The 8fold Path

I'm not a teacher, not ordained, don't pretend any of those things, I blog as a record of my journey in the hopes it will be useful to others. I want to clarify and express the path to aid my own practice. I like to go from the whole to the parts sometimes and take the larger overview. 

Right view and understanding (Samma ditthi): One develops right view based on connection to sangha and fellowship, reading, reflection, meditation and study. The fantasy I have when I think about this is that I could get the right view and then everything would be downhill to attainment, but that's spiritual bypassing, and the truth is that right view is a dog fight, messy, irregular and isn't just an app you can download. Connection with teachers is difficult. Studying the right thing is difficult. Meditating frequently and consistently and in volume is difficult. Fellowship calls for intellectual humility and other personality traits to get along with others, compromise, flexibility and problem solving. There are lots of dead ends, and distractions. Life conditions are not supportive sometimes for developing right view, I need to work to develop better conditions, connections and support. In the combative land of social media, debates about right view can step on people toes. My experience of certain personalities that are more traditional and righteous is that right view can be a kind of theological grounds for calling people less than. You don't have right view, you are less than. You're not even a Buddhist. Obviously they're not supportive and not everyone is sunshine and roses, perhaps a fantasy about Buddhists.

Right thought (Samma sankappa): "Right thought denotes the thoughts of selfless renunciation or detachment, thoughts of love and thoughts of non-violence, which are extended to all beings." (Tricycle) Basically selfish thinking doesn't get you there, power grabs don't get you there, violence doesn't get you there. Ethical conduct is right action (Samma kammanta). Indra's net has jewels that shine and make all the other jewels shine, so all these aspects of the path will reflect off each other. Thinking is part of the path, but it's about the deep wisdom, maturity, sanity and concentrated thinking. There's also an aspect of not reactively grasping at compensatory pleasures, renunciation. It's not sticky generosity, with conditions, it respect the autonomy of others, not trying to manipulate them, and yet skillful means is not being perfect in getting some good lessons and results. Like all theachings that are dialectical and nondual, there will be contradictions, but I think Buddhism is more psychology than philosophy so you are allowed to push people in different directions. Just like all the other steps on the path, you could go on and on about this one. There are stages in the path where discursive unhelpful thinking is discouraged. They're not telling you not to think, just understand if your thinking is in service of neurotic unenlightened goals, which honestly is most of it.

Right speech (Samma vaca). One issue I've struggled with is whether swearing is emotionally truthful, or whether it's too dramatic, and offensive, distracting. I really like to swear. Not a lot but when I was around someone who didn't like swearing I would always say one swear during a conversation. In the age of the internet, you can justify anything and I've read some articles that people who swear are smarter and blah blah blah. Being truthful is very important to me in speech, so people who lie for political or financial gains are not being in harmony. They might feel they are in harmony in trying to resolve some psychic tension based on their selfishness, the desire not to support others and hatred of the free riders. I've learned a lot studying non-violent communication. Marshall Rosenberg created a kind of way of looking at how to communicate. You describe what you see, say how it makes you feel, express an emotional need, and make a request. I love the list of emotional needs. I got stuck on separating wants from needs, but emotional needs are to belong or feel safe, so it's not materialistic. Belonging is a need. I'm sure I could get better at communicating, I've always felt like people need to give me the benefit of the doubt, and that's just my laziness in needing to communicate better. I would also add that fighting isn't necessarily disharmony, it's more harmonizing not to hide. 

Right action (Samma kammanta). The ten precepts are great guidelines but there are lots of things to consider in ethics. For me being a kind positive ethical person supports fellowship, study, devotion and meditation. On the one hand I don't think you should be so precious about accidentally killing insects. On the other hand, there can be some amazing growth through ethical reflection about your impact on others. For me ethical thinking as led to veganism, and other practices. I think it's important to vote in a democracy, and educate yourself so that you're an intelligent voter. Supposedly plastic recycling isn't great, but other aspects of thinking about the environment are important. I've become interested in effective altruism.

Right livelihood (Samma ajiva). On the continuum on the one end you have illegal drug industry, butchers, arms salesmen and hitmen. Selling alcohol and legal drug business wouldn't be consider useful to others to gain insight. On the other end you have a monk. In my case, I have children so I need to care for them and be responsible. I've done a million jobs but I felt most supportive of others when I was a teacher and when I was a psychotherapist.

Right effort (Samma vayama). To progress on the path you're going to have to extend effort, mental energy, and not always gratify oneself with whatever, Netflix. The lute story is about a guy whose feet got all bloody from walking a lot, and you need to push hard, but not go crazy. Like tuning an instrument. Finding your natural exertion in the spiritual life is part of the journey. Right effort is about trying to right the ship and fighting off unhelpful mental states.

Right mindfulness (Samma sati). So what can you be mindful about? The Buddhist tradition tells you what to focus on. They tell you to focus on your body, feelings, consciousness and the Dharma (5 fetters, 5 skandhas, fetters, factors of awakening, 4 noble truths).

Right concentration (Samma samadhi): Wikipedia says, practicing meditation "which includes samadhi proper in the second stage, and reinforces the development of the bojjhagā, culminating into upekkha (equanimity) and mindfulness." This is about getting into the proper meditative states, and progressing in meditation. Notice this is the last step, and perhaps a meditation focused path might neglect the other aspects of the path. I always think about that sutra that lists the things to do to prepare yourself to be able to meditate a lot. And also carving out the space for retreat. 

Links to Wikipedia articles and sources from Pali Canon:

Noble Eightfold Path

The Longer Discourse to Saccaka (Source)

Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion (source)

The Great Discourse on the Buddha’s Extinguishment (source)

Wei Ying-wu

Wei Yingwu (737–792) wasn’t as Buddhist as Cold Mountain or Stonehouse, who were hermit poets who lived in the mountains. He was a civil servant. His wife had a Buddhist nickname and he lived in monasteries sometimes. Of the 600 poems that survive, this book has 175. He writes about friendship and loss. 

Quote David L. McMahan

David L. McMahan in his piece about secular subjectivity in Secularizing Buddhism, writes, “ They might be used to shore up the "buffered self" and reassert the lost sense of autonomous selfhood. Popular culture in the United States and Europe (and increasingly around the world) tells us that we, indeed, have a self that we need to discover, and to discover it we need to look within. When we discover who we are, we must be true to that self, casting off socially conditioned influences to emerge as a truly free, autonomous self-contained being. Some Buddhist-derived approaches to mindfulness implicitly take this approach, using contemplative methods originally designed to undermine the perception of a fixed, permanent self instead to reinforce the individualism so deeply rooted in Western culture. They attempt to strike back against fragmentation by using meditation to reaffirm the integrated, singular individual-the man in the mirror. In this sense, meditation, mindfulness, self-monitoring, and self-observation have the potential to exacerbate the sense of individual isolation, separation from the world, and even narcissism. These interpretations of mindfulness tend to be either purely introspective or instrumental, offering either private psychological comfort or increasing one's effectiveness at doing whatever one happened to be doing anyway. If mindfulness is a tool to enhance the efficiency of the autonomous self, then it can, in the current context, simply reinforce a sense of isolated individuality, to which instrumentalized, decontextualized, commercialized, and corporatized applications of mindfulness become an appendage.”

Bill Porter quote about syncretism

"Meanwhile, back on the veranda, Daniela [Campo] manifested another bag of fruit, more mangoes, and tangerines, too. We had a long discussion about Zen and Taoism. She was an advocate of the view current among most Western scholars—and some Eastern ones too—that Zen didn't come from India but resulted from the intersection of Chinese Taoism with Indian Buddhism. The proposition would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove either way, and would ultimately depend upon how one defined terms as much as the marshaling of so-called facts.

