Suzuki quote

"You may say, "My practice is not good enough to feel the goal or the full meaning right now." But even though you say your practice is not good enough, there is no other practice for you right now. Good or bad, it is your practice. To approach perfect practice, there is no way other than to accept yourself. To say your practice is bad does not help your practice. To say your practice is excellent does not help. Your practice is your practice. You talking abut it in various ways, good or bad, this is all. We should know this point first of all, so we say, "Even though your practice is not so good, that is perfect practice. Just sit.

From Shunryu Suzuki's Not Always So, P.134-5 (different edition than the one above)

Conciliation and Atonement

Conciliation and Atonement

If there is any way I have harmed myself, either knowingly or unknowingly, through action of body, speech, or mind,
I ask forgiveness.

If there is any way I have suffered harm by reason of anything I have thought, or said, or done,

I forgive myself.

If there is any way I have harmed another, either on purpose or by accident,by reason of anything I have thought, or said, or done,
I ask forgiveness.

If there is any way another has harmed me, either knowingly or unknowingly, through action of body, speech, or mind,
I forgive them.


(source)

Nostril Theory

My friend thought this idea was funny that I have.

Supposedly one of the benefits of meditation is it evens out the right and left brain use. Supposedly we're too left brain here in the west. We think too much, we haven't integrated ourselves enough.

Things switch in the body so. If you have a cold and you're breathing out of your right nostril you're thinking with the left side of your brain. It's only when you have a cold that you really notice a nostril dominance.

So if you ever notice that you're breathing out of your left nostril, that's a good sign that you're balancing out your hemispheres.

I think one thing that was funny to my friends was that I hold this nostril theory is almost obvious. I'm not sure why it's funny except "nostril theory" is a kind of funny name for it.

Debate to meditate

Doubt: You’re not going to get enlightened, you’re wasting your time.

Shradha: How do you know I’ll not get enlightened? How do you know it’s a waste of time even if I don’t?

Doubt: You’ve still made colossal mistakes and created countless problems.

Shradha: That’s not because I meditated, or studied dharma, or talked with a noble friend.

Doubt: Maybe you gained some concentration powers, but then they were not natural and you ‘flew to close to the sun’.

Shradha: Or maybe not.

Doubt: You are not 100%. Maybe you need to rest. Mindfulness takes energy.

Shradha: Maybe I want to be all I can be.

Doubt: So you’re in it for your personal gain?

Shradha: Before you interrupted me, I was going to say, for the benefit of others.

Doubt: You want to raise above the sheeple. You want to be an individual.

Shradha: For the benefit of all beings.

Doubt: What do they get out of it?

Shradha: When I’m more open, soft, aware, then I’m more likely not to hurt someone, and I’m more likely to act from more pure motives, for the benefit of everything.

Doubt: Purity, that’s a funny concept for human action. You can’t eat a meal without thousands of insects dying. And anyway, why benefit everything? Nothing does that.

Shradha: That’s better than cows and chickens dying. I’m trying to evolve in a positive direction. To grow up.

Doubt: Purity is a metaphysic, I thought you were against that. Growing up sucks, too.

Shradha: I mean purity as a move towards acting more from metta, karuna, mudita and equanimity.

Doubt: So you’re going to reduce motivation to those 4 things?

Shradha: No, but moving towards the heart’s release, which is nothing special, is a move towards purity and you seemed to want me to define it.

Doubt: OK, forget the bollocks of purity. You are puny, a flickering speck in the universe, why would improving yourself a little matter. A marginally better flicker.

Shradha: It probably doesn’t matter that much in the scheme of things, but it matters to me, and that’s important. What matters to you doubt?

Doubt: Being the same, not potentially wasting energy, or having false hope. What about all the bad things you’ve done in your life? Think about the movie reel that plays in your head, all the lowlights of your life.

Shradha: So? I seek to avoid unskillfulness, and wish to more towards being more skillful. Doesn’t mean I’m perfect or actually arrive there. It’s human nature to want to improve things.

Doubt: Isn’t that just spiritual materialism, you want want want.

Shradha: If you’ve got to be greedy before you’re enlightened, then greed for deepening real spirituality is a good place to put it. I’m not enlightened yet. I just want to move towards point B.

Doubt: You don’t even really understand why you don’t want that.

Shradha: But to the extent that I do understand that, as I try to gain control over myself, that is what I want.

Doubt: Your past actions don’t say that.

Shradha: But I’m developing the intention.

Doubt: We’ll see.

Shradha: Yes we will.

Poem

Timely Rain by Chogyam Thrungpa

In the jungles of flaming ego.
May there be cool iceberg of bodhicitta.

On the racetrack of bureaucracy,
May there be the walk of the elephant.

May the sumptuous castle of arrogance
Be destroyed by vajra confidence.

In the garden of gentle sanity,
May you be bombarded by coconuts of wakefulness.

rebirth novels Buddhist?

I'm reading Cloud Atlas, and if it's rebirth that makes it Buddhist, then I don't think it's necessarily Buddhist. Also there's a book, Years of Rice and Salt, that has that story device, too. 

Hinduism has rebirth, so there has to be something that distinguishes between Buddhism and Hinduism to make it Buddhist if the novel is framed around rebirth. And not all Buddhist believe in rebirth as a kind of soul transfer, that's a wrong headed notion. Conditionality notes that all the elements will unform and then possibly reform. 

A friend of mine says that consciousness has such momentum that it's hard to imagine it doesn't continue, and canonical references liken it to candle flame doing from one candle to another. 

And other friends suggest that if you don't believe in reincarnation, then you have to get enlightened in this life. I'm not sure that's true either. For me moving towards enlightenment is worth it. Anyway, there are some Buddhist that see rebirth as part of the litmus test about who is a Buddhist, but I disagree with them.

The review on Wildmind agrees. Here is a quote from Drops in the ocean: Buddhist reflections on David Mitchell’s “Cloud Atlas” by Danamaya:

"...most of the characters realized something more about themselves and their world, prompting me to examine myself, my values, and the world around me. Putting myself in their shoes, I wondered: how can I better use awareness and kindness to respond to the confusion and unsatisfactoriness in and around me? A book that makes you question, maybe makes you squirm — that’s an excellent use of one’s reading time, no?"

Deep internal questioning isn't particularly Buddhist, seems all spiritual traditions do this. Is there a kind of Buddhist questioning that is unique? Sure, but it would take too long to articulate it now. And thus Danamaya says it's not a Buddhist book, though as a Buddhist she was deeply stirred by it's artistry, and has lots of thoughts that have a dharma aspect to them.

