Poem of the Week: A Single Crystal Stream

Today I sat before the cliffs
I sat until the mist drew off
a single crystal stream
a towering ridge of jade
a cloud's dawn shadow not yet moving
the moon's night light still adrift
a body free of dust
a mind without a care.

-Han Shan (寒山)

Sticks and Stones

The BBC reported an interesting story about the nature of physical pain vs. emotional/psychological pain:

Hurt feelings 'worse than pain'

The old adage "sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can never hurt you", simply is not true, according to researchers. Psychologists found memories of painful emotional experiences linger far longer than those involving physical pain. They quizzed volunteers about painful events over the previous five years. Writing in the journal Psychological Science, they said evolutionary brain changes which allow us to work better in groups or societies could be key. The volunteers, all students, were asked to write about painful experiences, both physical and emotional, then given a difficult mental test shortly afterwards. The principle was that the more painful the recalled experience, the less well the person would perform in the tests. Test scores were consistently higher in those recalling physical rather than "social" pain. Psychological scoring tests revealed that memories of emotional pain were far more vivid...

It reminds me of the opening lines of the Dhammapada:

1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

-Dhammapada, Chapter I, verses 1-2. trans. by Acharya Buddharakkhita

A Brown Bodhidharma

A while back, whilst wandering through the lovely halls of the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, I came across a most unusual piece of art. It was a ceramic statue of Bodhidharma, the legendary master who transmitted the Dhyana (Ch'an/Zen) school from India to China.

Bodhidharma is usually depicted as a stern-looking fellow with a big beard and bulging eyes. He's a very popular subject in East Asian Buddhist art, especially in the Ch'an tradition.

I'd seen many depictions of Bodhidharma before, but there was something striking about this particular statue in front of me. Not only was Bodhidharma wearing a green cloak, but this statue (from the Ming Dynasty) showed him with prominently brown skin...a truly Indian Bodhidharma!



One could easily mistake the original Master of Zen for a meditating Sufi!

This also reminded me of another piece of "culturally mixed up art", a modern Indian Guan Yin painting from Exotic India Art.




I wonder how long it'll be before we see African American Earth Store Bodhisattvas, Hispanic Manjushris, and Avalokiteshvaras with blond hair and green eyes.

Poem of the Week: The Creature Inside

I said to the wanting-creature inside me:
What is this river you want to cross?
There are no travelers on the river-road, and no road.
Do you see anyone moving about on that bank, or nesting?

There is no river at all, and no boat, and no boatman.
There is no tow rope either, and no one to pull it.
There is no ground, no sky, no time, no bank, no ford!

And there is no body, and no mind!
Do you believe there is some place that will make the
soul less thirsty?
In that great absence you will find nothing.

Be strong then, and enter into your own body;
there you have a solid place for your feet.
Think about it carefully!
Don't go off somewhere else!

Kabir says this: just throw away all thoughts of
imaginary things,
and stand firm in that which you are.

-Kabir in "I Said To The Wanting-Creature Inside Me"

Want To Save the World? Try Living Like a Monk!

Interfaith dialog has been around for a long time but the exchange between Buddhists and Catholics, especially from the monastics from these traditions, has been particularly lively and amiable. The Third Gathering of Buddhist and Catholic monks and nuns took place this past May at Gesthemani Abbey. The monastery, located in the appropriately named city of Trappist, Kentucky, hosted the latest conference. This time, the focus was on Monasticism and the Environment. The Conference Statement says:

We live in a time of environmental crisis and calamity, but also in a time when more and more people are coming together to respond to the suffering of the world. Our monastic interreligious dialogue has brought us to a new awareness of the social and spiritual relevance of ancient monastic traditions that have been sustained for millennia by Buddhist and Catholic communities. Together we celebrate our common monastic values of reverence for the sacredness of all things, contemplation, humility, simplicity, compassion and generosity. These virtues contribute to a life of nonviolence, balance, and contentment with sufficiency.