I've never liked the idea. Over the years, I've combed through the biographies of hundreds of early Zen monks. Among those who had an affiliation prior to becoming monks, most were Confucians. Taoists were rare. But I would suggest that Zen didn't derive in whole or in part from Taoism or Confucianism, or even from Buddhism as it existed in China at the time. Zen was something new. Who else besides Zen masters delivered wordless lectures or offered sermons in a cup of tea--no Taoist or Confucian I've ever heard of, and no Buddhist prior to Bodhidharma." (p. 308) Zen Baggage

Daniela Campo was doing her Ph.D on Empty Cloud (Xuyun (1840-1959) in 2006 when Porter was traveling in China and traveled with her for a time. There is a biography of Xu Yun by Ji Dyn Shakya.

I finished the book and I miss it already. What a great book. There was a sad bit when he started thinking about his friend who committed suicide because he couldn't find a job to support his family.

I got really excited about the idea of Buddhist Hall of Fame when he mentions visiting one. Then I thought about the Triratna Buddhist refuge tree of inspiration. Then I thought about how I'm writing a book about the great Buddhas, and that's already an idea I'm into.

reporting in

In the Ananpani Sutta, the one thing to look for in the breath is whether it's long or short. I was racking my brain for other descriptions, but I'm not sure there are many words. I feel a kind of feeling when I drink too much coffee and don't eat enough. That's not the breath, but the sutta does further into the body. The breath is perhaps an entry point into the body, which is vital. 

Donnel B. Stern about formulating experience. I know insight can be beyond words, but words can help us think too. I like meditating and focusing on the breath and not following trains of thought. I like finding the words for things to describe experience. When I worked in child welfare, words were used against the client, so it was smart to shut up. Words can be a power struggle.

I meditated naked like Milarepa. Probably not as long or as much and on a soft cushion.

There's an article in the New York Times. Going past the breaches of conduct, it got me thinking about the semi-virtuous path. He says he aims for vegan but it seems he ordered the branzino quite frequently. That got me thinking about the Buddha's middle path. 

People use the middle path very liberally, and sort of mush it with other things. He just used it in the spiritual life regarding asceticism and food. He didn't use it for sex or other things for monks. But was he suggesting a middle path of virtue. Be virtuous enough but don't go overboard like the insect lovers on reddit. I'm not saying kill all insects. But a fixation on not killing insects isn't helpful, in my unenlightened opinion. Is the middle way an application of that, or was that not used with life. Supposedly some Tibetans say you can eat meat if the animal wasn't killed for you. You joining in at a table of meat isn't bad because the animals were not killed for you. I feel like that isn't quite right, and there are Tibetan Buddhists who say you should be vegetarian. I actually think it depends on your life circumstances. If you're living a marginal existence, eating meat isn't that bad. Perhaps in Tibet there's not enough variety around, but of course monks should do more to create that variety. The monks who say people donate meat, so they have to eat it are side stepping the fact that they could train the laity to not give them meat. Moral reasoning is complex, and a monk might tell me I don't really need to get involved in what they do. Like Eric Adams the mayor of NYC, who said, don't worry about what's on my plate, worry about what is on your plate. I think that's a general good idea, but when discussing ethics there's almost an implicit desire to solve the question for everyone. Veganism is for me, but you figure it out for yourself. People worried about other people are busybodies. I like busybodies. We're interconnected, so we should all be busybodies. That is what engaged Buddhism is, the organizing on a larger level. Lets try not to hurt these people as much with this policy. Food is a fairly personal thing, it's cultural expression is widely seen as one of the best ways of getting into other cultures. 

Some people are striving for virtue, and you're not quite where they are, and who knows maybe they're off base, but sometimes I get the feeling like I'm not woke enough and I understand the far right criticism of wokeness. I'm not afraid of virtue and I aspire to it, but there's something to be said for being realistic and real. Maybe I shouldn't pretend I'm more woke than I really am. 

The dying tree outside my window causes me sorrow. I love trees, and want more. I know the trees that went down in the park from a tornado. I mourn the tree across the street that died, and didn't put up leaves this year. I like it that our society seems to be valuing trees more, I see that value expressed in the media. 

What are the ways of expressing how one feels after meditation? I've heard that it feels like your coming out of warp speed, like you've had your brain washed, and had the mind defragged. 

Best wishes.

Source

Poem:

Hello knees, 

patterns of hindrances

thinking thinking thinking

what's for breakfast?

body body body

mind mind mind

beauty

Rebirth

I'm thinking aloud, don't take this too seriously. 

So what is the secular Buddhist do with him the Buddha’s memories of past lives? What would a Buddhist do who didn’t believe that that was really true. First off, we need to go past common conceptions to what the Buddha really said. Then apply critical thinking to that.

What would a secular Buddhist do if that actually happened to them as they went deeper in and they experience past lives? I’ve always loved the idea of having a religious experience that is in the wrong sect. I read an Irish story like that, where a catholic had a protestant religious vision. Or was it vica versa?

The only way I can understand it all, is rebirth was an appreciation of conditionality that may be in this life, I was more assertive or in this life I was more charismatic in this life or I was lucky having a really good family, or in this life I wasn’t lucky and didn’t have a good family. you can imagine people throughout lifetimes with different circumstances so that’s the best way I understand it. That way of looking at things would make one imagine.

If you don’t think that that’s really how the world works and that is in the text there are a number of options. You can assume that it was an insertion by another monk who had an agenda about reincarnation. or you can say that he was just lying and he was just saying just cultural stuff just to to be part of the times like you know like somebody who is the Yankees fan or speaks in a certain political way as part of their tribe. Or you could just assume that it is true and that he did have memories of past lives and then that’s just how things are. 

I am willing to be wrong about skepticism about rebirth, and I want to know more. My thing against it is because my past growing up at a Christian country is I’m told to I have to believe certain mythologies as literally true and for me one of the way to cope with that is you backup to your own experience and your own reason and your own way of thinking and you don’t just swallow things because people told you to believe them. I realize now you take a leap of faith with Christianity and accept their mythology, the way you can accept other mythologies. 

It’s possible that I’m wrong and that I just don’t believe it because I’m a mistaken flawed human being who just doesn’t believe things. I’m not sure what I miss out in Buddhism I mean I can still believe in the 6 spiritual qualities or the the five hindrances, or all the other things. I believe in conditionality, I've yet to see something unconditioned. I take the Dharma that makes sense to me and leave aside the stuff I don’t understand.

“I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two… five, ten… fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion: ‘There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There, too, I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.’ Thus I recollected my manifold past lives in their modes & details.” (Noble Warrior Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu) MN36

Reading and rereading the sutra, I can't help but think the Buddha took conditionality and tailored his presentations of it to reinforce his lessons. 

In general I think karma and rebirth are talked about like people are omniscient, and not the ignorant messes they are, without intellectual humility. If I could ban 3 words from Dharma talk, I would ban karma, rebirth and attachments.

When you think about it conditionality could be endlessly complex. Even systems theory barely scratches the surface. Philosophy and science barely scratch the surface. The cosmic perspective is that we’re a blink on a speck

I think you also have to take out the Tulku system, Tibetan cultural practices of identifying past lamas and their system of concentrating resources onto one person, to pass on the Dharma. That may or may not be an application of the ideas set forth by the Buddha. But if you take those out, you can perhaps look at the whole situation with fresh eyes. That takes nothing away from the lovely culture that they have. I respect their culture. I just notice, if it was so obvious like agriculture or printing presses, it would have cropped up in other cultures too. Maybe they are advanced and it does crop up in other cultures. I met a woman once who claimed Judaism had rebirth. I didn't get further information on that unfortunately. 

