Silence

Someone asked, "did you take a vow of silence?" and this is what I wrote:

The first retreat I went on blew my mind, it was 9 days on the Brahma Viharas and I actually got into puja. It was silent after a few days, inside the retreat house, but you could go for a walk if you needed to talk. A woman asked me to go for a walk with her, and I accepted. I didn't particularly need to talk myself, but I was eager to listen. So I made it my practice to listen to this woman while I was delving deeper and deeper into metta, and it was great, but I really did cherish the silence, and wondered if I made a mistake. I felt like that was the perfect metta conflict. She really needed to talk. I now know I have maneuvers to block going deeper because I'm not ready yet and I'm OK with that.

I've been on other retreats, where everyone knew the retreat house password, and instead of walking meditation in between meditation, they would all go check their phones. It was pretty hard to unplug. When I saw that I did it once too, and then decided it felt wrong.

When I was successfully in silence for long periods of time, and the night was ended by a puja, I would always have trouble falling asleep, it would get me so hyped. I had to skip it so I could get some sleep.

I did a week solitary, and of course no speaking to anyone. I wrote a lot, and read, so in a way I was allowed to intake and ventilate. True silence to me means no writing and no reading. That is really hard for me. It's not easy to do true silence for long periods of time, and that's really interesting to me.

After my solitary retreat, I went on a retreat, where everyone really liked my listening and talking to me. I'd been cooped up alone and I was open to people in a new way. I really appreciated that I could be there for others, but it didn't last. I also remember someone saying something to me, and I watched my mind for 3 days as I argued, interrogated, and pondered the challenging comment.

Am I a fraud?

I like to entertain thought experiments. What if Spartacus had a Piper Cub? is a SNL comedy skit lambasting that way of thinking. 

My mind is unruly and like a leaky roof in the rains. I learned thought experiments in philosophy. A famous one is the trolly problem. It can evoke instinctual answers you wouldn't know you had because you've never been through a situation. 

What if I'm a fraud? I was reading the Dhammapada and I read "Even as rain leaks into a poorly roof house, so passions will penetrate an uncultivated mind." My leaky roof hasn't really changed much over the past 20 years.

When I first started going to Aryaloka in 2002, the roofs leaked quite a lot, that was before the great remodeling.

Sometimes speculation isn't good. Once I wondered aloud what would happen if the director of the school I worked at retired. A few days later, someone came to me with the rumor that the director was retiring. It shames me to remember that moment I couldn't put the feathers back into the feather pillow. But speculating with my own mind is OK. I'm sure I can misinterpret myself too, but I'm a little more confident things won't get out of hand.

I couldn't stop crying in my meditation this morning asking myself that question. To be honest since I found Buddhism, my life got better, but then it got worse, and I've been struggling for the past 10 years because of something bad I did. It's not Buddhism's fault I did something bad. Perhaps I turned to the Sith side. I exposed some of my antisocial shadow. (I think about Joseph Conrad's short story "The Secret Sharer".)

I thought about the Jets quarterbacks. Zach Wilson (37.0) is the top pick, expected to save the franchise. Mike White (52.6) is the backup who never really got a chance, and exploded onto the scene when he got his chance, but was exposed in a game and performed poorly. Josh Johnson (67.1) is a journeyman at the end of his career who's been elevated from the practice squad and came in and performed well, in a prevent defense that was designed to limit the comeback of a the team, but allow some things. 

If you look at the quarterback rating, an objective measure of quarterback success the backup to the backup is the best quarterback. Then the backup. Then the star, top pick, savior. 

Life is confusing. What is success? I've gotten better at self sabotage and exposing my flaws--is that better? It's more honest to be sure, but it's not really playing on a level field where everyone hides.

There's a study that "spiritual people" are more narcissistic. Does going spiritual reinforce narcissism.

In my readings about personality disorder, the language was normalized and destigmatized. Nobody is perfect. The judgement laden language isn't helpful. I'm not as devastated by "narcissism" and "avoidant" as I used to be. The mind does what it has to do to survive. Without our unconscious defenses, we would murder and suicide. 

In what way is it true that I'm a fraud?

