The Buddhist

the name of God is not the name of some sort of divine sensorium (censorius? preventorium?), not some infinitely preemptive precontainer or all-encompassing necessity, but rather the name of the impossible, of novelty, of the coming of the Other, of the tout autre, of what is coming with the shock of an absolute surprise, with the trauma of absolute heterogeneity. — John D. Caputo, The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida

In post-modern society, the moral gods are dead if not dying; being beyond our power to resurrect them.  In other words, we simply don’t care about a moral god these days.  Any any rate, this god is bereft of a sense of justice.  All have seen enough of this god’s absurd justice.  For Nietzsche, this is the god who dies, namely, the god who created both good and evil (Isaiah 45:7).  

The new god that will take his place, if we may put it this way, is in Nietzsche’s words “the European form of Buddhism” being “the most scientific of all hypotheses.”

This new god, however, has an active presence of which we know nothing.  It is Tathagata, i.e., the work of Thatness.  In us, we sense it as great doubt to use an expression from Zen.  Such doubt is like twilight.  There is a growing lack of confidence in our world from having lost the old gods while, at the same time, there is a counter-illumination waiting to reveal itself when we have completely come to our wit’s end; being unable to find our way in the seeming darkness and despair that engulfs us as our confidence wanes.  When Mother Teresa said: “I am told God loves me, and yet the reality of the darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul” she entered into the twilight world of the new god.

The sensation of great doubt also compels us to make ourselves available to the coming of a transcendent novelty so strange as to invite a kind of inner terror that continually seizes us which we can only settle by our resolve and courage to let this growing doubt engulf us; if not guide us along a new path until we reach satori.

Every mystic has followed this new god after stepping over the corpse of the old god.  Indeed, gods who create good and evil, are troublesome gods.  They are of no consolation.  And without the prayers of their devotees, how can they not die from lack of spirit?  And isn't this age the most spiritless?

Before Buddhism makes itself fully present in the European mind, even the word “God” must die or at least become a laughingstock.  There is no place in the new faith for such names.  Suchness, pure Mind, or even mind stuff (caitta) are more scientific.  They point beyond, to an animative power that enlivens our bodies which is utterly invisible and immaterial.  It works our limbs now.  But we are blind to it.  We cannot see it because we are overly addicted to the presence of objectivity, that is, to the image of an animated corpse that we claim to be ours.  This is the legacy, by the way, of the dead god.


thezennist at 10:56:29 AM EST Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 2 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

Modern capitalism rests on the chaotic basis of what the economist Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950) called "creative destruction".  His main theory was that innovation was central to capitalism.  And I believe we would all agree when we bring to mind such notable inventors as Edison, Tesla, the Wright brothers, Farnsworth, and many others too numerous to name.  But the central problem with innovation is that it tends to destabalize society from time to time when a new technology looms on the horizon such as the automobile.  As Schumpeter was keen to realize there are business cycles with both an upside and a downside that come as a result of innovation.

But all this, so far, is a view of idealized capitalism.  Real capitalism doesn't actually work this way.  It cannot provide stability nor can it provide the greatest good for the greatest number although it seems to claim that it can with its numerous rags to riches tales.  Capitalism has only managed to provide the greatest good for the minority—never those who earn a subsistence wage, viz., the majority.  It worth adding that working for wages is still a subset of slavery noted by Simon Linguet in 1763.

For innovative capitalism to actually work it cannot hope to progress without a socialist foundation which, among other things, provides the various social safety nets for the displaced worker who happens to lose his job during the destructive cycle of capitalism.  These 'nets' include social insurances such as unemployment insurance, Social Security Insurance (SSI), workmen's compensation and many other programs designed to attenuate the destructive phase of capitalism.  It also includes universal healthcare since worker's subsistence wages are inadequate to pay for healthcare.

But the socialist foundation also includes human values such as compassion, family values, community values, and perhaps most important, religious values that valorize the desire to search for the meaning of life and bring an end to suffering.  Indeed, there is more to life than cars, airplanes, homes, electronic gadgets, and conspicuous consumption.  In fact, for thousand of years socialism dominated the world—not capitalism.  There was no such thing as the self-regulating market concept of the "invisible hand" or the notion of survival of the fittest (Spencerian Darwinism).