The twelve nidanas is how the Buddha saw importance in conditionality. There are 3 lives in the 12 nidanas supposedly. I didn't see it that way, and while I've read a few books on the 12 nidanas, I need to study it some more. 

I do think the 12 nidanas and the other teachings can work out without rebirth, and the emphasis should be on conditionality. I'm agnostic as to whether that should happen or what. I'd say my needle moved from skeptical about rebirth to more just not knowing and realizing I need to learn more. 

In a weird parallel, I think the way people who are treated who say Shakespeare didn't write the plays doesn't help them understand why that doesn't make sense in the end. There's a kind of violent anger about asking such questions. I entertained the idea that Shakespeare didn't write the plays for a month. I got intoxicated by the idea that we didn't know much about it, and what eventually sunk in was that a noble wouldn't grind in the theater like Shakespeare did. And also there's a bunch of blanks in the history book, so that can be filled in with whimsical alternatives. In the end Keats' negative capability allowed me to think while not knowing. Francis Bacon doesn't make sense to me. The best fit, the Earl of Oxford Edward de Vere, did go to Italy and was involved in a shipwreck, and lived with the translator of Ovid, and was a lawyer and studied law--lots of lawyers think only a lawyer could have written the plays. 

Shakespeare was a really good writer, and he was also a collaborator and an editor. Mostly he was a businessman who made a lot of money in the theater, through acting and writing and reinvested it into owning the company. Copyright wasn't a thing in those days. He left money on the table by not publishing his plays even if there were bootleg copies out there. The fellows who inherited the prompt books in the theater cashed in years after his death. Anyway, I don't think you're insane if you wonder for a little while if someone else wrote the plays. In the end the books trying to prove it are obscure but they also give some more background into the times, and I just found it so weird that people shut down the question. I'm so grateful to James Shapiro for writing a serious book to answer the question.

In the same way, with my modern mind, I'm disinclined to speculate about such metaphysical things like rebirth. I mean with conditionality people are coming and going out of existence all the time. It's really quite amazing. I was looking at my daughter's photos from when she was a baby and it's amazing how much she's grown. My sons constantly amaze me. Life really is quite astonishing and I'm tempted to use the term miracle as a metaphor. 

I object to weird extrapolations where if you're this or that, you'll be reborn as a snake or whatever folk wisdom people like to come up with. They are colorful but I'm a skeptical person, you can't know any of that stuff. Moral lessons, mythology and metaphor maybe. I'm not putting any eggs in any other baskets, but this life, but we'll find out. I am attracted to longtermism and effective altruism.

I know people have memories of past lives, and like to talk and write about such things. Maybe. I do believe in people's experience. I don't literally believe in ghosts but people have told me their experiences of ghosts and I don't doubt that is their best articulation of their experience. So if people have experience of past lives, then I do believe they are communicating their experience, even if that doesn't show up on my registry of how things are, to the best of my knowledge. 

People have said, "you have to do it in this life," when they imagined my skepticism about rebirth. I mean if I get the sense that that is how it is, then I'm OK with that. I mean I'm OK with progressing on the path, as much as I've screwed up my life, I don't think that's Buddhism's fault, I feel like it's given me good things. A lot of times when you read time travel and alternative timelines fiction, things are screwed up in other ways when you reverse mistakes. I make a lot of mistaken moves in chess sometimes, and I'm not always punished or they later set up a series of good moves. Nothing in perfect. I don't think I have to do it in this lifetime, and if that's the way it is, then that's the way it is. But if that's not the way it is, then that's OK too. 

Someone said, "that energy has to go somewhere." That smacks of a soul to me. I have the memory of my grandparents who all passed away quite a while ago, and you know, their memory lives inside me. Their examples are part of what informs my world, I derived great benefit from spending my summers with them as a child, and visiting them as an adult. Their lives live on in my fading memory. They say you're truly dead when nobody has a memory of you. 

The traditional explanation is a candle light going from one wick to another. Maybe. That brings up a lot of questions about what's the number, and if all the insects were killed where would all that energy go, where will that energy go when the sun expands past the earth and kills all the life remaining on it? That's not happening for a really really long time and I expect humans will be on other planets by then. I guess I could imagine planets going out of existence and coming into existence on a large scale, so in the end those kinds of questions don't confuse me.

I read about how a monk tried to rape a farmer girl because a great lama died, and he wanted to have the rebirth nearby. That sounds like he was kind of assuming a few things, and rape is never justified even if that was true. I'd need a lot more concrete proof to justify that, and wanting the lama reborn nearby seems kind of selfish. This is the thing, people can justify anything with just about anything. 

There's a movie where someone dies, and then they're like flying around trying to figure out where to be reborn. I can't think of the name right now. 

There's that scifi novel where it follows the rebirth of some people: Years of Rice and Salt. I read about half of it but lost interest.

I'll keep trying to understand.

Memes

 

Mo-shan Liao-jan

There is not a lot of information in English about China, in general. 

I'm reading Zen Baggage by Bill Porter (Red Pine), and the highlight of the book is his visiting a temple. What is unique about the temple is that it's for women. Most women nunneries are Pure Land. This one is Zen, where women meditate. 

Porter's trip in China was in 2006, so maybe the abbot's plans to advance means there are 2 nunneries. And there was a smaller one supposedly near the Korean border, 3 maybe.

When you read the Wikipedia article on Tianmenshan Temple, it doesn't say it's a nunnery on Wikipedia. I might have the wrong temple. 

When Porter was there, he reads about Mo-shan Liao-jan. There is no Wikipedia page for her. There are a few pages:

Chinese Bhiksunis in the Ch'an Tradition

First Woman Dharma Heir In Chinese Zen Buddhism

Moshan Liaoran

The Dragon Girl and the Abbess of Mo-Shan: Gender and Status in the Ch'an Buddhist Tradition by Miriam L. Levering: 

"Ch'an teaching contributed to the ease with which Chinese women in the twentieth century have been able to accept their essential equality with men, viewing centuries of constraint more as a product of an inequitable social structure than as reflecting unequal endowments of intelligence or of moral and spiritual capacities. Rejecting or more often quietly ignoring much in the Buddhist heritage that suggested that birth as a woman indicated that one was less prepared to attain enlightenment than men, or indeed faced severe, perhaps insuperable, obstacles to rapid enlightenment, Ch'an teachers urged upon their students the point of view that enlightenment, the source of wisdom, compassion, serenity and moral energy, was available to everyone at all times; any other view was seen as a hindrance to practice."

Levering ends the essay quoting the Dogen's Shobogenzo:

"What demerit is there in femaleness? What merit is there in

maleness? There are bad men and good women. If you wish

to hear the Dharrna and put an end to pain and turmoil, forget

about such things as male and female. As long as delusions

have not yet been eliminated, neither men nor women have

eliminated them; when they are all eliminated and true reality

is experienced, there is no distinction of male and female."

Porter gets to meet the abbot of the Tachinshan Temple, Yin-k'ung. She was born in 1921 and was born near the temple. She had her head shaved when she was 19, by Pen-huan at Paoen Temple in Hsinchou. She set about restoring the temple. In 1947 it had 50 nuns. But the Cultural Revolution was not kind to Buddhists. She sought advice from Pen-huan, who was suggesting people go abroad, or into the mountains. He was beaten, but was supposedly 116 at the time Yin-k'ung sought out advice from him during the Cultural Revolution.