In a way, it's like the more you know, the less certain you are. By tuning in you see how fraudulent and unmindful and unethical and uninsightful you are, you can see it and that can make you feel more like it is you. Luickly Buddhism isn't about fixed identity. You can change, wake up. That is the good news.

I can play the highlight reel of my mistakes and cringe cringe cringe. That's not productive. I want to see my limitations so I can work to improve them, not beat myself up. I'm a little late to that insight, but better late than never. 

I was reading a reddit post where someone was complaining that disclosing that he was interested in Buddhism, a person told him that he shouldn't joke about going out and getting wasted. It was true, but I'm no sure if this person was meant to be his spiritual guide. My ex pointed things out and I used the fact that she wasn't part of my tradition to neutralize her feedback, but it was true now that I look at it from a distance. 

My "spiritual guide" said at one point that I needed a lobotomy. Is there some way I could cut out my unhelpful ways to streamline my journey? I needed to make the mistakes I made to learn from them the way I have learned from them. Am I too broken to progress? I don't think so. Turns out spiritual friends can be just as fickle as regular people. "Spiritual" doesn't make it so. A true friend sticks by you through thick and thin. The Dhammapada says, "The disciple who travels along cannot find a companion better or equal, let him firmly pursue his solitary career. There is no companionship with the foolish." Perhaps that refers to me in this faux friendship. The Bodhisattva doesn't just associate with equals and superiors. The good samaritan aspect of the Bodhisattva ideal confirms me forever as a Mahayanist, and curbs my spiritual selfishness and individualism. The Buddha chastised monks for abandoning a sick monk as not being helpful to their spiritual progress. The spiritual guide's frustration remains with him, I do not accept the gift.

I don't think I'm a fraud, but I have partaken in fraudulence by accidental, unconscious, unmindfulness, and hopefully seen it and learned from it. That's the most helpful outlook I can come up with.

 

Om Ah Guru Hasa Vajra Hung

In the summer of 2002 I took a meditation class, and I continued with that class for quite a long time. I ended up going on a retreat over Xmas and New Years on the Brahma Viharas and it blew my mind. It was so wonderful. I'm so grateful that happened to me. This summer (we're entering winter now that the leaves have mostly fallen off the trees around where I live) will be 20 years of meditation, Dharma study, sangha. 

I'm not as interesting in gobbling up the history of Buddhism or straight up gangster Dharma. I read Milarepa today and it was quite pleasurable. I quite like him. He did some bad things, and then turned his life around and really cranked on meditation.

I searched my blog and found this quote:

"The Ultimate Practice is not to consider

Distractions and drowsiness as faults.

Doing so to stave them off is like

kindling a lamp in bright daylight."

And this one:

"I attain all my knowledge through studying my mind within, thus all my thoughts become the teachings of Dharma. So long as I do not become separated from my own mind, I am always accompanied by sutras. I have realized that all manifestations are Mind, and the mind itself is the illumination. These are my Gurus."

Somehow I feel to reading Milarepa and am getting inspiration from him today. I'm listening to his mantra today.

His last teaching was to pull up his robe and expose his callused butt, essentially saying, meditate a lot. 

I'd like to go to one of his caves (Nyalam, Gandaki) or see his tower.

 

 

Influence

When I learned about the concept of syncretism, I loved it. Instead of keeping ideological purity, the idea of syncretism is to meld good ideas together. Buddhism has always transformed as it entered into each country. In Tibet it melded with the ruggedness needed to stay there, and the magic. In China it melded with Confucianism and Taoism. If there's a melding of America, it's an antipathy towards spiritual materialism. It's a kind of religious freedom, that rejects calls to unite the USA under one religion, no matter what Michael Flynn thinks.

Hinduism perhaps worms it's way into Buddhism through Buddha Nature ideas. Maybe the guru relationship in Tibetan Buddhism is a Hindu import. Nevermind, now it's Buddhism. To understand the history of Buddhism you have to accept that these ideas were taken in and made Buddhist.

As Buddhism interacts more with Christianity, the appreciation for Amitabha, the Bodhisattva of love, is connected to Buddhism. You can be reborn in a pure land. Pure Land Buddhism is a kind of Christian import. Nevermind, now it's a Buddhism hybrid.