Whathas enabled the so-called capitalist economy to survive has been the socialist matrix that it, ironically, seeks to destroy by legislative means every so many years.  But the socialist matrix is not so easily dismembered.  From the 19th century onwards, from the popularist movement to the progressive movement, including the Christian socialist movement, there has been a steady continuous stream of small revolutions trying to reassert the hegemony of the socialist matrix.  This has sometimes come even in the form of Traditionalism which is a reaction to modernity and rationalization (Weber).

In truth, the human heart is socialist.  It only views capitalism as a necessary evil.  If there were a better system, the vast majority of mankind would take that instead.  While many people defend capitalism against something like Stalinism and the old Soviet state, they cannot defend capitalism when its claims of prosperity only include the bourgeoisie, leaving the many outside in the cold to survive by delivering pizzas.

As a matter of recent history, we find that the capitalists strategically invaded the social matrix, first, using Adam Smith and others as a rationalization for capitalist expansion.  In fact, the social matrix of England became the experimental proving grounds which was subsequently pulverized in which everything became a commodity.  The works of Karl Marx simply underscore the depth of destruction of the social matrix by the capitalists who reduced the many to a life of wage slavery starting with the very young.

Once the people's hearts and minds were taken prisoner, the capitalists erected their dark, satanic-like smoke stack industries and set as their goal the extraction of as much wealth as they could manage.  They even extended their avarice and power through the scheme of colonization. 

The wanton destruction of the social matrix by the industrial capitalist is perhaps what drove J.R.R. Tolkien to write his extraordinary work, The Lord of the Rings.  Tolkien captures, as no other writer, the war between the spiritual side of man and his dark fell side.  In this light, The Lord of the Rings represents an epic struggle between the forces of socialism and capitalism for the control and possession of the human soul.

Buddhism naturally sides with the forces of socialism as against laissez faire capitalism (i.e., neoliberalism).  The Buddha, if he were alive and teaching today, would assess the main forces of capitalism to be akin to the deadly Three Poisons, namely, keep the masses dull (moha).  Greed (lobha) is good.  Deal with problems by malevolence (dosa). 

In his wisdom, for the sake of all, the Buddha would take a middle-way approach to such a division understanding that innovation (Schumpeter) can lead to the social goal of leisure for the great majority; such leisure being utilized to search for the truth or used simply to enjoy family life.  Above all the Buddha would recognize that inventors, for the most part, are often humanitarians who wish to free mankind from suffering. 

On the same score, the Buddha would never support the robber baron capitalist elite who are still the leaders of capitalism; who think of no one else except themselves; supporting asocial individualism as against the socially responsible individual.  These are the same people who still fight Unions; who don't want universal healthcare; and who want to turn the Social Security Insurance (SSI) fund over to Wall Street.  This same self-proclaimed elite, however, has killed millions of people; who are now trying to destroy our very planet.

I can't imagine Lord Buddha giving a modern discourse on capitalism without saying the capitalist, like the soldier who mercilessly kills, go to a special hell.

Without the strong foundation of socialism, innovative capitalism will not work and even less, the present species of capitalism.  Society must have more than adequate social safety nets under it at all times.  But equally important, the goals of a society cannot be capitalistic.  Ultimately, the acquisition of wealth by the rapacious few, to the detriment of the many, will lead to the rapid end of civilization and pave the way for barbarism.





thezennist at 2:05:05 PM EST Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

What is wrong with the denizens of modernity is that they no longer believe or have faith in a transcendent sphere of existence that is beyond the confines of the psychophyscial body.  This is to say, in other words, that religion is irrelevant for the modern individual.

Even though some will protest, to the contrary, that they are religious, their practice is weak if not, altogether, nonexistent.  Their religious practice has no connection with introspection seeking the transcendent within.  Their own lives, as a matter of fact, betray this.  They have pinned their hopes on the external world.  They could not care less about searching for the transcendent.