“During that time, Chinshan was destroyed by the Red Guards, and her fellow nuns were forced to return to lay life and undergo reeducation. Yin-k'ung refused to give up her practice, and in 1985, with the members of the Gang of Four in prison or dead and the principle of religious freedom once more affirmed by the central government, the authorities in Fuchou asked her to come back and rebuild Chinshan. By that time there was only one small building at the summit with room for three or four nuns. It took her eight years, but she more than accomplished her goal of restoring the temple to its T'ang-dynasty glory- far outdoing her earlier efforts at rebuilding the temple during the Second World War. After that, she decided to build a Buddhist academy to train all the nuns who were arriving. It opened in 1994. Three years later, she also built a meditation hall for nuns. And in 1999, she began holding meditation retreats during the winter.” (P244 Zen Baggage by Bill Porter)

I would encourage you to read more about the story there.

was Thich Nhat Hanh a secular Buddhist?

Interesting post in r/Buddhism: "was Thich Nhat Hanh a secular Buddhist?"

First off what is secular Buddhism?

To me it means you don't have to believe in the 33 god realms, you don't have to believe in any metaphysics, and you can still love mythological thinking but not take it literally, and you can still respect the tradition and culture that Buddhism came from. I can also respect my modern outlook, my modern education, and my modern worldview, that says gods don't exist, exceptionalism is wrong and multiculturalism is right. That governments should be secular, have freedom of religion and freedom from religion, and shouldn't follow wackos even if they claim to be of my religion, or other religions. It's a modern sophisticated world view, that doesn't mean you have to pretend you believe things to belong to the tribe. I don't have to believe in reincarnation even if it's important to many traditions and the new sanghas that don't require it haven't existed for long.

Secular Buddhism doesn't mean you have to believe any modern thinking as Buddhism. Know what you think and where it comes from. If it come from the enlightenment or Thomas Jefferson, then that is where it comes from. Secular Buddhism isn't new age fuzzy thinking, you have be exacting and precise in what you think. You can also be influenced by Ram Das if you've read his book, but you know he's a Hindu, and that's not Buddhism. (I haven't read his book.) You can be influenced by whatever, just know where everything comes from. 

I don't think psychedelics help the spiritual life but if you imagine you've gotten insight through drug use, whatever, good for you. Secular Buddhists can be aware of the Theravadan traditions and respect them greatly, but we're not fundamentalists or traditionalists, or think only Asians can be Buddhists, that heritage Buddhists are superior somehow. I am willing to listen to critiques of colonialism and whiteness because we're interested in everyone's opinion. I'm not afraid of people having their experience, and I want to be inclusive and understanding. Not "anything goes," but willing to listen.

Syncretism is the blending of ideas and thought worlds. So in China you can blend Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism. In America in 2022 you can blend multiculturalism and make sense of the world through whatever cobbled together worldview you have. 

I think when the Buddha whisked a fellow to the realm of the 33 gods, he was telling him not to renounce the robes, and keep up the spiritual life, and we can get lessons from the mythology without committing to 33 realms. I used to say the 33 Hindu realms but supposedly these realms predate even Hinduism. 

Whatever the indigenous times the Buddha created his Dharma, we don't have to literally now think about the 33 god realms as real outside the psychology of the time. They could be a useful and colorful mythology, and they're not false just because they were not the mythology I grew up with, but they're also not automatically true. The way in which they exist is probably psychological and up for debate. Just embracing the 33 realms of the gods because the Buddha mentioned them, in the teachings that come down to us from 2,500 years ago, doesn't make you a better Buddhist. I'm disinclined to say a certain way of being is less Buddhist. I do have judgements and discernment but I'll use that for my practice. I come from a meditation emphasizing biased society, and you don't have to meditate to be a Buddhist, though anyone on the path will want to engage in what the Buddha was doing when he crossed over, at least a little bit. You can lay the groundwork for walking the path and put eggs in the next life basket if you wish. I don't put any eggs in that basket. That's my worldview and it would violate me to say I had to believe that. I could be wrong, I know I'm wrong quite a lot of the time, but I have to really believe something and I don't get a feeling for other lives. That's just me being honest and authentic. One of the great things about the sangha is that you meet all kinds of people who believe all kinds of things.

For me, as a refuge from Christian America, I don't want to have to believe in anything and I like the Buddhism that is more about practice, doesn't get out the sticks to enforce right view, though right view would come in handy and is the first step in the 8 fold path of Buddhism. Theological hair splitting to me is about branding of a sect, and sects are about giving someone credit, and flows of money, and while that is important to some, I'm not into that. I prefer the forest traditions, the hermit traditions, and I'll go off and be a hard working and devout as I can be based on my understanding. I can think for myself. That is where I'm coming from. I do need the sangha, I can be wrong. I'm grateful for the traditions and the developments and elaborations of the traditions. I appreciate another synthesis. At the end of the day I have to work it out for me in my mind.

I don't like it that people come onto r/Buddhism and say, "this and that is making me not believe in Buddhism." You have a responsibility to make it work out for you, and you can always abandon the Dharma. You can't embrace the Dharma if you can't reject it. Obedience isn't primary. You own your own spiritual life. Make it make sense however you want. If that makes people feel uncomfortable, well that's probably not the only thing that makes them feel uncomfortable. 

Stephen Batchelor's secular Buddhism is a version of secular Buddhism, and his Buddhism Without Belief is inspiring to me. His biography is interesting. He was involved in a Tibetan sangha, but went to a Korean Zen (Soen) sangha. I liked his book Living With The Devil. I liked his first book Along with Others. I liked his memoirs and his book about new traditions. He's an interesting person and a good writer. 

When I first encounter Thich Nhat Hanh's teachings, I honestly didn't like the Christian language he uses sometimes. That actually put me off when I first started reading him. I think he's trying to communicate in the Christian centric English language. USA is 65% Christian, and 0.7% Buddhist.

The other thing is he's a Zen teacher in the Rinzai tradition, so with the perfection of wisdom teachings, there is a sophisticated outlook. He's on the lookout for duality.

Reading Thay's wikipedia page isn't without his controversy in his monastic life and conforming to the traditions in his country. He was fired from teaching and he was taken off the books. He's not hyper-orthodox, he could think for himself. He was banished from his country and had to live in exile. He was ordained and he went to school, but he switched around some. 

He's the leader of a movement. His movement was started 1964. He's less controversial than Triratna (1967) or NKT (1991), Hannah or Tri Dao. All these people are vilified on r/Buddhism as not Buddhism by some. There's a witch hunt against new Buddhists. 

I'm not unsympathetic. I don't like Shambhala, with Trungpa sending for teenage girls to be sent to his room or 8 year olds snorting coke at the party, Trungpa dying of alcoholism and his successor teacher spreading HIV under the guise of spirituality. 

Or Ole Nydahl or Tri Dao, from what I've heard. Go investigate for yourself, make up your own mind. What I've heard can be wrong, but supposedly Tri Dao hasn't been ordained no matter how many followers he has on Tik Tok. Tri Dao supposedly was caught impersonating a security guard 5 years ago, and has a past of fraudulent and impersonating behavior. He could adopt a police officer persona, and this is suggestive about his present behavior, that he's adopting a monk's behavior without actually ordaining. The signs aren't good.