As an artistic device, I think it's excellent. Is it necessarily Buddhist? No. Could a Buddhist love the artistry of Cloud Atlas? I think many do, in fact that's why I'm reading it.

changing conciousness

(Source)

Looking on my computer I can gaze into distant galaxies, explore cosmic phenomenon I can dimly comprehend, I can't even understand why so much of it is puzzling because I don't have the knowledge base of an astrophysicist. I can zoom into particles, see things to such a small level that years ago we could only dimly comprehend.

I can glimpse rare animal species, from all the environments of the world, from the deepest oceans, to rare fragile rain-forests. I can glimpse birds that are hard to capture, I can glimpse at all kinds of lions, tigers, pumas, panthers, majestic creatures. Strange new species are discovered, and you can look endlessly at pictures of amazing jellyfish.

I can see beautiful nature shots that calm my soul, rare phenomena that years ago only a few people would see. I can see lightning frozen, strange cloud formations, sunsets.

I can see artists which you'd have to travel all over the world to see. I have access to all sorts of art criticism to help me comprehend why a certain artist is brilliant within the artworld.

I can see intimate photography of the human body, or even just frozen expressions or postures that show us so much. They watch babies to the microseconds, we now study facial expressions that could have predicted Clinton's downfall, his expression of "I'm a naughty boy with my hand caught in the cookie jar, and you're going to like me anyway". There are exhibits of sliced up bodies that have rubberized, we can see into the human form.

There are blogs of every kind, all the mental disorders, spiritual, artistic, and thus we can enter subjectively into all kinds of experience that was hitherto remote.

Because of the flow of information, we can watch people eat all kinds of bizarre things, and in New York City anyway, you can sample much of the world's cuisine. You can get recipes for all the world's cuisine, spices not associated with certain continents, are now available there.

I can break down game film of any major sport. I can get all kinds of analysis of politics, history, literary history. I can read all kinds of generas of writing. I can watch a million movies, listen to 95% of the available music in the history of music. I can trace current memes. I can look at the most popular photo of the day on the internet. I can read all kinds of evolving questions.

It's not everything. There is stuff that's not there, questions that are not answers. I still have to live my life, makes sense of it all, determine my own vectors, make my own values and goals, though society suggests and influences many. I have years of conditioning by teachers, parents, relatives, authors and friends. It helps me to make sense of this expanding consciousness.

There's a kind of excess of information and knowledge. There are too many choices, too many ideas, too much to learn, process and assimilate. We develop filters, and attention has become the prime commodity. The big question is how are we going to direct our consciousness?

Buddhism has finally spread to the west recently. When you don't try to conquer people with ideas, the ideas spread slower. That is why Buddhism has taken it's time to come to the new world, to the west, even to the old world. In the old days you probably had only one sect to choose from, but now we have rather extensive knowledge about all the sects of all the religions. Now there is open source Buddhism, an Occupy Buddhism movement. I'm a Buddhist, but the same can be said for every religion.

In this wilderness of preferences, taste, personality, this is also no authority beyond what somehow influences us. This can be studied, and there are many manipulators, twisters, tail waggers, influence peddlers, taste makers.

All the basic plots to stories have been mapped out. As we see this bombardment of information, media and games, we develop the savvy of critics. You can be a food critic on Yelp. You can review movies and books, you can review anything. There are farms where people write sponsored reviews for products, in the hopes that people's opinions can be swayed, manipulated.

It is all leading to a new kind of consciousness, one we've never seen before. This will inevitably lead to growing pains, mistakes, and drifting into the dark side, or the arena of the unwell. As with the yin and yang of good and bad, there will also be greatness.

It's a jungle out there

(Source Derek Poff)

I've been watching Monk, and the theme song has kind of gotten under my skin:

It's a jungle out there
Disorder and confusion everywhere
No one seems to care
Well I do
Hey, who's in charge here?
It's a jungle out there
Poison in the very air we breathe
Do you know what's in the water that you drink?
Well I do, and it's amazing
People think I'm crazy, 'cause I worry all the time
If you paid attention, you'd be worried too
You better pay attention
Or this world we love so much might just kill you
I could be wrong now, but I don't think so
It's a jungle out there

The phrase "Hey, who's in charge here," is pregnant with meaning. Is it failure of leadership? Is it a reference to the death of theism? Is it an object relation statement--what's the internalized authority figure doing?

I was reading an essay (The Best Buddhist Writing 2012) by Bhikkhu Bodhi, in which he says we're destroying things, and that the solution is to take a larger view of things. I get that same feeling from the song by Randy Newman.

Paying attention is a kind of way of saying mindfulness. Monk has a kind of attention to detail. This stands out because one assistant is played in a not so smart way.

There are often Buddha statues in the background and his therapist gets Buddhist pillows, so there are oblique visual references to Buddhism. It is after all, set on the west coast where Buddhism has a greater influence.

The best way I know how to improve your capacity to pay attention is through meditation. That and developing the intention to be mindful, which is easily forgotten when you're flooded with emotion.

Teachers

In the story "Teachers" by Francesca Hampton, from her book Buddha on a Midnight Sea - Short Stories we get the story of Sherab, who is a cook in a monastery. One day a crazy westerner shows up, he's probably got Schizophrenia, paranoid type, and the cook tries to befriend him. At one point the cook does the Chenzerig sadhana for the fellow, while he's sleeping.

I take interest in that sadhana because it was one I was considering. If I get ordained, I don't know if I want to take that sadhana or not. It was the first connection I felt towards the archetypal Buddhas. My darling partner bought me a tanka of it, the detail is above in the photo.

Sometimes I stair at it, as a kind of short practice, and I've tried to memorize the color patterns to the heads above, looking in the ten directions so they see all suffering.

I prefer the name Avalokita, which is an abbreviation.

Now this is Buddhist fiction, it goes to the very heart of it. I liked this story a lot.

Buddha on Midnight Sea

"Buddha on Midnight Sea" is the first story in Francesca Hampton's collection of the same name. It's about a man who suffers romantic disappointment, and thinking about vikings who go out to sea to die, he paddled out to sea.

My first thought was Old Man and the Sea, the Hemingway story. What I remember of that story was how revolted I was when fish ate up the big catch he got.

Men are so fragile in a way, I think its the yang of all the bravery stuff. He was disconnected, he went back to work and someone treated him like he didn't work there, and the nephew he sold the business to, brushed him off. It makes me cry to think how unconnected we can get at times. It's really our responsibility to connect with others, to nurture and tend to relationships.