The cult of love is just a kind of emotional flavor of altruism, of the Bodhisattva ideal. I'm not sure if the historical Jesus really talked about love, I think it might have been a palatable assertion along the way. Never mind. Syncretism is good in my book. Nothing would survive without the white hot gravity that pulled in ideas. No human wants to exist on one system. Godel's theorem says one system will never be complete. We need a bag of ideas to draw from. Part of my journey studying philosophy in college was to understand some of the ideas at our disposal. To me psychology says we're never going to be completely integrated, but trying to evolve integrity is a good practice. There's a certain kind of clarity in meditating a lot and understanding your mind, that lends to increased integrity.

The melding of Buddhism to self help and modern psychology is also a something that guardians of purity can talk about. Lots of people come onto r/Buddhism and ask how to cope with things. Maybe the larger perspective of Buddhism can help with meaning and coping. But it's a pretty radical idea.

I'm surprised Buddhism caught on at all, that it's still alive. It's a pretty intense solution. You meditate a lot, once you have built a foundation to support intensive meditation, and seek to attain a level of objectivity of mind and mindfulness and kindness. There's a all kinds of flowery metaphysical talk but from an enlightened perspective, it can seem like it's a certain level of mindfulness and insight.

The project of pushing on and on and on is never done. "I'll quit when I die," says Jerry on Rick and Morty. People go onto r/Buddhism and think "how can I do an end round of all these complications," and, "tell me the direct efficient path." That's not a bad instinct, but the world doesn't answer itself on Reddit, it's just a place to talk about things. The revolution won't be televised, it also won't be written about on Reddit. 

We live in extraordinary times. With rapid changes, there are lots of experiments in how to be. Humans are fairly conservative. Love, kindness and metta never go out of style. We can get intoxicated by technology. I can, I know that, and I think it's universal. I've seen the Amish in Mcdonalds watching the TV. I'd rather have a syncretic inclusive bag of ideas to guide me through complex times.

 

 Another joke from Airplane (1980)

 

Couldn’t agree less

 Flynn is the poster child of religious intolerance: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/581443-michael-flynn-says-of-the-us-we-have-to-have-one-religion

Huffpo

 Avalokita

Thailand 

More art

6, 7 and 8

 I usually deal in the 5 precepts and the 10 precepts. 

Today I want to look at the extra 3 in the 8 precepts:

I undertake [to observe] the rule of abstinence from taking food at the wrong time

I undertake [to observe] the rule of abstinence from dancing, music, visiting shows, flowers, make-up, the wearing of ornaments and decorations

I undertake [to observe] the rule of abstinence from a tall, high sleeping place.

Background: In Theravadan countries people will temporarily ordain. Uposatha was developed so the lay could be monks for a day. Reading the Wikipedia article it looks like the it's a weekly thing, with the new moon, half moon, full moon and half moon. Not only Theravadan countries (Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos).

I really like being connected to the moon cycle. Even in the city I can see the moon and I think the moon is amazing.

Putting your Buddhism on a calendar is good, and hopefully that's one of the connections with a spiritual community. Helps dispel the lay/monk douality. 

Discussion: OK so what's wrong with taking food at the wrong time. Monks don't take food after solar noon. I get all ishkabibble with daylight savings time, but there are times when solar noon is near to 1pm, than it is 12 noon. So that gives you a little time. You can eat two meals and survive. There's nothing inherently holy about not eating half the day, but some asceticism is needed, it helps free one up. I knew a guy who would fast on solitary retreats, so he could focus on not eating. He said you could make big sandwiches all day on solitary retreat. I thought was a cute phrase, "big sandwiches". Anyway, the point is to have a gesture towards asceticism and the middle way doesn't mean you can be a glutton. You can survive easily on 2 meals a day. I could stand to lose some weight.

"dancing, music, visiting shows, flowers, make-up, the wearing of ornaments and decorations" My grandfather was a Baptist minister, and there was a kind of constriction around the house. I never knew what exactly it was, but they were trying to be good people, and supposedly dancing was taboo. I have ecstatic dance parties with my daughter, but she always wants me to dance more. I'm not as into it is she is, but I go along with it for her. Movement is essential to me, and dancing is good exercise. Footloose is a movie about breaking out of the restriction against dancing. I'm pretty weak on resisting this one. But I'm sure I could give it up 4 times a month. 