Time will tell. Insincere movements fizzle out or swerve towards cultism. But there's also something there. Hannah started a bunch of sanghas, I admire that. Triratna has taught a lot of people to meditate and has a lot of Buddhist centers in England. Sangharakshita is my teacher. I've met a lot of people in NYC who have been to NKT and feel they have gotten something positive from it.

Of all the new movements, I feel like Thich Nhat Hanh feels kind, feels centered, feels maybe popularizing and modern, but I don't know what goes on behind the monks closed doors in the monastery. I haven't been yet. 

Many Zen teachers are obsessed with lineage, and I haven't gotten that from Thay.

Anyway, upshot, it's not clear to me what secular Buddhism is, and I'm not an expert of Thay, but I think it's an interesting question. At this stage in my life, I like the questions more than the answers I can give. It leads to more questions. The Thay sangha I participate in has a lot of Christians in it. So it's flexible enough to accept that.

Poem by Thay.

Effective Altruism

Lovely profile of William MacAskill in the New Yorker by Gideon Lewis-Kraus.

Peter Singer and Toby Ord are mentioned as influences. "Ord’s ideal beneficiary was the Fred Hollows Foundation, which treats blindness in poor countries for as little as twenty-five dollars a person." Derek Parfit is mentioned.

"“My first big win was convincing him about deworming charities.” It may seem impossible to compare the eradication of blindness with the elimination of intestinal parasites, but health economists had developed rough methods. MacAskill estimated that the relief of intestinal parasites, when measured in “quality-adjusted life years,” or qalys, would be a hundred times more cost-effective than a sight-saving eye operation.

Quote: “He was at dinner in Oxford—some sort of practical-ethics conference—and he was just deeply shocked that almost none of the attendees were vegetarians, because he thought that was the most basic application of ethical ideas.”

"If Peter Singer’s theory—that any expenditure beyond basic survival was akin to letting someone die—was simply too taxing to gain wide adherence, it seemed modest to ask people to give ten per cent of their income. This number also had a long-standing religious precedent."

"A kind of no-hard-feelings, debate-me gladiatorialism was seen as a crucial part of good “epistemic hygiene,” and a common social overture was to tell someone that her numbers were wrong."

"We passed Queen’s Lane Coffee House. “That’s where Bentham discovered utilitarianism,”"

"Against Malaria Foundation alone estimates that its work to date will save a hundred and sixty-five thousand lives."

Criticism: "Rob Reich wrote, “Plato identified the best city as that in which philosophers were the rulers. Effective altruists see the best state of affairs, I think, as that in which good-maximizing technocrats are in charge. Perhaps it is possible to call this a politics: technocracy. But this politics is suspicious of, or rejects, the form of politics to which most people attach enormous value: democracy.” The Ethiopian American A.I. scientist Timnit Gebru has condemned E.A.s for acting as though they are above such structural issues as racism and colonialism." 

Also, "Bernard Williams, who noted that utilitarianism might, in certain historical moments, look like “the only coherent alternative to a dilapidated set of values,” but that it was ultimately bloodless and simpleminded. Williams held that the philosophy alienated a person “from the source of his actions in his own convictions”—from what we think of as moral integrity." Someone who seeks justification for the impulse to save the life of a spouse instead of that of a stranger, Williams famously wrote, has had “one thought too many.”"

"Some E.A.s felt that one of the best features of their movement—that, in the context of near-total political sclerosis, they had found a way to do something—had been recast as a bug."

I found the very thought provoking, and like all lovely New Yorker articles, it pushed the subject further and further, while circling around the original questions. Loved it. Reminded me of intro to ethics that I took with Claudia Card at UW. And it feels like what it says, so vital and somehow a little something not quite right.

My impression was that it was kind of Prayer for Jabez. Permission to earn a lot of money, albeit set in Oxford, and then spread to Silicon Valley and financial markets, for the elite. My grandfather, who was a minister, thought it was about increasing his ministry, seemed harmless. Wanting to do the most good. But people use it for other purposes. I think about the ministers in Texas who wouldn't open up their mansions when there were floods and people lost their housing.

I'm also thinking of the evil guy in Don't Look Up. This all could just be another grift.

"Carla Zoe Cremer and Luke Kemp published a paper called “Democratising Risk,” which criticized the “techno-utopian approach” of longtermists."

"Last year, the Centre for Effective Altruism bought Wytham Abbey, a palatial estate near Oxford, built in 1480. Money, which no longer seemed an object, was increasingly being reinvested in the community itself. The math could work out: it was a canny investment to spend thousands of dollars to recruit the next Sam Bankman-Fried. But the logic of the exponential downstream had some kinship with a multilevel-marketing ploy. Similarly, if you assigned an arbitrarily high value to an E.A.’s hourly output, it was easy to justify luxuries such as laundry services for undergraduate groups, or, as one person put it to me, wincing, “retreats to teach people how to run retreats.” Josh Morrison, a kidney donor and the founder of a pandemic-response organization, commented on the forum, “The Ponzi-ishness of the whole thing doesn’t quite sit well.”"

"In “What We Owe the Future,” he is careful to sidestep the notion that efforts on behalf of trillions of theoretical future humans might be fundamentally irreconcilable with the neartermist world-on-fire agenda."

In the end it feels like highly sophisticated fund raising. It feels a little Andrew Yang: Candidate who never served in government. Wants to hang out with the bigwigs, be in the room. But being headed by a philosophy professor is slightly more impressive, though he clearly wants out and doesn't want to be the intellectual face of the organizations. 

The conflict between longtermism and concrete nows isn't really, we can do both.

"Open Philanthropy has embraced an ethic of “worldview diversification,” whereby we might give up on perfect commensurability and acknowledge it is O.K. that some money be reserved to address the suffering of chickens, some for the suffering of the poor, and some for a computational eschatology. After almost a decade of first-principles reasoning, E.A.s had effectively reinvented the mixed-portfolio model of many philanthropic foundations."

Links:

“Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” by Peter Singer

GiveWell (Wikipedia) "Since its inception, GiveWell has directed the donation of more than a billion dollars." (New Yorker

Give What We Can (Wikipedia)

Open Philanthropy (Wikipedia)

Give Directly (direct link)

Democratising Risk

Lead Exposure Elimination Project

The Case for Longtermism by William MacAskill in NY Times. I'm not convinced. If you knew for sure an asteroid wasn't going to hit earth in 5 years and wipe us out, then maybe, but I don't think you can know some catastrophic event won't happen. The galaxy is big, who knows if a rogue sun comes into our solar system and smashes everything up. I mean I think you should think about the future but there is a possibility of nuclear war that kills most of humanity, so there's just too many questions about the future. And knowing something would pay dividends 500 years from now seems dodgy. Taking care of things in the moment seems more likely to keep things better for the future. But I take his point, and I think it mostly applies to global warming and doing things to stop global warming.

I think Buddhism is a kind of longtermism. 

Further discussion:

Freddie deBoer Is Wrong About Effective Altruism

Solon article by Emile Torres

12/10/22 update: I went to effective altruism’s first post-Sam Bankman-Fried conference. Here’s what I saw. (Vox)

11/22/23 How a Fervent Belief Split Silicon Valley—and Fueled the Blowup at OpenAI

Sam Altman’s firing showed the influence of effective altruism and its view that AI development must slow down; his return marked its limits (Wall Street Journal)

What to read?

Reddit has the information already there, people just don't look for it, and then ask, and people refer them to the sidebar. You couldn't go too wrong with their book list.

I personally would not put any Chogyam Trungpa on the list because he did not exemplify the discipline. I do think about his idea of idiot compassion, and the critique of materialism is OK. I hope someone can come along and update that book.