But particularly bad, is that the modern world is fast losing its sense for what is described in the Gospel of John, as the "light of life" (phos zoe).  The modern individual no longer believes in the transcendent as real and given, which lies within the immediacy of the being of everyone.  Nor does this same individual even recognize its absence.  Again, religion has become irrelevant.

When Zen master Yuan-hsien said: "The spiritual light shines independently, transcendentally liberated from organs and objects of sense" he was referring to the light of life which he, himself, had realized.  In this regard, Zen master Yuan-hsien understood religion to be about realizing this light.  

In respect to the above, I believe it can be argued that the fundamental basis of religion was never about a supreme being, but light—light which is not ordinary reflected light, but light which is both intelligible and animative.  This light is so primordial so as to be hidden from even itself.  Yet, it is the very stuff of the universe.  The universe, as far as it is concerned, is the effect of its attempt to know itself, as it were, to awaken (buddha) from its sleep in which it is lost in its own dreams.

This, of course, means little or nothing for the materialistically inclined modern individual.  Their goal is to accumulate wealth in the form of tangible possessions.  Although, wealth can be defined as "spiritual well-being" according to the Oxford English Dictionary, this isn't the reason modern man gets up in the morning and commutes to work.  He assesses wealth by how much money or possessions he has accumulated.  The source of his worth lies in his industry to accumulate ever larger heaps of manufactured goods and money.  Yet, all this industry is going against man's true nature from a Buddhist perspective.  This same industry is destroying the very foundation of religion, also.

As R.H. Tawney proved long ago in his book, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, religion and modern economic systems are separated by a chasm.  In particular, with the blessings of rationalization (Weber), the economic system of capitalism exploits an ancient moral order that was long ago established by religion.  However, without such a moral order, capitalism leads to Ayn Rand's virtue of selfishness, which gives a modern corporate entity the seeming right to force its decision on others in addition to forcing others to sacrifice themselves for its profit.  Such a reckless adventure eventually turns to nihilism in which everything is devalued—including the human soul and religion.  

What we call religion today is not religion.  It is a sham.  It sees no evil in avarice, exploitation, and wealth accumulation.  It is not aghast at the millions who have died in factories, mines, and by being poisoned.  It sees nothing wrong with wage slavery.  Ironically, modern religion even lends its support to the destruction of religion.  It has even learned to undermine itself.

Regrettably, modern religion gives mankind no hope in the transcendent light of which major religions speak.  It only helps the denizens of modernity to cope with their economic slavery.  It neither teaches renunciation of this system of slavery, nor of the other shore of transcendence.  Modern religion simply runs along the quay.  Even the most ardently religious among us like Mother Teresa were affected by this modern evilty who said, “Where is my Faith—even deep down right in there is nothing but emptiness & darkness...”

thezennist at 12:49:32 PM EST Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 1 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

Westerners are pretty bad at introspection.  It is understandable.  Westerners live in cultures which anthropologists call monophasic.  In monophasic cultures attention is primarily given to the external world which overshadows the inner psychical world.  

Because of this cultural habit, many Westerners seem very ill at ease with meditative, introspective paths except to imagine that meditation is about sitting on a zafu (a Japanese meditation cushion) which, incidentally, might explain some of the popularity of Zen in the West.  As far as Westerners will go in the direction of introspection is to allow psychoanalysis in which the analyst attempts to show the analysand what is going on in their head.  But self-introspection—well—forget it.

In a nutshell, Buddhist meditation is all about introspection which tends to be self-analytical as well as illuminative in which the path to liberation is revealed—or perhapas I should say, experienced.  With such an experience comes our first introduction to the animative nature of citta or mind.  This is also the beginning of the spiritual life of Buddhism.  (Citta is virtually impossible to translate into English.  Imagine 'will', 'mind', and 'psychic energy'—rolled into one—and you will come close to grapsing the meaning of citta.)