After long ordeals, the main character of the story has a kind of spiritual awakening. It doesn't feel programatic, and in a way it's kind of played down. There are not quotes or headlines to it.

I read a story where someone had the wrong religious experience, like a Protestant who had a Catholic vision. I've always thought it would be interesting to get the wrong spiritual awakening, not the one you expected yourself to have.

When he's stuck in the ocean, I thought about that movie where the scuba divers were left, and nobody came to pick them up and they died. I yearn to be out in that desolate wilderness, but am also very afraid of it.

I won't spoil the end for people who haven't read it.

Meditation today

I haven't meditated in a while. I sat today with my partner in front of our shrine, with incense lit. It was a pretty dreamy meditation, my mind launches projects. I am better now at not berating myself for where my mind is, and comforted myself with the thought that I was doing something now to work in a positive way. What should I expect, I've not been meditating. It's great to tune in and begin the work again, whatever comes up. I don't want to be a stranger to myself. I noted the doubt, that this was to small an effort, didn't try to counteract it, except to not buy into that thought. I tried to not get fascinated with my thoughts, even though the newfound mindfulness in meditation made life more interesting. I am not meditating to interest myself, but for the benefit of everyone. When I came back to myself and the task at hand, I just gently and kindly returned to the breath. I accepted the leg discomfort, told myself the meditation would be over soon anyway, just sit still. The leg discomfort is just a weird kind of resistance, and I know what pains to listen to and what pains to ignore. At one point, I realized that I hadn't really committed to doing mindfulness of breathing and I asked myself gently to commit to the task at hand. I reminded myself that I'm doing this for everyone, everything. At the end, I felt and observed the fruits of my effort.

Buddhist Fiction

(Source)

I read on Buddhist Fiction Blog that Francesca Hampton was going to answer questions about her new book Buddha on a Midnight Sea - Short Stories, which I note is only $5 in the kindle version. I didn't see that, and got a hard copy. I'm going to read it some today.

The first question on the Buddhist Fiction Blog, was what is Buddhist fiction? You can read her answer in her preface to the book on her website, and in the blog, following the links I've put up.

My answer to the question is it's just fiction with Buddhist themes. If everything is a story, then a Buddhist story has certain themes like the Buddha's teaching, struggles to practice Buddhism, etc. The writer, or the characters, or the themes can be Buddhist. It seems Francesca Hampton is a Buddhist, and her characters are Buddhists, and she writes with Buddhist themes. It's not pure, there could be other themes, characters, and a writer could not be a Buddhist but write about Buddhist themes or include Buddhist influenced characters. The cannon of Buddhist fiction will tend to include a higher preponderance of these themes, characters and writers. I would also say it includes certain transcendental science fiction.

The emergence of Buddhist Fiction in the English language parallels the growth of Buddhism in the west. More and more people are converting and more and more people are sympathetic and curious about Buddhism. I can't prove it, but I think it's the fastest growing religion in the west.

Which begs the question, what took it so long? Christianity and Islam spread rather quickly. Is there something about Buddhism that made it spread slower? (Here I leave Francesca Hampton and her book, and I will report back in here later with more thoughts.)

I think coming from Japan isn't easy because there is a strong isolationist streak in Japan, up to World War 2. In the book I reviewed recently, a Zen student talks about how school children always say "foreigner" when they see him. But when he visits many years later, they no longer say that. We are living in a less isolated world.

Coming from Tibet, Buddhism spread in 1959, when China invaded Tibet. If you look at the recent Vajrayana social media guidelines, you see that it's pretty secretive. In a way, you don't want to spill to the entire universe the most intimate teachings of your private and personal guru.

On the one hand, some of the teachings, if you get them too soon, could not be ready to be used, and could easily be misused. Sangharakshita talks about spiritual indigestion, from reading too many rich teachings that you can't put into practice.

On the other hand, it's the way the world works. You can't get training in something unless you pay your dues. Like sitting outside a Zen monastery for 3 days, or developing a relationship with your guru (and out of pure gratitude, you give them money). It's a kind of way of keeping the business going by supporting the teachers, which isn't to be taken lightly. In a way the Tibetan system is great for preserving the teachings, as their diaspora has proven out. But it's also a kind of way of saying, this is really precious to me. I don't want you to treat it lightly. Like trying to get kids to take something seriously, or leave it alone.

There's a new kind of movement though, where people are speaking out, it's a kind of open source dharma. Where the information is shared, and the practitioner decides what they can or can't use. This may or may not be betraying a tradition, and may or may not be good for practitioners. You could see Daniel Ingram's proclaiming to be an Arhant as obvious proof that he wasn't, or you could see it as encouragement that it can be done, to make enlightenment possible.

(Sangharakshita wants order members to focus less on themselves and more on the movement, for the good of the dharma, to enact the bodhisattva ideal, and inspire through that kind of kindness and generosity.)

In the TBC, which I've chosen to seek ordination, there are strains of the old model, but there are also strains of the opposite, like Free Buddhist Audio. And yet, there are talks on FBA that only order members can listen to. FBA is surprising frank with Sangharakshita transcripts of seminars, I read once him saying, "remove that from the public transcript" and it wasn't. Those are the unedited ones. One wonders if that will last. There are people in the movement who want more transparency, and there are some that are more secretive. It's like herding cats to try and control all the order members. What connects them all is their understanding of the Dharma based in the principles Sangharakshita has laid out.

But I digress. My original question was, is there something about Buddhism that prevented it from spreading as fast as Christianity and Islam? And I think the answer is yes; It's built more on personal relationships, less on a kind of missionary and procreating zeal that preaches at people. It's not about spreading it at any cost. Buddhism is careful, which is another way of saying mindful. And I think that's why it's so popular, up and coming and apropos for the world we currently live in. It's a sleek meme that really does improve on past programming. It's a bug fix for many, an upgrade.

This is also why there are more and more anti-Buddhism statements by nervous people of other faiths. Why we elected our first Buddhist senator in the USA, (though she considers herself a non-practicing Buddhist). Why Brit Hume attacked Tiger Woods, implying only Christianity could save Tiger. I use the word "attack", because that's what it feels like when someone implies someone has the wrong religious perspective, in our multicultural society. Brit Hume could have spoken more personally about how he used Christianity to cope with the death of his son, and that would have been more honest and interesting. It just points out the abrahamic presumption in the west.