I stumbled on Jack Kornfield, Pema Chodron, Lama Surya Das, Charlotte Joko Beck, Ayya Khema, and Thich Nhat Hanh. Those were not bad writers, and I really think what you stumble upon will be good enough. The process of finding books should be one you own. There's enough information out there. If you don't have good book reading habits and don't have book lists around you, then putting it on other people isn't really developing the habit yourself. Take responsibility. 

Even so here is my first thoughts:

Breath By Breath. There are many good books about anapanasati, but I think this is a good first book on it. Already I'm showing my bias towards meditation. The Buddha became enlightened through many circumstances, but one of them was that he was meditating. 

You should start meditating on the breath, with this as a guide about the full eventual possibilities. Human face to face support in meditation is very important. It's easy to skitter off. Take a class first and then if you think you're going to go in this direction, then read this one. Already you're going to be connected to a sangha by taking a meditation class. Maybe your entry is by a talk. Or going to a drop in. Maybe you met with someone. Maybe you attended a zoom meeting. 

I like to have a deep ancient book to pair with modern interpretations. So I would also recommend reading the Dhammapada, then the Udana, then the Saṃyutta Nikāya, then Dīgha Nikāya, then Majjhima Nikāya.  You could linger on those those books for the rest of your life. 

The Mahayana sutras, Perfection of Wisdom and Pure Land sutras are also amazing. There is a book about Buddhist literature, The Eternal Legacy by Sangharakshita. There are a million books about Buddhist history but every book make a choice about what to focus on. You have to make a choice about what you are interested in. You have to pick a sect that will also narrow your choices.

Tuning in and trying to change will help you to realize you need to work on yourself. That is when I would next read Radical Acceptance by Tara Brach. I think that the pairing of modern psychology can really lay the groundwork for sorting yourself out, and cultivating a growing mentality. There are people who think that's watered down, or bringing in something that isn't traditionally Buddhism into Buddhism. The fantasy that we don't have modern ideas, and can just live off ancient ideas 2,500 years ago is appealing to me. Cuts down on a lot of reading to eliminate the enlightenment and modern psychology.

To further the positive mentality I would then work on the Brahma Viharas. Christine Feldman's Boundless Heart hasn't been surpassed yet to my knowledge, I hope to find more books on this amazing meditation.

I like pairing meditation technique with Dharma and history. There's a natural synergy to that pairing in reading. Whether it's Pali Canon, or Mahayana sutras, or modern histories. There's a lot of directions you could go here, and in a way it depends on your sect. At this point you should be engaged in a sangha, and they should be telling you what to consider reading. 

Many people on r/Buddhism disparage Triratna and NKT, but if I'm really honest, the most people I've met who were Buddhists were from these sanghas. What does it mean to be popular but scored by traditionalist Buddhists who want you to go to an established sangha? You could almost say that it takes a pervert like Chogyam Trungpa to bring Buddhism to America. You could almost say you need a uncharismatic victorian to bring Buddhism to England in Sangharakshita. You could almost say you need a weird egomaniac like Kelsang Gyatso to imagine we needed a new Tibetan order. I actually like his books. Hannah founded many sanghas, and her husband isn't the one who did it, but took over her sanghas when she died. Ambedkar converted to Buddhism, encouraging the Dalits to do so too, and then he died in 1956. Nobody as dynamic has harnessed his people. Daniel Ingram has broken the taboo of saying you're enlightened. There are plenty of figures who open up the Dharma to people, but then are heavily criticized for being imperfect and not traditional. IMS has a kind of heresy to deny the lay monk split. 

You can't recommend books without stepping into this controversy. 

I would almost say you need some kind of charismatic person to transmit the Dharma to the west. We like our hucksters, snake oil salesmen. Humans have clay feet. People go onto r/Buddhism and ask who is enlightened right now? Who is the best teacher? What is the best sect? How do I get a valid teacher?

Those questions and those journeys are the spiritual life. They even split you at the point whether you go Mahayana or Theravadan. To recommend the Lotus Sutra over the Udana is a choice. To recommend Milarepa over Pali Canon is a choice. How do you make that choice? 

There was a person who was shot in the head, and it severed the part of his brain connected to his emotions. He seemed OK, and they sent him back to work. What do you want to have for lunch? He could not stop considering all the possibilities. You need your emotions to eliminate options. There are lots of options. Making a choice is maybe more complicated than it appears to be to those who have found a sangha. 

Connecting to a sangha can be hard. Some countries don't have a sangha. Some places don't have a sangha close by. Some cities are filled with ethnic sanghas that make people weird if they don't look like everyone else. It's a kind of turning of the tables, white people aren't too concerned when black people walk in, but there are cases where people who aren't white don't feel comfortable going to a Buddhist sangha in America. White fragility makes it hard to discuss that experience. Some people have psychological problems going to new places, risking new experiences. For me online experiences aren't very gratifying, but something is better than nothing. 

Reading books can make you develop the motivation to find a sangha, but it can also further reinforce the rugged individualism and irregular steps on the path. Take regular steps. Connect with a sangha. That is a choice that eliminates other options but not making a choice is a choice that eliminates other choices too.

For me, A Survey of Buddhism by Sangharakshita is the amazing classic from 1947 that nobody talks about enough. He has so many amazing books. That's coming from someone who was raised in the Triratna sangha. 

There are other Buddhists who don't consider Triratna a real sangha. We could talk about calling people in a sangha wrongheaded, but the fact is we do judge other people's sanghas, and do have ideas about which ones are good and bad. I think Shambala is irredeemable. R/Buddhism has a list teacher to avoid. Sex and the Spiritual Teacher by Scott Edelstein is an essential classic that teaches the spiritual seeker some important things. That might make someone think everyone is a sham when there are plenty of teachers out there who want to teach people. The model of friendship and taking responsibility for your spiritual life is the best. That developing spiritual friendships isn't easy in this day and age, doesn't take away the fact that friends can really help us. Authors and books can give some one way communication that is a kind of sharing of minds. Shoes Outside The Door is another book about scandal in the sangha. 

I've mentioned history of Buddhism. A Short History of Buddhism by Andrew Skilton is interesting, really specific about early schools. Mahayana Buddhism by Paul Williams. The Circle of the Way by Barbara O'Brien. Zen Baggage by Bill Porter is his pilgrimage to various Chinese Chan sites.

I really like memoirs and biographies of Buddhist lives. Nanamoli's The Life of the Buddha is a good start.

There's a really good blog about Buddhist fiction. Buddha Da by Anne Donovan was my favorite novel.

I really like reading. Reading is a spiritual practice. Soaking up the culture from around the world through words is in a way a miracle to me. 

I don't think you have to take an intellectual approach and many teachers would say being mindful and kind is more important that reading.

Links:

I tried to answer the question once before.

I've tried to express which books helped me how.

As usual Sam Littlefair has a good answer

Reporting in

8th century rock carving from Pakistan.

I heard the phrase "pattern of hindrances," and that was evocative for me. I start off restless. It's a rag and bone shop and a maelstrom. Doubt crops up when things get hard, the boredom or just misguided expectations, the idea that discipline doesn't yield results. My anger is lurking, I fancy I'm a highly spiritually evolved master, and then bing, there it is. Why would they... not conform to my expectations. I open my eyes when I'm tired, but I also open my eyes for sense stimulation. I love stimulation, I love distractions. I'm doing one now by blogging. 

Spending some time with the Green Island Sangha I'm enjoying the positivity, the kindness and the idea that coming home to oneself in meditation, home in the body, home in the mind. The world is telling me all sorts of important things if I would just listen.