The beginning steps of Buddhist meditation are primarily concerned with observing our physical being.  Especially, in traditional Buddhist training we are taught to be mindful of every twitch, burp, nervous trembling, and anxious heart beat—and much more.  But going further, Buddhist meditation is also about getting acquainted with the landscape of our mental life and its more subtle underpinnings which are vast and deep, this being pure Mind.  This last part is the most difficult to access.  But this is where the door of liberation is to be sought.  There is no door of liberation in the external world.

thezennist at 4:49:46 PM EDT Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 1 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

Probably one of the deadliest sins in Buddhism is the belief in annihilationism which stems from living in the present world which is the necrosphere—where death and the fear of death reign supreme.  But before I continue, permit me to define annihilationism for you in a nutshell.  Anyone is an annihilationist who believes there is no life after death.  As far a metaphysical theory goes, it holds that the self is less than the sum of the body’s parts.  When the body breaks up at death—goodbye selfie!

To understand the dangerous implications of annihilationism is to understand modern history that, in fact, it remains a battle ground between spirit and the necrosphere which prides itself of annihilationism.  Spirit, of course, seems to be fighting a losing battle as the forces of the necrosphere have been successful in turning a lot of people into zombie-like people who are quite spiritually and intellectually dead, but have been reanimated by the mass consumerism, which is the most powerful arm of the necrosphere.  

Go to any shopping mall—see for yourself if you are not already a zombie.  The only force which animates these zombies is consumer goods.  Cut off from consumer goods, cheap entertaiment, bad music, gossip magazines, and junk food, the annihilationists will go out screaming like the wicked witch of the west in the Wizard of Oz.

Rest assured, the necrosphere has it philosophy.  It is called annihilationism or, in you like, materialism.


thezennist at 5:25:54 PM EDT Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 4 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

Why is Israel's AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) given special status that no other country is given which permits it to lobby on behalf of the national interests of Zionist Jews and Zionist hegemony?  Or more pertinent, why does the U.S. permit itself to be the proxy of the Zionist state of Israel? 

If the answer is the 'holocaust' then what about the holocausts of non-Jews?  Surely genocide has not been meted out only to the Jew.  Maybe the answer lies with religion.  Perhaps Americans are sympathetic with the Zionist Jews of Israel because part of Christianity is derived from the old covenant literature of the Jews.

Whatever the reason, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution were religiously neutral when it came to religion.  This is evinced in The Treaty of Tripoli of 1796 which was signed by President John Adams.  In this treaty, Art. 11, states that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...."

Right now, the U.S. is not acting in its foreign policy as religiously neutral.  It is giving deference to a religiously inspired ideology called Zionism, created by Theodor Herzl, a secular Jew who was a great admirer of German culture.

If the U.S. were consistent at all with its foreign policy why not also support the plight of Tibetans with equal fervor as it does the Israeli Jew?  Is there something racially displeasing about Tibetans that turns off Americans?  Is it the religion of Buddhism that makes the Tibetan plight less appealing to the U.S. government?

By all measures, Israel is doing quite well both financially and militarily.  So why does Israel still require U.S. foreign aid and sympathy?  Isn't it time for the U.S. to begin to think about Tibet and helping to preserve its great culture?

Presently, Chinese policies are acting to reduce the Tibetan population by preventing births of a people of a distinct religion and culture.  Doesn't this fall within the four corners of the Genocide Convention?  Why isn't the U.S. doing anything about it on the same scale that it aids Israel?

Let's be frank.  Israel doesn't need anymore U.S. help.  Israelis not being threatened with genocide while the Tibetans are, and the U.S. needs to do more about it to change how China thinks about Tibet, Tibetans, and their religion.

Perhaps the U.S. needs to place a tax on imported Chinese goods that will go directly to the Tibetans living in exile in India.  This will at least help the Tibetans help themselves of which they are quite adept.

thezennist at 2:46:15 PM EDT Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 10 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

I never liked the Pledge of Allegiance as a kid, especially the part where it said: "In God we trust."  I don't know why, exactly, it made me feel uncomfortable—but it did.  I had more trust in my dad, a former boxer, than God. 