On the other hand, I'm not afraid of blasphemy. I don't want to go around pointing out Buddhist negativity. Spirituality is a choice, and only the individual can control that, no group, society or family can control individual choice, as much as they try to influence it. And because we supposedly have religious freedom in the USA, Buddhism will continue to grow. (BTW I predicted at the beginning of the season that San Francisco would win the superbowl, even though I'm a Jets fan.) Another book on my pile is How the Swans Came to the Lake.

So onto reading some Buddhist fiction.

A Straight Road with 99 Curves

(Source)

Gregory Shepherd has kindly shared his spiritual journey with us in A Straight Road with 99 Curves: Coming of Age on the Path of Zen.

It's hard to develop the frisson you need to write a review, with a memoir, because it's his account of his personal experience. If you agree with a book, then you're just doing a summary of a book in the review. Perhaps it's an example of a trend you want to reinforce. I like hearing about the spiritual journey, so that's what I want to reinforce.

I like memoirs. I was interested in Sheppard's experience. He had the same lack of connections to help him through a difficult period in his meditation practice, though he might not put it that way. He explored, but was repulsed by another sangha's leader and his successor, and then eventually came back to Zen in midlife. A fascinating journey.

resisting reality

(The above photo is Rasheed Wallace, telling the ref that the player missed his free throw because it was a bad call. He shouted "Ball Don't Lie" many times, and got a technical foul, which hurt his team, but it was an interesting cultural moment for Knicks fans. Not exactly the point I'm trying to make, but close enough.)

I went to the DMV yesterday, and I asked myself what the resistance was, instead of focusing on my resistance, adding fuel to it. I even asked the person who helped me. He said the DMV was a nightmare in the 70's but that now it was pretty streamlined.

You see it all the time. I was watching Freaks and Geeks the other day, and one teen was lamenting, "why are men like that?!" Well, that one was, the one you wanted not to be like that.

You see it all the time--resisting reality. I have a friend who is resisting the end of his marriage.

When you resist reality, you put yourself in an awkward position.

How do you accept reality? That's not so easy. It's really a matter of accepting the fact that things are not going your way. Sometimes we get on a run, things are going our way. But that just builds up the expectation that they will keep going our way.

I'm not so proud of my internal momentum to resist the DMV, but I was relieved there's a part of me that could see it, and was curious about why I was resisting it. I hope I am committed to seeing things the way they are.

I think part of why we resist is that we can build a world based on what we hope for. We actually will certain things to happen. But there are limits to that. In a way it's a balance, trying to will the world we want, and accepting what's really happening. If you're too accepting, you become passive and accept what doesn't necessarily have to be. If you're too willful, you fight reality too much, and get quite disappointed.

Shoes Outside The Door (Book Review)

(source: http://mentalalchemy.tumblr.com/post/40676959937/internettastetest-untitled)

Shoes Outside The Door (Book Review)

The photo above captures something about the split in idealism about the spiritual life (bottom), and what it's really like (top). Buddhism is about seeing how things really are. Disillusionment is good, you are taking your blinders off. You can always recover your true motivation if it's been hijacked by illusions. Maybe the top one is more beautiful because it is more true. We need our ideals to move us forward, but they are just carrots, and they can mislead us when reality doesn't jive with it.

This book made me think of a lot of things, it's about complications, multiple viewpoints, and displays a rich reality about many thing, and my review will in some ways mirror it's messy inclusiveness.

Michael Downing is the author of many books, and is on the faculty of Tufts. Shoes Outside the Door: Desire, Devotion, and Excess at San Francisco Zen Centerwas published in 2001, and has 385 pages, without footnotes, or index.

Through tape recorded interviews, Downing puts together a portrait of a sangha, that includes a meteoric rise through a charismatic but flawed leader Richard Baker at the San Francisco Zen Center. Other teachers are discussed, including Reb Anderson. At the beginning, the writing style is too much tilted towards a teaser, to my taste, but soon enough he's into the story, or setting the background and conditions for the 1983 resignation of Richard Baker, and the aftermath. In a way that's a focus point in the book, but when I read it I'm also thinking about developing a sangha, and Zen culture. I have seen the movie about Edward Espe Brown, How to Cook Your Life. He's famous for his cookbook, which the story mentioned he only got 20% of profits, the rest going to the center. (I reviewed the movie.)

At the heart of the story is the life of Shunryu Suzuki, who's lectures Zen Mind, Beginners Mind is a classic. I've read it many times, and will reread again. My memory of it is to try and be present in the moment by not thinking so much, but by just bringing a beginner's mind to things. I struggle with the anti-thinking way Zen comes off. Thinking is very important, and as my teacher says, you transcending thinking by pushing through and developing thinking, not by avoiding it. My fear is this Zen teachings sometimes subtly suggest avoiding thinking instead of going through and transcending thinking. Here is a quote from the ZMBM:

In Japan we have the phrase shoshin, which means "beginner's mind." The goal of practice is always to keep our beginner's mind. Suppose you recite the Prajna Paramita Sutra only once. It might be a very good recitation. But what would happen to you if you recited it twice, three times, four times, or more? You might easily lose your original attitude towards it. The same thing will happen in your other Zen practices. For a while you will keep your beginner's mind, but if you continue to practice one, two, three years or more, although you may improve some, you are liable to lose the limitless meaning of original mind.

When I read that this book was from recordings an obscure disciple made, who died of cancer, I thought of Suvarnaprabha, who has a cancer blog.

Shunryu Suzuki's own son inherited his temple back in Japan, and he worried this was not good for Zen. Transmission was essentially about families, not necessarily about the Dharma. Suzuki died in 1971.

Dainin Katagiri is included in this story. I read a book by one of his disciples about him, Dosho Port, who has a good blog.

Gary Snyder is also someone interviewed for the book. He is a treasure of a poet, including No Nature: New and Selected Poems. Also Philip Whalen is part of the story and many others, who I need to look into.

The journalist, just trying to understand what is going on, is a familiar kind of Buddhist account. One strand of this book reminded me of The Buddha from Brooklyn: A Tale of Spiritual Seduction, about a charismatic teacher that was recognized as a Tulku.

The book is about a bunch of people who sought to practice Zen Buddhism in San Fran from 1960's to 2000. The stories of how people came, how they were treated, what their experience was, what made them move on, is fascinating.