Underneath the restlessness is content I'm trying to avoid. I need to get over the feeling that I'm rubbing my face in my own shit, and really truly process my mistakes, gafs, harmful actions, selfishness, limitations. 

I got really inspired by reading in Zen Baggage by Bill Porter that on the 3 month retreat at the Rinzai temple he was at, the monks meditate 90 minutes 11 times. There are 1440 minutes in a day. That amount of meditation is 990 minutes. That leaves 7.5 hours of sleep if you just meditate and sleep, which isn't going to happen. I need to step up my meditation game. 

Sat for 40 minutes today for the first time in a long time.

I asked r/Buddhism why garlic, onions and tomatoes are considered aphrodisiacs and to be avoided. At the Rinzai temple Porter visits, this is a held belief. I got a reference to Śūraṅgama Sūtra, the Heroic March sutra. Current consensus is that the text is a compilation of Indic materials with extensive editing in China, rather than a translation of a single text from Sanskrit. It is first spoken about in the 8th century in China. It has been wondered whether the sutra was apocrypha, and is categorized as esoterica. Some think it comes from Nalanda. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra is one of the seminal texts of Chán Buddhism. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra is one of the seminal texts of Chán Buddhism. I'm not sure I want to make this sutra the center of my study, but I always like looking around and seeing what's available. Perhaps to a fault. Anyway, there is a translation available. (Translation with commentary.)

The list gets longer, "Beings who seek samadhi should refrain from eating five pungent plants of this world. The first step is to get rid of contributing causes. The five pungent plants have been described already. They are onions, garlic, leeks, scallions, and shallots."

So when you have reverence for Buddhist texts, that doesn't mean you have to automatically believe the translated and written word. As already noted, this isn't a central or essential text, but it is popular in the Chan sect in China. I don't experience foods as changing my meditation, but I'm not enlightened yet. I wonder if what I eat does cause subtle changes, I think that's my takeaway. To listen to see if that information comes to me.

I've always wondered when I've seen "Buddhist friendly" food for Chinese, I always wondered what the thoughts were, where they came from.

It does feel like a cultural belief that isn't essential. Even so, a cultural belief isn't a false belief, it just means with a whole wide world, other cultures didn't come up with the same results. But the Queen of England has banned garlic in her palace! Does she just not like the smell or does she imagine it impedes spiritual progress?

I wonder if there's some placebo effect, if you do things, you think, "I'm doing all the right things." I recently wondered if disabusing someone of the idea that a certain image was the image of the Buddha was the right thing to do, if it was helpful.

I have Christian friend who doesn't like swearing. I try to not swear. Turns out I swear a little bit, every once in a while, to express emotion. Do I need to express that emotion? Speech should be kindly, helpful, timely and truthful. Extreme emotion isn't always kindly, but it could be more truthful. Striving for maximum articulation and truth, with kindness is important and not easy, not trivial.  

Start where you are is a kind of broken record for Pema Chodron, but I think maybe it's a necessary broken record. People try to act enlightened, under the principle of fake it till you make it. I mean that can work a bit with ethics and communication and other things, but in a way it only gets you so far. I think the combination of meditation, study, fellowship and devotion gets you to grow up and you don't have to fake it, some of the craziness drops away. It's not hard to lay down obsessions and addictions, it's not as hard to be kind and communicate if you've been working the spiritual program.

Yesterday was Ashura, a Muslim holiday of mourning. I think a lot about the loss of my grandparents. I used to spend my summers with them growing up, one month with one set, one month with the other set. Pretty shocking to the system, but as I get older and older, I feel the love from them. It resonates through the decades. There are other gone too. A gay uncle. Another uncle. Great aunts. Even my best friend from high school. Buddhist acquaintances that passed. 

Today is the day Walden came out. Sangharakshita didn't like the transcendentalists, but it's a big part of the intellectual history of America. I find their writings hard, but I do like reading biographies of the people. And Amos Walcott was an early vegan, survived on apple sauce and potatoes when he crossed the ocean to visit England. Mostly like to read Emily Dickinson of the people from that period, and Whitman. 

Bill Porter visits Ch’an sites

Bill Porter (Red Pine) went to China in March 2006 to visit Chan sites, and the book came out in 2009. I count 23 books on his Wikipedia page, among other publications. I've read 6 of his books, this will be my 7th. Porter starts in Beijing. Lots of good Chinese Buddhism history in this book. I like that he’s authentic and not a poser. He prefers Zen to Ch'an, he likes the Z and feels all the words are pointing to the same Dharma. He interviewed abbots and China is really just beginning to recover from the cultural revolution. The smart monks head to the mountains during the Cultural Revolution. Porter has a book about that: Road to Heaven. This book is about the recovery of Buddhism in China in 2006 after the Cultural Revolution from 1966-76.

If you only read one of Porter's travel books, I'd read this one. There are tons of great stories and interesting characters, great historical summaries, and stories about Zen and poetry. I've been picking up a little about Porter through reading all his works, and I really like him. I know some people are jerks in real life when you meet them, but I can imagine sitting on a porch with Miles Davis in the background sipping tea with him. 

My favorite story is that just before Tiananmen Square Protests and Massacre, he was in Wuhan after seeking out the hermits, and people asked him for money for some pro-democracy protests. Porter thought he was giving 10 yuan, but accidentally gave 100 yuan. They were so excited the got him to speak in front of everyone. Back in Taiwan later, he was talking to someone in the CIA and they'd heard about it, the Chinese leaders were saying the protests were led by a foreigner. His reluctant words after accidentally giving too much were cast as him being a ringleader. I'm surprised they let him travel in the country after that, except that it wasn't true. Yikes. It's nice to read stories about Wuhan, when we have the negative association now as somehow the birthplace for Covid. Supposedly Porter's book about the Hermits was translated into Chinese and is a great source of national pride, so maybe he's seen more as a hero than a ringleader for democracy.

Quotes:

“No one knows when the Buddha's followers began making images of their teacher. According to an account attributed to the early Buddhist sect known as the Mahasanghikas, when Shakyamuni left this earthly realm for a few months to teach his mother in the heavens atop Mount Sumeru, two kings from neighboring regions had their artisans fashion statues of the Buddha so that his followers wouldn't be distressed by his sudden disappearance. One of the statues was carved from sandalwood, and the other was made of burnished gold, and both were said to be life-size. (Cf. Ekottara-agama-sutra: 28)

This account was compiled within two or three hundred years of the Buddha's Nirvana, which occurred in 383 BC, and it may or may not be true, but it suggests how important the Buddha's image was to his followers. According to the archaeological evidence currently available, the earliest representations of the Buddha were not statues but shadow images suggesting his presence: the fig tree beneath which he sat at Bodhgaya, the lion seat from which he delivered his sermons, the eight-spoked wheel that represented his teaching of the Noble Eightfold Path, a stupa that held his remains, or his footprints, which showed he had left the dust of delusion and its karmic wake behind. It wasn't until the first century BC and the first century AD that artisans in Gandhara (Pakistan) and Bactria (Afghanistan) - and slightly later in Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) - worked their way up from footprints to a human figure.” (P35)

“He didn't think much of Thich Nhat Hanh's Buddhism. By the time we left, he made it clear he didn't think much of my understanding of the Dharma either. But I had met so many accommodating Zen masters, it was somehow refreshing to meet a jerk. And a jerk who served such fine tea was worth enduring.” (P222, and what follows is a fun narrative about the jerk monk).

