I think is important to consider is the lack of records on lay practitioners historically. Most of what we have been handed down has been recorded by monastics about monastics. Occasionally a figure like Layman P’ang shows up, but it’s a rarity. And I think this is especially important to women in our practice today because we really don’t know a lot about the Buddhist women of our past, monastic or lay. I have three or four books on my shelf written about historical Buddhist women, and the authors’ research was often years in the making, and yet they only have stories about maybe 20 or 30 wise Buddhist women. So, I’m kind of convinced that we don’t have a really well rounded view of the different ways people have practiced and potentially awakened throughout Buddhist history.

Why is this relevant to the rest of this post? Well, I think there are a few overlapping issues going on that tie together. First off, The Zennist's general point about practitioners having little knowledge of what the ancient teachings actually say. And second, the fact that many of those ancient teachings are coming from monastics writing about monastic experience. One of the benefits of going through the Pali Canon is that there are lay practitioners found in it, and the Buddha directly addresses them, tailoring teachings towards lay life. However, once you move past the Pali Canon, at least amongst Zen records, it's mostly monastics and wandering loner types whose stories and teachings are available. All this to say that I'm not terribly convinced we have a good sense of what's it's been like for lay Buddhists throughout history. And along with that, since we don't have, for example, lots of enlightenment stories about lay practitioners, it's been generally assumed that lay people almost never experience enlightenment.

One thing I have to say about The Zennist's criticism of modern, "Western" Buddhists, which gets nastier at the end of his post, is that it's probably more the case that the majority of people in every religious/spiritual tradition are, and have always been, lacking in depth of knowledge about the actual recorded teachings of said tradition. How many Christians do you know that can rattle off entire sections of the Bible, and easily cite a wide diversity of quotations from early Christian scholars and theologians? How many Muslims do you know who can do the same with the Qu'ran and early Muslim scholars?

Part of the problem those of us who do read in depth have is that we are reading material written by other people that were privileged enough (i.e. had the time and resources) to be able to present a more complete picture based on a variety of historical teachings. If we had a better sense of what lay practice was like historically, and how people grew wise or not through it, perhaps the monastic/scholarly approach might be seen as one path amongst many to awakening.


*Image is of a flag from the American "Know Nothing" movement - mid-19th century.

A Hollywood Romance Gone Bad: Obama and Leadership Expectations

Theatre. This is what a lot of us seem to want from their leaders, be it political, spiritual, or whatnot. The actual decisions they make, or ethics they display, tend to drop off to the side, that is, until we begin to experience the impact of said leaders.

The following is from an article examining U.S. President Obama current image amongst the American public.

Obama performs the presidency badly. Over the past two years he has managed to come across as aloof, detached and occasionally dithering. On a human level his professorial demeanour makes him look like a leader who understands but does not necessarily feel. On a presidential level it makes him look like a leader who prefers to think than to act.

This dislocation is particularly acute because his candidacy – rooted in the promise of change – endowed his presidency with expectations of transformation both symbolic and substantial that no individual could possibly meet.

This became painfully apparent last week during a televised town hall meeting when Velma Hart, a black woman – the demographic bedrock of Obama's base – expressed her frustration with his presidency. "I'm exhausted. I'm exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now."

Obama acknowledged hard times but went on to answer with a laundry list of achievements. His answer was competent but at no time did it emotionally connect with her or anyone else. Afterwards, Hart told the Washington Post: "I think he has made progress. I just thought by now the progress would be more evident for the man-on-the-street level. I thought there was something special and secret he knew that would make things operate differently."

Asked if she thought her expectations had been unrealistic, she said: "Absolutely. It took decades to get here. He's only been in office for two years. But I guess I started to believe, on some small level, that he had a magic wand."

Now, I think there are a number of factors playing into the diminished approval of Obama's "performance," racism and a shitty economy high on the list. But what I'm interested in is the expectations people place upon leaders, specifically the desire to experience a personal, emotional connection with said leader.

Expecting a Miracle Worker

Those who know me know that long before the 2008 Presidential election, I declared Obama to be yet another centrist Democrat with little intention to upset the status quo. Part of me wanted to be wrong, but I wasn't. In fact, while friends and members of my family drooled over the man's speeches, I read the transcripts and pointed out exactly what candidate Obama was saying behind the excitement. You might say I was a bit of killjoy, but it was clear to me early on that people were placing an endless amount of projections on this one man, and his potential to "wave a magic wand" and create a better, more just nation.