The was well researched, well written, and it's a compelling story. It's sketchy about administration, there's a lot of general talk, but that's part of administration. You're never at a meeting in the book, but you meet people who never want to go to a meeting again. Sitting in on a meeting might be boring. The running of the center was a major part of the narrative. Mostly you feel there is objectivity, but when the writer pipes in, you feel like it's good to get to know him a little too. In a way this was like a soap opera, with rich vivid characters whom you became interested in. Downing isn't a believer, but he he's sympathetic enough. He never actually states what he believes in, which makes him a little Baker-like. At times something outrageous suggests a belief, but he never formulates it. Perhaps he didn't want to insert himself into the story more.

Also fascinating was how the 3 different centers worked together, the layers of administration, and the businesses that supported it. I think of the right livelihood business in the TBC. I think of Housings Work, Inc.'s book store, and thrift shops. I'm fascinated by these interlocking institutions that had a spiritual base to them. It's too bad, most of them in SFZC were sold off.

Richard Baker ended up using transmission as a carrot to get away with all kinds of shenanigans  which is surprising for a so-called spiritual teacher. It calls into mind questions about trasmission.

Suzuki's son, who was consulted at times, suggested that the teacher never run the place, and not have money, and just focus on teaching the students. Baker was a rain maker, a visionary, and a teacher. I've always thought a charismatic but flawed leader must be the one to start up a center. Is anyone not flawed? Life is messy business. I knew someone who worked for a visionary once, and she found it very tedious at times.

After Baker resigned, the question became "why did we tolerate all that." Literal mindedness and not hearing your own voice led to people being conned.

Richard Baker is compared to Chogyam Trungpa. Some say he was more honest because he didn't hide anything, the way Baker did. Others say Trungpa was more wild, than was possible in the confines of a Zen tradition. (I reviewed a movie about Trungpa.) It's especially apt when Baker takes the wife of a major patron as a lover, and holds her hands at a huge conference. That is the beginning of his downfall and people wonder if he was sabotaging things by acting that way. His narrative is mostly dismissed in the whole book, or trotted out to show how unthoughtful he was. If there's one point where the writer's ideas come through it's in his portrayal of Baker.

I've never met Baker, and I don't necessarily like him, but direct charisma is missing in the narrative. He discusses a few meetings with him, and he paints him as a materialistic guy who liked the finer things, and liked to run with the rich and famous people, who donated money or attention. Jerry Brown hangs out a lot at the Zen Center, but he doesn't meditate. Baker is supposed to walk to Tassajara from SF, as a kind of punishment for what he did, to refind himself, but he took a detour and went to Disney with Linda Ronstadt. That's probably the weirdest thing about Richard Baker to me. I'd love to sit sesshin with him. If I come across free talks, I'd listen to one, or at least start one to see if it was something I want to listen to.

My problem with Zen is that it filters Buddhism through a foreign culture. Don't get me wrong, I love Japan, and find it a lovely country, which I could study endlessly. If I want to chant in a foreign language, I want it to be Pali or Sanskrit. Not Japanese. The historical Buddha was never in Japan. I think it's cool that Japan is a Buddhist country, but I don't think that in America we have to do things necessarily the way the Japanese do. Maybe we could develop an American Buddhism. Maybe we can find out own way, inspired by Japan, Tibet, India, Sikkim, Thailand, and all the great Buddhist countries, but still not just adopting another culture under the guise that it's Buddhist. I prefer to practice essential Buddhism, not cultural Buddhism. Buddhism passes through many cultures, and in America, we can create our own Buddhist culture. Buddhism has a sense that it will coalesce with circumstances. At least make it a western Buddhism for me. That is what I love about the TBC. Even though it's Victorian English at times, that's not so foreign to me. And I can chant things in English. I also chant things in Pali and Sanskrit, which is closer to the Buddha, though still removed. My mind revolts at chanting in Japanese. Since I wrote that, I should try it, I probably won't mind it at all. I do like chanting.

There's a long chapter on Greens, a restaurant my father and stepmother took me to many years ago, and got me the Somerville cookbook: Everyday Greens: Home Cooking from Greens, the Celebrated Vegetarian Restaurant. It's a beautiful, if pricey restaurant, with an interesting and rich history, which is told a little in the book. It has good views and is in an interesting development. My stepmother and father were pretty cool to pick that as something to do when I was visiting out there. They are so kind.

Literal thinking of lineage is a dead end; Inspiration and relationships are what's important. In the book there's a real question whether Reb got a full transmission, but I guess I feel "who cares". The way the book portrays lineage, it's just about maintaining and expanding power, not about deep practice and heart connections.

So it's hard to have a general feeling about the whole book, except it stirred up a lot for me, and I liked it more than I thought I would, approaching the book. I'd recommend reading it if you're interested in sangha politics and the history of SFZC.

A big question when reading a book for me is: Where does this book lead me next, what should my next book be? Do I read the book about Buddhism in America How the Swans Came to the Lake? Do I read Sex and the Spiritual Teacher: Why It Happens, When It's a Problem, and What We All Can Do? I think what I really want to read is Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, which I already have. That contains some of the positive spiritual force that brought about what is coined as the first buddhist monastery in north america. I want to read Philip Whalen, he goes on my poetry list. I think I'll quick polish off a memoir by someone who grew up at Green Gulch from 3-7. This book suggests a lot of other books.

(They say you can't quote wikipedia in an academic research article, but this isn't an academic research article. I know that it's contents are open source, and you can go on line today and change the contents, but someone will turn around and just change it back quickly. I think it's the mother of all wiki. And I link sometimes in case someone is interested in source material, or just want to follow that interest. Linear narratives are so over with.)

Here is hyperlink an account of a visit to the SF Zen Center. An acquaintance had an interesting experience, which he wrote about.

There were a lot of interesting views about what happened in this multi-determined book, but here is a little of the author's voice, which is used very sparingly. Supposedly often in the TBC the founder of a center is autocratic, and things are more democratic after they leave. The author is into hearing everyone's voice, so naturally he's not like Richard, at least in creating this work. Is someone who impresses their will on others oppressive, or they're just a kind of Ayn Rand superman? To a certain extent, the author weighs in by including many voices, which makes for a great narrative.

End: Here is hyperlink an account of a visit to the SF Zen Center. An acquaintance had an interesting experience, which he wrote about.

On secular mindfulness

Maitreyabandhu thinks you can't take mindfulness out of Buddhism.

Book Review: Lust for Enlightenment

In a previous post, I discussed sexuality through the prism of current American Buddhism and the Christianity presumptions of America, and used the catch phrase "eyes wide open" to really look at human sexuality in it's positive and negative potential. So I went looking for a book about Buddhism and sexuality. Lust for Enlightenment is positive or neutral towards sexuality, though it acknowledges there's a puritain strain of Buddhism, and that the Buddha was not longer interested in sexuality once he was enlightened.