I honestly think I'd have a hard time giving up music, but I don't listen to it as much as I used to. Life doesn't really yield to sitting around and listening to Beethoven's 9th. But I honestly think I need more good music in my life. But I can not listen to music if I have to. I could do that for a day 4 times a month.

Haven't been to a show in ages. Wish I had more money for that. I really want to see Dune. I haven't seen a movie in years. Let alone a Broadway show, or a concert.

Flowers on the shrine are wonderful. I guess you could not have flowers on the shrine.

I'm not a big fan of makeup. I don't think women need to try so hard. Bless them though. 

I don't really wear ornaments or decorations but I do have a Mets cap. I have a blank hat with nothing on it, so sometimes I wear that and I feel virtuous. I wear a hat because I don't have sunglasses, and I want to protect my eyes. A blank hat does that.

My bed doesn't have a mattress or a frame, so I struggle to get up off the ground every morning half asleep with my rickety legs. I think it would be better for me to have a raised bed, but I wonder if I'm more virtuous for not having a higher bed. Doesn't seem real, but who knows. 

I think specifics like dancing and high beds are still ideas of a principle. The principles are sound.

So anyway, as usual nothing profound, but just thinking about the extra 3 Uposatha precepts today on my never ending quest to be a better person for the benefit of mankind. 

Had this post removed from r/Buddhism

I don't think I have the right to post whatever I want. Any reddit can be moderated however the moderators want them to be moderated. I don't have to go on Reddit, and one need not confuse the terms of use, with any freedom of speech (like certain Republican politicians think). I am free to post my views on my blog, though Google could take down a post. I think they took down a post once, but then put it back up. I can't even remember what it was about or how they almost thought it was controversial. Nobody is owed social media. The internet people want content on the internet so they can monetize and exploit your attention for advertisements. Eyeballs equal dollars. 

Anyway, here's my controversial thoughts of the day:

[Title] I'm reading about reincarnation and as a practitioner of 20 years, I have the following thoughts.

So if we are enlightened and don't cling to existence, we, with a state of our mind, stop rebirth.

In many ways, the monk acts like a Buddha, even if they haven't attained or transcended. A kind of fake it till you make it. Why can't we do that with reincarnation if that is not part of our present culture?

Reincarnation could be a cultural artifact of the times the Buddha was in, it was part of the ideology, world view and outlook. If the Buddha had been an American now he might talk about Cowboys football games, and the dynamics between Rachel and Ross. The culture he was embedded in took reincarnation as a fact, and he wasn't going to be that revolutionary, to reject everything. What he did was revolutionary enough. And he was not reincarnated. The Dalai Lama is talking about not reincarnating so the Chinese can't exploit his role. There is controversy about the Panchen Lama.

It is possible that reincarnation is a metaphor for understanding conditioned experience, the ability to imagine ourselves into various ways of being, a profoundly empathetic act. I am not wishing to do away with the empathy and ideas of imagining one's way into other lives.

You can be a gatekeeper and say people are not Buddhist if they don't believe in reincarnation, say they don't know the teachings, don't grasp the profound truths. What if you witness someone whom you respect, and find ethical and is a good friend, and seems to be genuinely progressing on the path. Then you find out they don't have any experience in reincarnation, and see it as a conditional aspect of the Buddha's teaching, would you then just reject them? Pity them for their confusion?

I get it that reincarnation is even more embedded in Tibetan culture, the Tulku system are an integral part of the way they work. They choose people to concentrate resources of teaching into. In a way it seems quite sweet. Nobody is trying to take that away from them over there. Can we exist over here without that?

[end]

So I'm reading The Truth of Rebirth by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu. That is what provoked my thoughts. He points out that there was no uniform belief of reincarnation and karma, and that there were annihilationists, a grim fellow who tortured thieves to see if he could see their soul or if bodies weighed less after being killed. I mean who wants to be an annihilationist if that is what you do?

