Q&A #8

Disappointment, Part 3

—————————————————–

A Reader recently wrote:

—————————————————–

I think that one can only really take responsibility for their own attachments. We care about our friends, and it would be counterintuitive to just tell you to forget about it because it is his/her attachments that are at the heart of his/her problem. Clearly, part of the issue is your feelings about their feelings. Assuming that you have thought through a decision and came to the best decision for you, your friend really has the obligation to accept you. Love is more present in letting go of it. What your friend feels is possessive. You can only do your best to be honest about your decisions. Then, you have to accept your friends natural response. You can’t fix your friend. Just be honest. And then let it be.

I once had a similar situation. Only, I basically left in the middle of the night in anticipation of not facing a hard goodbye. I just left my portion of the remaining lease payment on the table and drove away. This is something that I regret having done. It was not until months later that we honestly talked and came to terms. Your friend needs to accept you for who you are and what you do. There is suffering in life, and that includes tearful goodbyes. Embrace what you both feel and let it be. Although Taoist, Lau Tsu once said something like, “If you want to shirk something, you must first allow it to expand.” This, to me, means that the solution to any difficulty is first in letting it truly manifest. Only in its true magnitude can it be settled. Hiding, burying, running, or even capitulating to avoid this thing you seek to shrink can only entrench it if you ask me.

I don’t think it is at all a matter of things not bothering us. I’ve never thought a Buddhist approach to be aimed at nihilistic vacuums inside a ethereal existence. Buddhism, as I try to discover it, aims at ontology, ignores metaphysics if it can help it, and helps in ways unique to each person. Do you think the Dali Lama is not bothered by the recent riots in Tibet? Of course he is. I can only imagine how hard it is for him to remember to work peacefully for peace.

I don’t have answer one for you. I only encourage you to be honest and open to how you feel and seek some measure of communication. I don’t think this path is about burying you heart.

A coworker asked me something that I would like to push forward in this thread. How is a Buddhist supposed to feel about what is happening in Darfur? How does one find equanimity in that? I’ve been stumped on that one. I still don’t know how to reply.

Michael

—————————————————–

My Response:

—————————————————–

I agree absolutely on your response to the original poster and won’t add to it.

Ah, the situation in Darfur. Tibet. Myanmar too.

There is suffering everywhere, no matter who you are. You should do what you can to reduce suffering, within your power and within the limits of your ability to do so. But what about a situation like Myanmar, where people are clamoring to send aid, but the government of Myanmar turns it away? Is there no way to help?

Talking about the problem won’t help a bit, and going to war only makes it worse. If talking or force won’t fix the problem, what will? It will be resolved in time, but many people don’t HAVE time.

Sorry, I don’t have an answer. I don’t know that anyone does.

Q&A #9

War! What is it Good For?

You guys have so many questions, and they just keep coming in‚Ķ fantastic! I’m going to continue doing nothing but questions and answers for at least the rest of this week. I think after that, I’m going to just devote one day every week to reader questions. If you have a question, I’d love to see it. I’ll answer them all, either for the group or privately if you prefer. Email me at dailybuddhism@gmail.com (don’t reply to this message with questions, I don’t always see those right away).

—————————————————–

A Reader recently wrote this as a comment on the website, in response to last week’s posting on disappointment, which led to the topic of Darfur and the value of war:

—————————————————–

Let me play devil’s advocate with you. I am clearly Buddhist in nearly every way that I try to approach my life. However, let me pose this to you. When you say that war makes things worse (which I generally do agree with), do you not conceded that there are times when we have to roll the hard six and act? I would personally have had a difficult time standing on the sidelines of, say, the US Civil war or WWII in the respect to ending Nazi aggression.

When my friend asks about Darfur it is from a very reactionary mindset. However, I can’t help but think that there are times when an obligation to confront injustice (realizing this is a dangerously relative judgment to make) is a decision rule of sorts. If I shouldn’t let a man take a beating on the corner by some thug (you wouldn’t pass that by without trying to help‚Ķ or would you?), why is it wrong or even not more compassionate to take an active part to end absolute injustice where we run out of negotiation options?