We recognize greed and apathy as the poisons at the heart of ecological damage and unbridled materialism. Throughout the centuries, monastic life has inspired generous personal, social and spiritual effort for the good of others. We give and receive in the spirit of gratitude.

We acknowledge our complicity in damaging the environment and will make a sincere and sustained effort to reduce our negative impact on the planet. We are committed to take more mindful, universal responsibility for the way we use and manage the earth’s resources. We resolve to develop our hearts and minds in ways that will contribute to a sustainable and hopeful future for our planet. We renew our commitment to the sacredness of the earth, relating to it as a community, not a commodity.

May our love for all beings and this world sustain our efforts and may our earth be revitalized. This is our prayer and commitment.

At the conference, monastics from all traditions presented a series of talks on topics from St. Benedict's Rule to discussions of dependent origination and interdependence. The way of life outlined in the above statement shows that we still have much to learn from our rich and ancient monastic traditions, East and West.

Poem of the Week: A Million Universes

"I have said that the soul is not more than the body,

And I have said that the body is not more than the soul.

And nothing, not God, is greater to one than one's self is,

And whoever walks a furlong without sympathy walks to his own

funeral drest in his shroud,

And I or you pocketless of a dime may purchase the pick of the

earth,

And to glance with an eye or show a bean in its pod confounds

the learning of all times,

And there is no trade or employment but the young man following

it may become a hero,

And there is no object so soft but it makes a hub for the wheel'd

universe,

And I say to any man or woman, Let your soul stand cool

and composed before a million universes.

-Walt Whitman in "Song of Myself" from "Leaves of Grass"

"Get Up, Stand Up": A Buddhist Commenary:

Bob Marley, the greatest reggae artist of all time, devout Rastafarian, and prominent voice of the Third World, needs no introduction. One of his most famous songs is "Get Up, Stand Up". Before going any further, take a few minutes to listen to the song:




The song opens with the chorus:

Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up: don't give up the fight!

Bodhisattva Bob (BB) begins with an exhortation for us to start practicing. Not after the next inning or after we leave the office but RIGHT NOW. It is said that attaining a human birth is a very, very rare thing. How rare? The Buddha says:

"And suppose a blind sea-turtle were there. It would come to the surface once every one hundred years. Now what do you think: would that blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole?"

"It would be a sheer coincidence, lord"...

"It's likewise a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state. It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, arises in the world. It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world. Now, this human state has been obtained. A Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, has arisen in the world. A doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world".

In the "Way of the Bodhisattva", Shantideva tells us more forcefully:


"So take advantage of this human boat.
Free yourself from the stream of suffering!
This vessel will be later hard to find.
The time that you have know, you fool, is not for sleep!"

Upon seeing the preciousness of a human life and feeling the sense of urgency to practice, the song says that we need to stand up for our rights. Wonderful, but what rights do we need to stand up for? A good place to start is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the first article of which reads:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood".

Preacherman, don't tell me,
Heaven is under the earth.
I know you don't know,
What life is really worth.

The concept of heaven (or heavens) is found in almost every religion on the planet. Descriptions and directions to it vary greatly but there is one thing that is universal: its up there, in the sky. No matter what faith you are (or aren't) you know that the concept of heaven points upward and not "under the earth". Would we expect a person of spirituality and faith, a "preacherman" to say that heaven isn't in the sky? Probably not, but BB raises this contradiction to set up the next two lines.

To tell us that "heaven is under the earth", the preacherman is going against something that we all know is true (at least conceptually). Why would a preacherman say such a thing? BB's point is that a genuine preacherman wouldn't. The preacherman of the song is an example of religion gone wrong. Perhaps he is a genuine quack, a charlatan, or maybe someone who unknowingly started to walk down the wrong path. Once on a mistaken path however, it is very easy to "forget what life is worth". In the Shurangama Sutra, the Buddha warns of this danger, saying:

"You are still not aware of the subtle demonic events that can occur when you cultivate shamatha and vipashyana. If you cannot recognize a demonic state when it appears, it is because the cleansing of your mind has not been proper. You will then be engulfed by deviant views".