John Stevens has been reviewed here earlier for his Japanese Buddhist erotica, which was a more recent book than Lust for Enlightenment: Buddhism and Sex, which came out in 1990, 23 years ago. In this 5 chapter book with 141 pages, John Stevens looks at sexuality through the history and mythology of Buddhism. He is a professor at Tohoku Fukushi University in Japan of Buddhist studies and is my mother's age.

The first chapter is about the Buddha, and includes his enlightenment where he transcends sexuality. It's a sexed up account, until he is enlightened, and then he's beyond temptation.

One might note he sees the Buddha as staunchly heterosexual, which he insists a few times, without proof or cites. Every time he insisted, my mind, trained in many graduate schools, shouted out, "heterosexual presumption!" In fact the book deals with homosexuality in the last pages of the book, where he noted it could be quite common at times.

In the second chapter Stevens discusses the "puritain elders" who say to try and extinguish passions in favor of non-attachment. People are persuaded to be celibate. Meditation on the loathsomeness of the body is seen as a method for calming the passions. See the body as a bag of blood, pus and filth. Also imagine the decay of a dead body. (The author identifies the voice as "puritain Buddha".) I used to have trouble sustaining the image of seeing someone throughout the life cycle, but I'm getting better and better at not reassembling the body into voluptuousness.

Chapter two is a ribald tale where for every monk's transgression, but Buddha makes a rule against such and such. Every, and I mean every, scenario is considered, and forbidden for the monks by the Buddha. This section is derived from the vinaya, which might be a fun read in terms of what people did to bring about such and such a rule. It's a kind of Starr Report; under the pretext of condemning actions, it titillates. Wild times in ancient India with salacious details. I read them out to my girlfriend because they were pretty shocking at times.

Reading what I first read in Vishvapani's book on the Buddha, that the Buddha said it would be better to stick your penis into a snake's mouth, than into a woman, I find that pretty shocking.

My complaint about chapter 2, is I don't know why he occasionally inserts more modern examples into the ancient Pali sanskrit examples. I would have preferred a historical order. But I also admire that he's read all this stuff and collected all these stories into one place.

Stevens is good at culling from the buddhist tradition sexuality, though he doesn't repeat the suggestion he had in his last book, that the Buddha has sex with the rice milk woman. He quotes a lot of primary texts from the Pali Cannon

In chapter 3 he makes the common mistake to see Vimalakirti as a "layman". Sangharakshita deftly puts that silliness to bed in his book about the Vimalakirti Nirdesa, called Inconceivable Emancipation, which is one of his best books about a text. The whole book is about how silly the different dualism of Mahayana and Hinayana are, so to say Vimalakirti is a lay buddhist is to kind of not get the whole text's point.

Stevens uses good footnotes, and he refers to a literature I'm not familiar with. But there were key Buddhist quotes that could be controversial, and called to mind Bodhipaksa's wedsite Fake Buddhist Quotes. He combines the Buddha's last two statements into one statement, for one thing.

Chapter 3 continues on into Tantra, Cha'n and Zen tradition, as does chapter 4. Which brings to mind something a friend said. Someone quoted another order member to support their position, to which my friend said, "you can find an order member who believes in everything." Just because there were times when it was OK to be a Buddhist monk and be very sexual, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. If you are suffering under a repressive idea of sexuality, then this book might be a kind of Kinsey report for you. And I want to know what the tradition says.

Through the countless examples you see varying tolerance to sexuality by society, and how sexuality bubbles over despite "spiritual" desires. At times the guru gains status, at others he loses it.

He also mentions that in quite a few of the sexual practices, the man is not supposed to come.

Chapter 5 is about marriage, and has many examples of various configurations of polyamory, and examples of love and fidelity. You can find statements suggesting monogamy is the best. Here as in other places takes a kind of bookish sociology--what can be found out in books about a buddhist society of the past?

To refrain from sexual misconduct can be interpreted narrowly, a point to chastity, or it can be interpreted widely, and point to the potential joys, and just don't do anything extreme that hurts someone or yourself. Deceit is seen as the unskillful act. Lust, if it is pure, can be a path towards enlightenment, according to Stevens. How to purify lust, he does not really say.

I get the sense that Stevens is interested in his subject, but he doesn't share any instruction in spiritualizing sexuality that he has gotten. All the books that purport to instruct along those lines are out of print, and cost a fortune used.

Stevens is mostly an expert on the Japanese tradition, and he doesn't bring much beyond reporting things. The only implied perspective in the narrative is that collecting and reporting all this stuff is a worthy project. I don't think I was harmed by it. Buddhist culture is very diverse. I bet there existed traditions within all the major religions to spiritualize sexuality.

Writing a book isn't easy, and this one isn't bad for a trail blazer. To my knowledge it's the first English language book on sexuality in buddhism. I don't know why it's so natural to criticize. Listen to sports radio and you mostly hear about how people made mistakes. Teams win sometimes, and then it comes to testosterone filled taunting of the opponents fan base, not a real joy in success. So, avoiding that spirit, I wish to say that while I have these nit picky things to say, it's out of joy in the book that I comment, and that I'm a work in progress, who has a lot of work to do.

Now to read a book about the negative side of sexuality: Shoes Outside the Door: Desire, Devotion, and Excess at San Francisco Zen Center

mushroom model?

From Subhuti's latest paper: 

"...there can be an inappropriate over-concern with calibrating one's attainments and pronouncing claims to Stream Entry or the like. Sangharakshita goes so far as to say that it is not helpful, or even strictly correct, to speak of oneself as a bodhisattva: better to think of 'participating' in 'the Bodhisattva' or allowing what appears as that supra-personal force or energy to work through one. Even what has been said here about Sangharakshita's own experience of himself as an impersonal force or reflection that it was as though the Order and movement have been founded through him should not lead us to speculate about where to place him on this or that spiritual scale. He is simply giving a kind of poetic expression to his impression of what had happened to him. He felt it was as if a consciousness greater than his own was working through him."


The quote stands on it's own, but I have some musings this morning.

Ingram has the idea that if we talk about people's attainments, then others will go away, and you can't have as big of a sangha. Teachers purposely obscure where everyone is, so that it can include people who aren't making much progress or are real beginners. He calls this the mushroom model because it seems to not need the light of enlightenment, or maybe even spiritual progress.