Expecting a Personal Barometer to Connect with

The article above points to what I'd call "the emotional gap" between the President and many in the American public. People want him to be angry when they are angry. Sad when they are sad. Questioning when they are questioning. And well, you get the idea. After eight years of the faux folksy, tempermental like a teenager leadership of President Bush, the arrival of a calm, cerebral Obama was welcomed by a majority of Americans, even some who didn't vote for him. And yet, those same qualities are now viewed as a disconnect, as if the President "doesn't feel our pain." And maybe he doesn't. Many of his policy decisions seem to suggest as much. But even if the man sincerely wishes to do what's best for people who have long suffered in this nation, he doesn't "act like it."

Wanting to be Seduced

When it comes to politics, I'm pretty convinced the majority of people would rather be seduced by a charismatic actor than select the person who's ideas best fit what the current situation calls for.

And you know what, the same is often the case when it comes to our expectations of spiritual leaders. If Bishop Eddie Long and Barack Obama were in a competition for the leadership of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church before each had risen to fame, Long would have won hands down. The guy oozes emotional charisma and connectivity, even in the face of a sex scandal that could bring his downfall.

Admit it. You want to have the kind of teacher who sweeps you off your feet with their brilliance, feels your every last pain and grief, and always knows how to make you smile. You don't want to learn, and work hard, and take responsibility - you want a Hollywood romance, complete with an enlightened ending. Never mind that many of these kinds of leaders tend to create serious messes in their wake. Never mind that every good piece of theatre you've ever seen contains it's share of conflict and misery. You want the impossible and you want it now!

Velma Hart and the millions of others like her who have spent countless hours "defending" the Obama Administration are mostly trying to maintain the walls between the Hollywood romance they thought they had gotten, and the reality that actually is. It is a mistake that we all make in our lives about something, but one that seems exceptionally poignant when leaders are involved because of the heavy consequences that tend to follow.

A Morning at the Zen Center

I had a busy morning down at the zen center today. As part of our sangha's annual meeting, three of us gave short dharma talks about issues related to board work and running communities. I spoke about the next generation of practitioners, suggesting that the continuation of our sangha into the future will require us to stay in-tune with the ways people, especially younger folks - are finding Buddhism these days. And we will have balance adaptations like online classes and blogging, for example, with a preservation of the thrust of the practices and teachings that have been handed down to us.

Following the dharma talks, I was back "on stage," this time as the chairman of the board of directors leading the annual meeting. We've got a lot of stuff on our plate - discussions about our space and changes coming in the neighborhood our center is located, a new development plan that's designed to guide the organization's next 3-5 years, our current budget and the prospects of breaking even this year - it's a lot to consider.

A little over five years ago, our sangha was nearing the tipping point towards closing, after having lost 40-50% of its members and its head teacher. So, it was petty amazing to be standing in front of a vibrant, energetic group this morning, and to be considering long term goals of sustainability, instead of short term goals of survival.

And when I consider my own life, and how much basic shyness and worries about self image I had as a teenager and early 20 something, it was kind of surprising to find myself where I was at this morning - in a position of leadership, where people wanted to hear what I had to say. Perhaps some of you who have been reading this blog wouldn't find that terribly surprising, but I can still remember how resistant I used to be to making new friends and other connections. How sacred I was of expressing ideas that didn't match up with what others thought. And how, even if I found myself in a leadership position, that my lack of articulateness (due to being too closed up and attached to outcomes) often weakened my presence and impact greatly.

So, I guess I'm feeling grateful to my sangha for all the years of support, and to the teachings and practice in general for opening my life up in such a way that I might be able to lead effectively. Just before I gave my part of the morning talk, I said to myself "Just be open to the wisdom in the room. Let it run through you." And that it did.

We are always supported, even when it doesn't feel like it.

*Imagine of Clouds in Water Zen Center Zendo.

Get Married To Yourself

I found this post by Brianna Ecklid on Elephant Journal. It's basic enough, for sure, but I think that's what's called for sometimes. Get married to yourself is the gist of it. Stop hoping something outside of you will make you happy and wise, and start waking up to your life as it is.

I have spent too many years trying to control my life and I have learned that the harder you grasp at the sand the faster it slips through your fingers. I tried in vain to lead a life I thought was good enough for others and found myself severely unhappy. I have suffocated under stress that was unnecessary and suffered from the desires of my mind. It is time to take life and find happiness, joy, and spiritual fulfillment for myself; to reach out for my hand and firmly believe that I will find what I seek.

I placed a ring on my finger and silently promised myself that it would not move until I have found that which I seek. I suppose, in a way, this is my Bodhi tree and I am not going to move from it until I find that which I seek. Plus, I might get to have a reception and realistically…what is better than cake and presents?