“When I asked her how she gauged the level of understanding among the students, she said, "There's no one way of determining how much someone understands. But we can usually tell when we give them a task they've never done before. Someone whose practice is good isn't easily upset when things go wrong. Someone who doesn't practice or who doesn't practice correctly is constantly upset. Just because you sit in the meditation hall doesn't mean you're making progress. This is why we watch and listen to the nuns who study and practice here to decide how best to help them. Some of them understand right away. Others seem to take forever. In any case, we tell them to be patient. Zen isn't for people in a hurry.” (P237)

Fascinating sites he visits (incomplete):

Yunju Temple contains the world's largest collection of stone Buddhist sutra steles in the world.

Yungang Grottoes are ancient Chinese Buddhist temple grottoes near the city of Datong in the province of Shanxi. They are excellent examples of rock-cut architecture and one of the three most famous ancient Buddhist sculptural sites of China. The others are Longmen and Mogao.

Huayan Temple (Datong): After the founding of the Communist State, the government provided great protection for the temple.

Nine Dragon Wall: At least 7 versions of this, but this one was near Datong, which Porter calls Tatung. He has a different system than the one used on Wikipedia so it's hard to look up his stuff.

White Horse Temple: Considered the first temple in China.

Bodhidharma’s stupa: 

Daxingshan Temple: The temple had reached unprecedented heyday in the Tang dynasty (618–907), when Śubhakarasiṃha, Vajrabodhi and Amoghavajra taught Chinese Esoteric Buddhism in the temple. Daxingshan Temple was completely damaged in the Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution, after the fall of the Tang dynasty in 907, most parts of the temple were ruined in wars and natural disasters, and gradually it became unknown to public. Most of the present structures in the temple were repaired or built in the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644) and modern China. (Not sure if this is the same temple, when Porter visits it's because it's the only women's monastery for Zen in China. There are a few others but they are Pure Land. The entry doesn't mention that, so I think I've got the wrong temple, but I thought it was interesting anyway. The jerk monk thought it was inherently false that it was the one zen women's monastery. I have to think Porter is correct, and either this is the wrong temple and I was redirected there by mistake, or it's just not widely known in English language. The language barrier makes Porter's travels that much more interesting.)

There was nothing on google for “tsangfoken hidden buddha gully”

Some past Porter and Red Pine book and movies links on Going For Refuge:

Red Pine travel to south China

Road To Heaven by Bill Porter

Chinese Monks

Hanshan, Fenggan and Shide

Chinese Buddhist Poetry

Shiwu

Thoughts on the inspiration of hermit monks.

Fanshan doesn't raise above society's sexism.

Did Hanshan do magic mushrooms?

Pickup

Road To Heaven quote

Modern images for Buddhism

The image of Hope Harlingen throwing up, squirting poop out her butt, and then getting together with a guy with the sluices open like that, of course all while on drugs, using drugs, and then getting involved with a man also in the stall in a gross bathroom. She describes it in the 2014 movie Inherent Vice, it's gestured at in the book. Really imagine the dirty stall, the poop and vomit being ignored. 

It reminds me of Parasite (2019) when the girl is high up on the toilet, while shit water squirts out because of the flooding in her neighborhood, enjoying a cigarette. 

That reminds me of a Zen Flesh, Zen Bones image. A man is chased by an elephant and falls off a cliff, but catches a vine. Stomping elephants above him, tigers down below, a mouse gnawing on the vine, and he jostles a beehive, and the bees are stinging him, but a little drop of honey falls into his mouth. 

From the Lotus Sutra, the house is on fire, and the children are playing. It's hard to get them to leave the house. So the king suggests there are even better toys outside. The children eventually come outside and the toys aren't what they thought they would be but they are somehow good enough. 

The path is difficult, you don't just have to pretend you believe in something, like in Christianity, to be saved. Pure Land Buddhism tries this angle, the hope that if you really want to be born into a pure land you can be reborn there, and then you can go for enlightenment in that pureland where the circumstances are better. Nice literature, but I wouldn't put any eggs in that basket. Metaphorically speaking, I'm vegan, so no real eggs. Go watch a vegan documentary on how animals are treated. There's some torture.

karmic thermals

The culture of Triratna doesn't talk too much about karma, samsara and nirvana, attachments, and a lot of other probably unhelpful Buddhist buzzwords. I found being grounded in the sangha, I have adopted the distaste for these vague words that certain people who aren't really interested use to play around. I'm thinking about writing a post about questions I dislike on Reddit r/Buddhism. Instead usually I just skip on by and say, "philosophical quibbling without practice." I have an intellectual approach to Buddhism, but I don't think that is the best door to go through without meditation, sangha and retreats. 

I was rewatching Inherent Vice (2014) for the 3rd time, and I came across the phrase "karmic thermals". I do like that phrase. The kid who's killed by a stray bullet didn't deserve it, but got caught in the karmic thermals of others. We're caught up in the karmic thermals of right wing christofascist here in America. 

Mostly conditionality is what is to be talked about, but the 12 nidanas is a teaching, and just observing conditions isn't easy. It's hard to talk about conditions, consequences and courses of actions, because in the USA we've become hyper partisan, and there is no objective reality any more. Women can't get abortions for life threatening conditions because doctors are afraid of breaking the law, losing their license, or otherwise rocking the powers that be. Meanwhile republican politicians are breaking the law all over the place like they're some weird anti-woke woke contradiction of living their best selves by destroying the country's democracy out of spite.

I'm not saying you can't have the personality that wishes for conservative approach to politics. That's not what causes and conditions is all about. I'm talking about the norm breaking, the rule breaking, the law breaking power grabs and hate mongering going on. Power built on racism and anti-democratic sore losing is not power at all, and history will look unkindly on them.

The karmic thermals of the USA are quite heinous for 10 year old incest victims, women who have to carry dead babies because abortion is no longer legal. The imposition of traveling to another state is the penalty, and of course the poor suffer more, not the rich. Politicians are openly questioning the founding fathers ideas of separation of church and state. Either some people didn't go to school and learn about America, or they just want their way no matter how they get it, forget American ideas of separation of church and state. Let's empower the American taliban, the Christofascist. /s

When you adopt the love mode over the power mode in the spiritual life, you can't steamroll people. In fact you focus on your own spiritual life. You consider others subjectivity, what they want. I would never impose the Buddhist text that you don't get an abortion onto people who were not Buddhist, not is it clear to me that you can't support a secular state beyond specific religions. So don't get an abortion, but don't impose your idea of religion on others. That's not American unless you're an asshole. And the amount of assholes in America seems to be going up. Karmic thermals, wish they were blowing down.

I have to keep reminding myself. This isn't happening to my male body, but I'm interconnected to everyone else, so it is happening to me. But to maintain equanimity to focus on what is in front of me, I allow myself to forget how interconnected I am to cope with the karmic thermals of America. 

McMann has an interesting essay about the modern conceptions of self in Secularizing Buddhism, referencing Gergen's Saturated Self.

Taylor Swift's plane taking 171 flights. The poor will bear the brunt of the climate change crisis that the rich bring about with their selfish ways. Time for some more vigorous class war in this country. For a fraction of Bezos' wealth he could save and improve a lot of lives. Musk joked about curing hunger if someone could show him a good plan, but if course he didn't pay enough attention to really find one he liked, his attention wandered. He needs all his money to pay for the children he's having. Meanwhile his father says he doesn't like him, he's fat, and his father is having children with his stepdaughter. Quality family. Perhaps it's gossip I've descended into in the culture wars, but these cases exemplify what is going on and the karmic thermals. "We should have met cute, but we met squalid." Hope Harlingen in Inherent Vice movie.