I know that we can only accept the world for what it is. I know that we must work peacefully in order to not further entrench war and violence. However, what do you do when a man enters your home and directly threatens your family? I assume you defend it with your life. So, why is it no less justified to take the extreme cases of injustice in the world—and where not other good choices remain—to take on a similar paradigm in defense of those who cannot defend themselves against no less a clear threat?

This is just a hard place for me to find acceptance. How do you think the Buddha would answer my above comments and questions?

You can see all comments on this post here: http://www.dailybuddhism.com/archives/67#comments

—————————————————–

My Response

—————————————————–

You have just managed to open up a major can of worms with that question. I was always told that it was a bad idea to discuss religion or politics. I manage to break the first half of that rule every day, so I guess it’s time to talk politics just for a little bit.

Now, I have to state up front, that I am an American, and my international friends have told me that Americans have a unique conception of power and violence. Although I think that’s a wide overgeneralization, I’ll grant that there is some truth in the idea that we have all been raised to accept violence to a certain extent. When I was in Japan, one of the most frequent topics that came up in discussion is that Americans are allowed to own guns; they all thought that was just insane and immoral. They were shocked to learn that I have never owned one while my father is a collector. I suspect they believed that we all walk around with pistols strapped to our belts like in the old western movies. My point is that violence is more or less acceptable according to one’s own culture. I think the majority of Americans were in support of going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq; whatever the long-term outcome or current opinion on the war, it seemed acceptable to the majority at the time. I’m not judging, just stating the fact.

I have to say Buddhism and politics don’t always mesh. Actually, they are a very difficult pairing indeed. Buddhists are extreme pacifists and politics often involve conflict. We’ve already talked about Tibet here; China basically just walked in and took over, the Tibetans didn’t offer much in the way of resistance.

But to get down to the meat of your question, would a serious Buddhist kill to stop an injustice?

No, I don’t think so.

In your example of the thug beating a helpless man on the street, a Buddhist would intervene- by separating the two, not with violence.

I think the best answer to this is to mention the Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire to protest the Vietnam War. They hurt no one but themselves, yet they also made a powerful political statement that did have a real effect.

Here’s the story:

http://www.quangduc.com/English/vnbuddhism/013quangduc.html

Here’s a VERY GRAPHIC photo (be warned):

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i265/rikkuayame/thichquangduc.jpg

No, I think non-violence is one of the most important and solemn ideas of Buddhism. In America, one of the strongest advocates for nonviolence was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Nobel Peace Price winner for 1964. Dr. King was not a Buddhist, but he understood Buddhism well. We have mentioned the monk Thich Nhat Hanh in the past. Thich Nhat Hanh was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1967… by Dr. King:

http://www.iamhome.org/mlkletter.htm

I’ll quote one line from the letter:

“Thich Nhat Hanh offers a way out of this nightmare, a solution acceptable to rational leaders. He has traveled the world, counseling statesmen, religious leaders, scholars and writers, and enlisting their support. His ideas for peace, if applied, would build a monument to ecumenism, to world brotherhood, to humanity.”

Q&A #10

Follow-up to “War”

I have more comments on yesterday’s War post. As expected, opinions are going both ways. I have two of them here for your consideration. I really don’t want to drag this topic out for too long in the emails, since I have a few older ones I need to cover soon. You can read the comments on War and make your own comments at the link below:

http://www.dailybuddhism.com/archives/68#comments

—————————————————–

A Reader recently wrote:

—————————————————–

“There is an account about a previous life of the Buddha, in which he was a navigator who went to sea with a group of five hundred people in search of a buried treasure. There was one man in this party who had very greedy thoughts and, in order to steal all the jewels for himself, was plotting to murder the five hundred. The bodhisattva (Shakyamuni Buddha in a previous life) was aware of this and thought that to let the situation develop was incorrect, as one man would kill five hundred. Therefore, he developed the very courageous thought to save the five hundred by killing this one man, willingly accepting upon himself the full responsibility of killing. If you are willing to accept having to be reborn in a hell in order to save others, you have a greatly courageous thought. Then you can engage in these acts, just as the Buddha himself did.