I really feel sorry for any kid, today, who has to say: "In God we trust," because I finally discovered who God really is.  He is the guy that invented evil.  It is true.  At lest that is what the Bible says at Isaiah 45:7.

I form the light and create darkness,
I bring good and create evil;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

I guess for some believers it is no big deal that their God created evil when he could have easily left it out of creation, sticking with the "I bring good" part.  It also seems crazy that God should be bipolar.  On the one hand, he brings good, then ruins it all by creating evil.  It wouldn't be so bad if evil were weaker than the good he brought.  But in today's world, evil is stronger.  You can try to be good—but evil generally wins.

My kid intuition, when I was pledging allegiance, was right.  After I grew up, I turned to Buddhism after going through a period of agnosticism.  I liked Buddhism.  The Buddha didn't believe in God.  He thought God was rather crazy.  Of God, in the Bhuridatta Jataka (453), the Buddha said:

"He who has eyes can see the sickening sight,
Why does not God set his creatures right? 
If his wide power no limit can restrain,
Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless? 
Why are his creatures all condemned to pain?
Why does he not to all give happiness? 
Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail?
Why triumphs falsehood -- truth and justice fail? 
I count your God one among the unjust ,
Who made a world in which to shelter wrong."

These are pretty strong words.  But they make perfect sense to anyone with a sober mind.  If you had a chance to be God, would you wish to create evil?

I think we need to take God out of all national pledges.  I mean, he created evil and lets injustice and falsehood prevail.  We don't need that.  Or maybe we should do away with all pledges to flags.  I really don't see how a flag can help us.  The only pledge worth taking is pledging to do no harm.  This is the Buddha pledge, you could say.  Every nation should pledge to do no harm.




thezennist at 12:25:38 PM EDT Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 1 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

Your religious freedom in America is only an abstract right.  If you are not a right-wing Christian it soon becomes obvious what religions count and which religions don't.
 
We saw a good example of this today when the Hindu Chaplain Rajan Zed, who was giving the opening prayer in the Senate, was almost shouted down by protestors.  Finally, the sergeant-at-arms restored order. 

According to some sources, Ante Pavkovic, Kathy Pavkovic, and Kristen Sugar were all arrested in the chambers of the United States Senate for their grave misconduct who, in essence, violated the principles of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

What made these Christian extremists believe that the floor of the Senate was reserved only for Chaplains of the children of Abraham?  Didn't these Christian hooligans happen to read the Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Commerce between the United States and Tripoli, that was signed by President George Washington that said "[T]he United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion...."?  I guess not. 

One also has to wonder if these kinds of Christians would, in the future, resort to terrorism to defend their beliefs?  Would they go so far as to desecrate Hindu and Buddhist temples in the United States or use some form of terrorism?

For a more detailed information on Ante Pavkovic, et al., this site is interesting: http://community.livejournal.com/dark_christian/




thezennist at 6:17:51 PM EDT Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

The fall or the gradual corruption of any nation begins from within.  But foremost, it begins in the hearts of those who have access to the reigns of power.  For example, a city like NYC begins its decline from within.  Nobody from San Francisco causes crime or terrorism to arise in NYC. 

The hearts of NYC leaders are suffering from an extreme case of the three poisons which are: delusion, greed and hatred.  In a nutshell, these are the main constituents of passion, passion meaning 'suffering' which is always personal.  And because it is personal, we want to escape it.

Naturally, anyone beset with the three poisons wishes to overcome them.  But as long as they cling to the carnal body, in the belief that it is the alpha and omega of being, they remain prisoners of the poisons. 

Such belief in the body is delusion.  It is not knowing or directly seeing our true fundamental nature which is free of the carnal body.  As a consequence, we begin to cling to the body.  We become greedy.  We believe we subsist upon the body.  Because we subsist upon it, the carnal body needs all we can give it to satisfy it.  It needs as much money has we can make or as much land as we can acquire.  And because we possess so many things that we believe are necessary for the well-being of our body, which we believe to be our true being, we come to hate those whom we imagine might steal our hoard or threaten our body.