What she writes about in the first paragraph sounds really familiar to me. The only difference I'd make is that "marrying myself" wouldn't be just "for myself." And of course, there's also a danger of getting taken over by the "seeking" mind, trying too hard to locate some answer to your deepest questions, whether in the outer world or within.

But I think she's onto something here. It's so easy to want something or someone to "complete you," but no one and nothing can do so.

That pit of dissatisfaction we each are attempting to fill with other people, achievements, food, drink, and whatever else is always asking for more.

Perhaps committing yourself to yourself, just as things are, moment by moment, the growling that comes from that pit might cease to overwhelm.

It's worth a try. You already have done the divorce thing with yourself thousands of times. Why not try something new for a change?

The Buddhoblogosphere as Collective Practice

As someone who has made blogging a part of his Buddhist practice life, I was excited to see this post about yoga and blogging as collective practice. Carol, the post's author, brings up a lot of interesting issues to consider, including this:

those of us who want to continue discussing yoga and culture shouldn’t seek to avoid controversy and debate. Instead, we should practice working with it skillfully, both for our own benefit and that of the larger community.

Much of Carol's post is an attempt to consider the ways in which online debate can turn into hate-filled drama. She has a sincere desire to see the ethical principles of yoga practice extend into online activity, and from what I have seen in her blogging and responding, she's doing a good job of being a role model. I have the same aim in my blogging and online activity, and it would be wonderful if all of us could be civil and ethical with each other, even if we are in complete disagreement about whatever is being discussed.

However, although the ideals of Buddhist ethics or yogic ethics should be present, it's probably more fruitful to work with a question like this:

As members of the Buddhist blogging community, how can we respond when discussions/debates spiral into personal attacks and other such nastiness?

I think this is more challenging than it might appear on the surface. Here's why:

1. Offering generalized appeals to behave ethically usually fall flat. When someone says "We should follow the precepts" or "Buddha taught people to be kind to each other" it sounds patronizing or pious at best, and sometimes leads to even more arguing.

2. Uber-rational comebacks filled with direct statements of fact and dharma quotes also tend to fall flat, and can serve as alienation mechanisms to those who are heated.

3. Attempts to guess at someone's intentions for writing something nasty tend to be wrong, and sometimes serve as points of escalation, especially if the intentions suggested sound negative.

So, I think for those of us online speaking about Buddhist practice, and perhaps doing so as something more than just for amusement, it's worth considering how we might aid in supporting healthier dialogue. Here are a few ideas I have. Maybe you all have others to add.

First, it's good to remember that whomever you are arguing with, whomever you are arguing about, or whomever you see arguing, is another person living somewhere in the world. For all our vastness and diversity, we're never very far from each other.

Second, I have found it helpful to look for the spirit behind comments and try to respond from there. Sometimes, the flaming is loud, but an underlying message might be very important, if only it can unearthed.

Third, ask questions. Especially if you're unsure of motives or if you think there might be something of value lurking beneath the madness.

Finally, learn to walk away. It's true in real life, and so also here online. Sometimes, the best way to let a fight die down is to just leave it.

The Zen of Personal Narratives

As part of an e-mail to an old co-worker this morning, who was asking me how my life is now, I wrote the following:

The hard part for me lately is the feeling that I will always be one step short from achieving my career goals, having a healthy, long term relationship in my life, and living my spiritual path fully. This is probably just a story that I'm trapped in, but it's had a grip on me for awhile, and I also know that I hold myself back too much at times out of fear.

This narrative is actually an old one, but when you have a lot of free time on your hands, and no clear direction, the old narratives can get really loud.

What I find interesting about this particular story is how it points directly to the way grasping at something doesn't work, and how it is, in that way, completely true. I can't really "have" any of the things on the list. The fulfilling career. The great relationship. The unfolding path of wisdom and awakening. They aren't graspable in the way I want them to be.

I've been considering desire lately. The desire to awaken for example. I think we get a little too black and white about desire, deeming it all trouble, all the time. It isn't. There has to some desire to awaken, or to have healthy relationships, or to do something more than the same job over and over, otherwise there's no movement. But at some point, the desire has to be let go of, to flower or disperse on it's own as it will - or else everything gets really warped.

What I see in the narrative I have cherished above is that everything I have sought - the continued career achievements, the loving relationship, the unfolding wisdom - has been something "out there," outside of me, that I feel I have to possess in order to be complete.

I'd still love to experience all of this, but it needs to be approached differently - I can see this, feel this, now. The desire energy, the wanting - it's time to respect it more, engage it differently, and to see it as another raft that, if ridden intelligently, will take me across the river.

*Image by Harry Northover
see website for details