To protect your wife and child is a positive constructive act, but to harm the enemy is negative and destructive. You have to be willing to accept the consequences of both.”

Tsenzhab Serkong Rinpoche I, answering a similar question from one of his audience.

—————————————————–

And another Reader also wrote:

—————————————————–

Although I am deeply opposed to war, I am not advocating appeasement. It is often necessary to take a strong stand to counter unjust aggression… [But] war is violence and violence is unpredictable. Therefore, it is better to avoid it if possible and never to presume that we know beforehand whether the outcome of a particular war will be beneficial or not. The Dalai Lama

The taking of a human life is the ultimate wrong action no matter what path you chose. If it comes down to kill or be killed, I’m sorry to say your choice should be, death‚Ä®Just my interpretation of things; Mike.‚Ä®

—————————————————–

My Response

—————————————————–

I am not about to argue with the Dalai Lama or any Rinpoche. As I’ve said many times, Buddhism is very rational and considered, and practitioners are going to come to their own conclusions about these difficult topics. One Buddhist says ‚Äúthe good of the many outweighs ‚Ķ‚Äù and the other says, ‚Äúviolence is always bad‚Äù both are right from their own perspective. This openness to alternative viewpoints is (in my opinion) one of the most attractive traits of Buddhism over many other religions.

Q&A #11

—————————————————–

A Reader recently wrote:

—————————————————–

I was taught to meditate by my martial arts instructor many years ago. I meditate 4 times a week. I have never had a Buddhist instructor but listen to six Buddhist podcasts a week and read books dealing with Zen. I try to live my life by the Eightfold Path. Am I considered a Zen Buddhist if I am basically self-teaching myself?

—————————————————–

My Response

—————————————————–

I’d ask my Zen Master, but I don’t have one either. They’re bit hard to find here in Ohio.

🙂

A Zen “purist” would probably say no, you need a master to learn Zen, but I am not so sure that is really true. Remember, these old lineage traditions were mostly oral, passed down from generation to generation. With today’s literacy levels, modern multimedia materials, and such easy communication, things may be different today. You have more Buddhist material available at the touch of your fingers right this second than most monks could have ever hoped to access in their lifetimes. You also have the benefit of their distilled, cleaned-up and edited teachings to help you along the path.

Still, you and I have no individual master to teach us, and it is going to be an uphill battle because of that. Zen masters aren’t exactly common in this part of the world so we just have to do the best we can with what we have. I listen to several podcasts and read a lot as well, but I am in no way a master or even close to enlightenment. I have pretty serious university training on the subject, but I’ve never been a monk. I don’t even have a local sangha/church to attend around here. But Zen is my “flavor of choice” in Buddhism, and I do what I can to progress with it.

Will I achieve enlightenment on my own? Probably not, but it is theoretically possible, and at the very least I’ll be in a better position next time around.

If a real Zen Master wanders past your house, follow him, but it the meantime, keep up what you are doing.

Q&A #12

The Three Jewels include the Sangha

—————————————————–

A Reader recently wrote:

—————————————————–

Hi,‚Ä®I first wanted to thank you for your podcast, blog etc. I’ve just started listening etc. so you may have already covered this, but I thought I’d ask.‚Ä®How important is it to join with some kind of group/congregation/whatever within Buddhism? There are a few Buddhist centers in my area but I’m not so sure that I quite agree with what they teach. Should I join one anyway?

—————————————————–

My Response

—————————————————–

The technical term for what you are looking for is “sangha,” or “Buddhist community.”

Yet another of those many Buddhists “lists” is “The Three Jewels.” The three jewels are the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. You look to the Buddha as a great teacher and role model. You look to the Dharma (written and oral teachings) for rules, inspiration, stories, and experiences. You look to the Sangha for support, learning, and fellowship. So the classical Buddhist answer is yes, you should join a group.