Here, another reason is put forward for avoiding "over-concern for attainments". Talking about attainments can be an "over-concern" mostly because when you open up to conditionality, then you realize your ego is so interconnected, that in a way it's not you who has attained things. There's a larger transcendental force, a supra-personal force that pulls one.

So it seems his objection is that it's a kind of gramar mistake. That "you" ceases to be the interesting or important thing. So to focus just on me myself and mine, in a way, speaks to a person not having those experiences they claim to have because their experience would change to a more external locus of control. Or maybe the experience was a glimpse that didn't last.

Now there can be talk about attainment, he doesn't say you can't talk about your experience with your spiritual friends.

But what if "bragging" about one's attainment helps attract people to the Dharma. It might attract people in the wrong way, though skillful means are used throughout the tradition to try to beckon people towards the spiritual life. I can't help but think about the Lotus Sutra, where the "father" buddha entices the children out of the burning building with toys. And then when they get outside the toys aren't what people think they were going to be, but they are excellently good things anyway.

The idea that you can actually do something, might appeal to people who see enlightenment as too remote, too cold and unemotional. Not that you don't have emotions, but you're not reactive, and perhaps it scares people to think someone could be so clear and creative. People who are further on the path can be quite challenging.

Perhaps people don't understand enlightenment and think of it as being like Spock, which is Gene Roddenberry's idea of enlightenment--very logical. Of course Spock was half human, so he had more of a war with his emotions, more than full vulcans do. While Spock is a wonderful character, who points out the importance of integrating emotions and reason, he's not what I see as enlightenment. 

There are other misconceptions. Perhaps one misconception is that nothing will change, and that you won't feel the supra-personal force. I wonder at someone who would claim to be an arhant, and not have to go full force into a life of Dharma. I think if I became enlightened, I would have to work full time for the good of the Dharma. But maybe that's just me. Perhaps there are personalities who can become enlightened, and can then work beyond what is necessary. 

Why is it OK for David Smith to rake leaves and garden, and not OK for Daniel Ingram to be an ER doctor? I don't think I'm prepared to say if you become enlightened, then you will quit work beyond sustenance.  One would minimize it, and work to move into more supportive conditions, and devote time to the Dharma. I read a fascinating article that Ingram has people stay in his shed and do retreats, and he checks in on them. He's trying to get other people to be enlightened. And his doctor income affords him some quiet remote land in support of that project. I also note that Ingram gives his book away, unlike the Dali Lama, Sangharakshita, Thich Nhat Hanh, etc... Of course Sangharakshita gives away his poor selling and out of print books, as do other teachers. And the money he does get he gives to Dharma causes, like building sanghas and charity work. Anyway, it's hard to judge how generous someone is from a distance, so actually that works in Ingram's favor, because while he's an ER doctor, I don't really know how hard he works for the good of the Dharma. Which makes me really suspicious of the people who just dismiss him. Again, I guess they think it's a kind of gramar mistake to talk about personal attainments, or a mistake in thinking what skillful means one can employ.

It's important to talk with our close friends about our spiritual experiences, so I want to stay far away from any taboo that says you can't talk about your experiences.

I would also point out that Sangharakshita is not an egalitarian. He believes in the spiritual hierarchy. It's not like he denies there are differences, in fact he thinks it is important to see them. To have vertical and horizontal friendships, so to speak.

So, I don't think that just because a sangha has a culture of not "bragging" about attainments, that it subscribes to the mushroom model. In fact to boil things down so cynically, might mean something. A sangha might see interconnectivity and altruism as more important, and focus on that, and keep the attainments more to a circle of close friends, not something for public consumption. 

You could further argue that not talking about attainments is a way of trying to build your sangha only, and not something spiritual, a worldly way of trying to gain power, but I think that's just too cynical. People choose to work in right livelihoods for low wages because the workplace is with friends. Not that you don't need to watch out for manipulation  You still have to think critically. 

If true Buddhist spirituality ruled the world, the world would be such a wonderful place. It would be a pureland. But I know that's not happening any time soon in America, and while it's nice to think about a pureland, it's good to be realistic about it. Building a sangha is the first step, realistic.

Which makes me wonder if America's rugged individualism is a factor holding us back in building sanghas. More traditional cultures are more community oriented. America has become fractured, alienated, isolated. Our relationships are more like two people on horseback, passing on the plains, than it is sitting around a campfire sharing a meal. Now we sit around our own TV's. My friend's wives don't make my friends feel like they can socialize with their friends in their own homes.

My son is friends with all kinds of children of diversity--racial, religious, cultural, linguistic, class. I happen to live in one of the most diverse areas in America, but I know that outside the city, people choose to live roughly amongst their own, what ever that means, and the suburbs of big cities are the most self segregating places in America. The game of tag before school seems to transcend all that, but I wonder as everyone goes off to their own high schools, what is going to happen, and they leave the integrating local elementary school. Diversity within the sangha is another thorny digression I don't want to go into now. Better end.

Restorative Justice

I'm wiping the tears from my eyes after reading this long and grizzly article.  It's about restorative justice.  “I had mistrust of the potential for people to be this amazing.”

Subhuti quote from last paper

"Some might argue that it is best to avoid all such metaphorical language and stick to the safe ground of pratītya-samutpāda. I personally have some sympathy with that point of view, because anything else offers hostages to eternalistic misunderstanding, which certainly grates on my own sensibilities. However, failing to offer more itself invites a nihilistic interpretation. Sangharakshita says that we need a 'transcendental object' towards which we can orient our lives. We need that because our most basic way of perceiving and understanding the world is in terms of subjects and objects – however relative and constructed the Dharma may have taught us to know them to be. We cannot but think of, and more importantly feel, the Dharma in terms of the most basic building blocks of our experience – until we are able directly to see their relative character for ourselves. In order to slip through the gap between eternalism and nihilism, we need both a willingness to think critically about what we say, so that we avoid taking it literally, and a preparedness to imagine a 'transcendental object'."

From his last paper "A Supra-personal Force"

Photo

Predicting the future

We underestimate how much we will change in the future. Buddhism, in a way, is about the idea that we can evolve towards enlightenment.

Here's a quote I liked in the NY Times summary of the article published in Science.

"When asked about their favorite band from a decade ago, respondents were typically willing to shell out $80 to attend a concert of the band today. But when they were asked about their current favorite band and how much they would be willing to spend to see the band’s concert in 10 years, the price went up to $129. Even though they realized that favorites from a decade ago like Creed or the Dixie Chicks have lost some of their luster, they apparently expect Coldplay and Rihanna to blaze on forever."

