Brad

So I've always wanted to read a Brad Warner book, but I didn't get into his exploration of his Zen belief and his theism. I wish him well on his journey. Maybe I'll like this one of his seven books. Already I like the cover. I love The Meaning Of Life by Monty Python, and this cover copies the look. I also like epistolary exposition. Warner lost a friend and writing letters to his friend was a kind of way of coping with his grief.

Combining the style of Zen and Punk has been done before. The urge to be unique and not follow the herd is part of Punk's appeal. Zen also likes to undercut conventional thinking to show you the nature of the mind. Is there too much spice in this combined style? You can decide for yourself.

In chapter 2 there is a section about misunderstandings about "being attached". He proud of how connected he was to his friend, he doesn't want to be more aloof. That's a common question when someone uses the term "attachment" in Buddhism.

Like all of the higher meditative states, there's no use in aping them if you're not there yet. The hope of enlightenment is that you'll evolve into these things you're heard about. The tradition gives you a vocabulary if you get into the rarefied air of higher meditative experiences.

I can't help but think of the Buddha saying that his two main disciples had passed away. I can't help but read that he's also sad. He's not going to go out and drink, or lose himself in some fleshpot, again he's just going to feel the feelings and keep on doing the next right thing. The evolution of renunciation is organic and does not get one more attached to your things, roles, and whatever. It goes along with the reality. But we're still human and we still feel human feelings. The container of mindfulness is bigger so you can just still be mindful and flow with reality.

Since psychological attachment to others is a healthy thing in psychology, there can be crosswinds with the language, and most people skip it because it's not helpful. But there are useful ideas behind it. With some spiritual maturity, you can put things in the right place. I think we have a better understanding of how various individuals have various existential commitments to survive, and that in a way that is inevitable.

I'm not into god, that's part of the appeal of Buddhism to me. Brad says you don't have to believe anything, then goes on to assert that god exists. There are archetypes that I can aspire to be like, there's a whole host of historical and imaginary beings to help inspire one along if you're that way inclined. I don't mind it if they're archetypes, and they could even be literally true for a person and I wouldn't judge them, but god talk isn't for me. I can't get past the problem of evil, and the fact that science explains creation. The big powerful god that doesn't interfere is useless also. A personal god doesn't make sense to me either. Just can't work it out for me, but I really respect a lot of people who can work it out and I wish them well.

I'm all in favor of whatever kludge works for you in the spiritual life. It's all syncretism, blending together what is available. I prefer the talk of higher power or source. That leaves it open. To say god exists, well, that is one element that pushes me away from Brad's writing. But I hope you read the book if you want to, and I wish him well. He seems like a pretty cool guy from his writing.

When you like autobiography, you lap up all the hints and disclosure in a text. Brad lived an interesting life that included living in Africa during his childhood. His description of his friend is touching. I'm a sucker for discussing friendships. His not pushing his speculation onto his friend about death seemed like a kindness.

Brad doesn't like the Tibetan Book of Dead because of the speculation. He's a Dogen fan as a Soto Zen priest.