On the other hand, here in the West, it’s often hard to find a group that fits you well. I think I’ve said before that I don’t care for the only group around here, so I don’t have a group either. With all the material available to you in books, videos, podcasts, Internet and other forms of media, there are plenty of opportunities to learn on your own. Is that enough for you? I cannot answer that.

That being said, you mention that there are a few centers near you. I’d recommend going to one of them and see if they are a good fit for you. If one doesn’t suit you, try another. If they all seem incompatible, then you’re on your own. But I would definitely give them a chance, since the ‚Äúclassical‚Äù Buddhists strongly recommend all of the ‚ÄúThree Jewels.‚Äù

Buddhist Symbology Part 2

The conch shell is another well-know symbol in Buddhism. This is another of the big Hindu symbols that has passed over to Buddhism. The great hero Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita carried a conch, as did most Hindu gods and heros.

A conch used as a “horn” is often used to call together assemblies of Buddhists, especially in Tibet, but other paces as well other places. As the sound of the horn goes forth, so does the fame and truthful teachings of the Buddha.

Buddhist Symbology Part 3

The Parasol

A parasol is not an umbrella. An umbrella protects from the rain, while a parasol protects from the sun. The parasol also symbolically protects against “the heat of defilements.” Another way to look at it is that the parasol represents the sky and the handle represents a mountain that holds up the sky, or possibly the axis that holds up the whole world. The proximity of the person under the parasol to the “axis of the world” represents the importance of the person.

Still another way of looking at it is that the dome of the parasol represents wisdom, and the hanging part symbolized compassion. The parasol as a whole represents the fusion of both.

Guess who is usually shown sitting under a parasol? Two points if you guessed “The Buddha.” However, other important figures, such as the Dalai Lama and others are entitled to parasols as well.

Buddhist Symbology Part 4

Golden Fish

Who wants to drown in the river of suffering? Who can avoid this fate? Fish of course! Just as fish swim where they wish and migrate as they will, an enlightened being can choose his own migration (rebirth). The fish can also represent fertility and abundance.

The golden fishes are another holdover from Hinduism, and are usually represented as a pair, historically symbolizing the Yamuna and Ganga rivers of India.

Mara The Tempter

We’ve briefly mentioned Mara a few times already. Last week (http://www.dailybuddhism.com/archives/83), we talked about four Maras that Buddha had to overcome. Those maras were symbolic representations of hindrances on his path to Nirvana. However, quite often Mara is portrayed as a physical manifestation of temptation.Much like Yama is sometimes considered the god of death, Mara is something like the god of temptation.

While Siddhartha Gotama (Buddha before his Enlightenment) sat beneath the Bodhi tree, Mara came to him with many temptations. He tried repeatedly to tempt Buddha to return to his wife and son, becoming a great king in the process. Failing in this, Mara hurled lightning bolts at him, but the lightning turned into harmless flowers before the got near Buddha. The thunderbolts turned into soft music.

Even today, Mara is said to tempt men’s souls, and is the lord of pleasures of the senses, and delights in confusing and misleading.

Announcements

The End of the Beginning?

As I do a quick mental inventory, I’m thinking we’ve covered most of what I would consider ‚Äúessential basic Buddhism.‚Äù It may be just about time to start covering more ‚Äúintermediate‚Äù topics. Before we start that, I want to make sure we’ve covered all the basics. So today, I’m going to put out another call for questions.

Have I missed a subject that interests you?
Is any topic that I’ve covered unclear or maybe too shallow?
Questions on anything?
Do you have any inspiring stories or personal thoughts you’d like to share?

Coming Soon…

I’m hoping to get enough reader questions and calls for topic elaboration to cover the rest of July, and then start the ‚ÄúDaily Buddhism: Book Two‚Äù in August. When we do start more advanced topics, what would you like to see?

Every Monk Has His Bowl

And once again, I need to mention that on the http://www.dailybuddhism.com website, there is a button labeled “Donate.” Buddhists around the world have survived for 2500 years on donations and gifts from others. Who am I to try to break that tradition? If you have enjoyed the emails and podcasts so far, please “drop something in the box.”

And have a great weekend!