I thought about my cousins, who I lived with when they were 3 and 4:

"Dr. McAdams was reminded of a conversation with his 4-year-old daughter during the craze for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in the 1980s. When he told her they might not be her favorite thing one day, she refused to acknowledge the possibility. But later, in her 20s, she confessed to him that some part of her 4-year-old mind had realized he might be right."

So the point is we're not great at predicting where we're going to end up. I remember reading about a study about romantic partners. People described who they would be with, and then in the future they checked in and asked them to describe their partners, and they were usually wrong.

Anyway, some people balk at the idea that they can evolve into something better along the path to enlightenment. I fervently hope it. There's lots of room for improvement in me.

Book of the year

I've read a lot of books this year that were not published in 2012.

I just read Breath by Breath by Goldstein, which came out in 1998. I really enjoyed discovering Thomas Merton, who's been dead since 1968. Money, Sex, War, Karma by David Loy came out in 2008. That book was challenging in trying to connect current world issues to the Dharma, though I'm liberal too. I wonder what a book that transcends the dualities of American politics would look like. I don't like to pigeonhole things into the American political dualities, but I'm afraid I know my conservative friends well, and if they were Buddhist, they would dismiss the book based on politics, not Buddhism. There's a way to dialogue above the partisan fray. I also enjoyed Buddha Is As Buddha Does, because I was following up on the 7 paramitas. Lama Surya Das wrote a book I read just before I began to meditate, go on retreat, and whatnot, so he has a special place in my heart. For what ever reason I'm not interested in his latest book.

Some books are free. I just read Mastering The Core Teachings of the Buddha by Ingram, which came out in 2008. I thought it was awesome. When I got a present of Tricycle magazine from my most glorious lover, I downloaded their collection on addiction, which is pretty good, though I'm stumbling on the last essay, and put it down. I had to take them off my blogroll because they were infected with malware, but I love Tricycle. I've finally gotten a subscription, so I don't have to read it on retreats, when the ads are just too tantalizing for me. My beloved gave me a subscription. She is my amazing dakini, who helps me on the path.

I've found free version of books I've wanted to read, but haven't yet. The Visuddhimagga and Vimuttimagga are two of those books. These ancient classics on high on my to read list (which is not real). Giving the dharma away is a noble tradition, and you'd think more people would do that.

I'm partial to Windhorse books, but to be honest I haven't read many Windhorse books this year. Noble Friendship came out in 2004, as well as Living With Kindness, and Through Buddhist Eyes. Certainly last year was a banner year with Vishvapani's book on the Buddha, and On Reflection, which is the first Buddhist book I've read on reflection as a spiritual practice, instead of just reading someone's spiritual reflections.

Sailing The Worldly Winds  by Vajragupta did come out in 2012, and was the first ebook I got from Windhorse. I didn't really connect with that book so much, though that is, as always, possibly more of a comment on me. I think Vajragupta, like Lama Surya Das, focuses on writing beginner books, and to be honest, I think I've outgrown them. A really good one can simplify me back onto the basics, but that's a rare talent; People go twisting off onto so many different things. And they all come back to the same places, but I don't like beginners books that assume people are retarded. Or else they go slowly, as if you are retarded. 

I could be prickly and sensitive to people calling me stupid, so don't really see my feelings about beginners books anything more than just the blatherings of my subjective mind. Of course you could say that about anyone saying anything, but I'm honest enough to point that out about what I'm saying. Just because I know something basic, doesn't mean they're calling me stupid. I guess I just don't like the way they're trying to make it easier.

(I'd just like to note that I can use the word "retarded" because I used to work in special education. In general I don't like the way people use that word, and I can laugh and laugh at the Matt Damon character in There's Something About Charlie, when he says, "I love those goofy bastards." because it's so politically incorrect  Retardation ain't no joke, but sometimes these juicy words really do convey what you want to convey, so I'm going to allow my use of it this once. For the juice.)

Among the books that came out in 2012, I did enjoy Living Fully by Shyalpa Tenzin Rinpoche, and Patience by Allan Lokos. Both solid first books from different traditions. I give Shyalpa Tenzin Rinpoche best first buddhist book award for 2012. I looked at Lokos' pervious book and it's a daily meditations kind of thing, which is a buddhist book. In The Shadow of the Buddha by Matteo Pistono was a an important contribution to Tibetan culture and politics.

I probably read the least amount of Buddhist books in years, and that trend is growing. It's hard to concoct the intellectual frenzy that makes me feel a book is challenging me to practice. I have a lot to learn, though, so I'll try to be humble. There is the question whether you need to do much Dharma study, to progress as a Buddhist; It's quite possible you need none. Of course scholarship wasn't so much of a thing in the Buddha's times; he couldn't major in religious studies over at the local community college.

I'd like to also point out The Prisoner, transcendental science fiction, which is a kind of dharma book written in a different way. It was an interesting read.

There are bigger themes that I like in Buddhism:

1. How does Buddhism changes and adapt in American culture, in good and bad ways?

2. How does one apply the wisdom of the Dharma to modern problems?

3. What is Buddhist fiction?

4. What happens when we combine psychoanalysis with dharma?

I could go on and on, but onto the award.

This year, I will choose my first non-Windhorse book: The Best Buddhist Writing 2012 has the kind of title that makes you feel it's cheating. The 28 essays are diverse and deep. They provoke and challenge me to develop a deeper spiritual practice. So I'm going to say that's the best buddhist book, and lets just say every other one gets honorable mention into the past and into the future. 

Also my beloved gave me this book. She's be a fount of generosity. You could call it spiritual materialism, but she really gives from the heart, and I really appreciated the gifts. I thank the publishers that think my blog will somehow promote their products, because I'm surprised anyone reads this.

There were years when I read the The Best Stories of year 19XX, and the poetry ones. They are great ways to get great gobs of a thing you might like. My friend reads the science writing ones, and for a while read the erotic ones.

The essays in The Best Buddhist Writing 2012 were chosen by the editors of Shambhala Sun, which is another worthy buddhist magazine. They include essays from Tricycle, so they're fair in judging the essays. They don't just choose essays from their magazines. I wish they had put something by Sangharakshita.

So congratulations Shambhala Sun editors and Shyalpa Tenzin Rinpoche, this years winners. 

As I write this, I think I'm going to give out an award for female buddhist writing next year. I want to get more into the intersection of feminism and buddhism. I've read a lot of female writers, but it has to be said that it's a fairly masculine world, and I want to bring out more of the female writers next year.