Thus, it follows that our mind suffers greatly.  Soon, the person suffering from the three poisons sees deviants everywhere around him who seem to be a threat to his security.  He believes these deviants are dark skinned people or poor people who are too lazy to work; who need to be controlled.  We see this poisoned mindset going as far back as February 13, 1948.  In the New York Sun we read:

"The idea that poverty-stricken, inefficient people have some innate right to be fed, clothed, housed, and supported in idleness from the public purse is a menace to democracy...."

The mind that perceives the world this way can never heal itself as long as it clings to its various delusions about being.  It can't see that all sentient beings are part of a universal spiritual democracy insofar as they are animated by the same spiritual light the Buddha manifested sitting under the Bodhi-tree. 

Because of the inability of our leaders to shed or at least control the three poisons, for each generation, life becomes more and more difficult to endure.  Everywhere new deviants spring up.  They can be the mentally ill or terrorists.  Their numbers never seem to decline as more and more people drink the three poisons.

Now in NYC, surveillance cameras are popping up everywhere to look for terrorists and deviants.  It will be like London's so-called Ring of Steel which hasn't succeeded in preventing terrorism.  The only thing this shows is that Britain's leaders are delirious from drinking the three poisons.  They are becoming paranoiac; losing self-control.

The problem is that the whole Western world is corrupt from top to bottom; being run by deluded, hateful, and greedy people.  These people don't want to hear the Buddha's message, that the light which animates the carnal body is who we really are.  Unlike Narcissus, we don't have to cling to our reflected body; rather this body depends upon us, the light.  And we might realize this if we learn to decouple from the various deluded ideas which make the body seem necessary insofar as it is believed that the mind is generated by the body.  But this is not the way things are.  Mind is only in sympathy with the carnal body being, actually, detached.  It is like a grand illusion which we must learn to let go.


thezennist at 11:43:15 AM EDT Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 1 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

Very soon, I hope to be in my local theatre watching SiCKO which is a new film by Academy Award-winning filmmaker, Michael Moore.  The film is really about how corporatist HMOs screw over their healthcare clients.  As we might suspect, these HMOs have a nice cozy relationship with a Congress that works hand and hand with them to make sure the average citizen gets ScREWED.  This, I should mention, is the essence of corporatism.

As a member of the audience, I have this gut feeling that I will be outraged by SiCKO watching sentient beings get ScREWED by a dehumanizing corporate system of rationalizations which treats people like offal.  Naturally, I will attempt to put this into some kind of context.  I will remember Upton Sinclair's book, The Jungle (1906), that depicts the day to day reality of life working in a turn-of-the-century American meat-packing factory.  As expected, it caused a tsunami wave of anger.  It led to the imposition of strict government regulations of the food industry.

Whether or not SiCKO will cause major changes in the coporatist HMO way of doing business, remains to be seen.  Moore's film is certainly up there with Sincliar's The Jungle it terms of making us all outraged.  But the corporatist media has such power that it can alter the viewer's perception of reality.  Despite this, Moore's film might serve to disenchant the public who will no longer see their healthcare providers as knights in shining armor.  Instead, the healthcare client will see their HMO as a bureaucratic machine designed to extract money and leave them for dead if they are worth more dead.

Naturally, the HMOs have their cheering section of right-wing stooges who will call a national healthcare system, in which the client is not ScREWED, socialist medicine.  But since when has medicine been political?  I thought medicine was apolitical?  I remember working in an emergency room in a very apolitical way.  I didn't ask, "Sir, are you a Republican or a Democrat?"  The idea that healthcare can be politicized as in corporatist healthcare vs. socialist medicine, bespeaks to a demented wedge issue process that wants exploitation and cruelty to continue.  This is not in line with Buddhist morality; nor should any Buddhist stand by and let people be ScREWED.  In fact, all religions should demand free healthcare—free, that is, of putting the burden of the cost of healtcare on the shoulders of those whom can least afford it.


thezennist at 1:12:51 PM EDT Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own