OK, so what if the Buddha had a kind of moral retribution idea for karma and rebirth, some divine metaphysical punishment, to hopefully scare people into acting kindly. My feeling is that I'm not feeling it, and it's important to me to develop my thoughts. I know experts probably know better, and I do have respect for experts, that's why I'm reading this book. I'm still not feeling based on disabusing me of a common belief in reincarnation of the times.

Link: Story about how Dalai Lama said if science proved reincarnation wasn't true, then it would be disproved. Not that the Dalai Lama is my guru. 

I continue to write posts about reincarnation, here is another one:

I don't have any experience of rebirth either. I was told to keep an open mind out of respect for the tradition, which I have more than done, but after 20 years, I've done my due diligence, read books, talked to people. Sorry, I'm not going to believe in the 33 Hindu gods the Buddha supposedly wooshed a discipline to, to help him keep his chastity. I'm going to interpret that as metaphorical, or whatever kinds of way, that make it not literal. The 33 Hindu gods may exist in the minds of Hindus, and I love and respect other cultures.

If the energy has to go somewhere from the molecules is orthodox enough, I can get that, but I don't think that's orthodox.

Science isn't that great. Look up the science of Phrenology, read some history of science. I wouldn't say it inspires confidence.

My problems is that I'm skeptical. Show me. That's a personality type that has pluses and minuses. I have felt profound devotion, and caught the bug of Buddhism despite myself.

All religions are assumptions. Blind faith, you assume a paradigm of spirituality is true, and if it works for you then good. Buddhism assumes the Buddha attained enlightenment and that that is something worthy.

Honestly, outside of this possibly anonymous medium, I don't talk about reincarnation. I talk about what works for me, and essential Buddhism works for me. Some people can call me not a Buddhist, but I suspect those people have more issues than being the guardian of Buddhism. I hope not, though, because I wish everyone well. How the world works is not up to me, I can only try to comprehend it to the best of my ability. To the extent I fall short, that is my limitation. I hate anti-vaccination people because I wish to have the freedom from spreaders of Covid, but I have made many stupid decisions in my life that hurt others. I hope to forgive myself and move forward in a positive way. I don't think anyone is immune to mistakes. I'm going to work on myself to the best of my ability, for the benefit of others.

Eckhart Tolle

I've stayed away from the Power of Now because it wasn't a pure Buddhist teaching, but I was on family trip to Florida,  NYC to Florida and I listened to the book on tape. It's a curious blend of Christianity and Buddhism. I think there are some Buddhists who are into it, though thinking about it now, I wonder who I really know. I think I've heard hints of a Theravadan monk who really is all in on now.

My understanding of it, is that one way to cut down on depressive and anxious thoughts is to focus on the here and now. The past and the future are de-emphasized. There is a kind of freedom in the moment, an opportunity to be mindful. Thoughts about the past and future are in a crucial way a distraction from the moment. There are many ways in which we spin out of being present. 

It's not clear how much reflection or meditation are needed to what later are quite interesting elaborations of this insight. It's not clear which teachings are important. There are a lot of interesting linguistic comments about open and closed concepts. There is a lot of talk about the emotional pain body, and living in the here and now could perhaps be congenial with Feldenkrist and Focusing (Tricycle review). I also thought a lot about Radical Acceptance by Tara Brach. I think that would be a complimentary book. I haven't read Be Here Now, because it's Hindu guru, and I read Buddhism, but I have a feeling this book would also be an unacknowledged source. 

There's a lot in the book, and there were times when I fell asleep listening to it, but I was trying to stay awake to drive, so I listened to the book in a way I haven't listened to it.

I thought the parable of a beggar begging on a box that contained money, was similar to the Lotus Sutra parables about already having what you need, the person who had money in their clothes, and the person who goes and wins over his own father with his hard work and reasonableness, without knowing he would be inheriting the family kingdom. 

In a way, he hides a lot of his spiritual journey. One day he's having a panic attack and all upset, and the next he's wandering around like a child in a candy shop, living in the now. It's not quite explicit the steps or the background to this big dramatic awakening.

It's OK that I don't know a lot of details and background, it's a fun coherent line of thinking that he presents, and I'd say it's an interesting important book, though I'm not sure how much it's going to influence me. It's influenced me because I've listened closely to parts of it. Anyway, I'm curious to learn more now that I've gotten some time listening to the text while I'm awake.