BB paraphrases the old saying "all that glitters is not gold",which means that appearances can be deceiving. In "The Merchant of Venice", Shakespeare eloquently says:

All that glitters is not gold;
Often have you heard that told.
Many a man his life hath sold.
But my outside to behold.
Gilded tombs do worms enfold.

Being deceived by appearances is one of the oldest concepts prevalent in the Buddha's teachings and Indian religions in general, where it is known as 'maya' (माया).

When Prince Siddhartha was living in his palaces, he had every material pleasure he could have imagined. What he would discover however, was that only "half the story" had been shown to him. What was the other half? The part about the inexorable fading of life: old age, sickness, and finally death. Ignorance is not, and cannot possibly be bliss. In fact, ignorance (Pali: avijja) is the root cause of all suffering.

When we have "seen the light", we realize that the cycle of suffering, death, and rebirth (samsara) is the fundamental problem of human existence. As the Third Noble Truth (nirodha - cessation) states, it is possible to put an end to our suffering. The Fourth Noble Truth (magga -path) tells us how we can end suffering. With the path laid out, it becomes time for us to "get up and stand up".

Most people think,
Great God will come from the skies.
Take away everything,
And make everybody feel high.

Here, BB is directly criticizing an escapist, deterministic, and fatalistic view of not just religion, but the human condition itself. In contrast to most other belief systems, Buddhism does not accept the ideas of fate, grace, or destiny. Rather, the explanations for why things are they way they are comes the Law of Karma, i.e. cause and effect. One way to understand karma, is mentioned in the "Reflections on Universal Well-Being":

"When they act upon intention, all beings are the owners of their action and inherit its results. Their future is born from such action, companion to such action, and its results will be their home. All actions with intention, be they skillful or harmful, of such acts, they will be the heirs".

In his famous speech, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gives a good description karma, saying "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.

The law of karma necessarily invalidates the ideas of fate, destiny, or predetermination because cause and effect is shown to be be fluid and dynamic, not static and fixed. We are responsible for our situation and we are able to change it. Unfortunately, the popular usage and understanding of 'karma' refers more to the "out of my hands" or "there's nothing I can do" attitude. This misunderstanding very common (ironically amongst Buddhists in particular) and has been used to rationalize everything from war to murder.

In Thailand for example, dogs are generally treated very poorly yet few see anything wrong with this because "people have bad karma to be born as dogs so we must treat them badly". This kind fatalistic attitude and relinquishing of responsibility is exactly what BB is speaking out against. In the song he is criticizing the "theological" equivalent: sitting back, doing nothing, and hoping for a "Great God"to "make everybody feel high". Instead of dwelling in the mindset of a helpless victim, BB responds to those who just want to wait around by saying:

But if you know what life is worth,
You would look for yours on earth.
And now you've seen the light,
You stand up for your rights.

We have seen earlier just how precious a human life is and "what life is worth". We are then asked to do something very interesting, that is "look for yours on earth". What are we looking for and why do we need to look for it on earth? Happiness, true happiness, is something to be found right here and now. It is not in some mystsical, far away place. In a famous sutta, the Buddha speaks to a deva named Rohitassa. Rohitassa describes his journey to the farthest reaches of the cosmos in his previous life as another celestial being and says that he couldn't find the edge of birth, old age, sickness, and death. The Buddha responds by saying:

"'I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos'".

In his famous "Song of Zazen", Japanese Zen Master Hakuin, expresses a similar idea:

"How boundless and free is the sky of Awareness! How bright the full moon of wisdom! Truly, is anything missing now? This very place is the Lotus Land; This very body, the Buddha".

Once we recognize that Awakening is possible right here on earth, and not in an imaginary heavenly realm, we "see the light", just as in the previous verse.

Get up, stand up! (jah, jah!)
Stand up for your rights! (oh-hoo!)
Get up, stand up! (get up, stand up!)
Don't give up the fight! (life is your right!)
Get up, stand up! (so we can't give up the fight!)
Stand up for your rights! (lord, lord!)
Get up, stand up! (keep on struggling on!)
Don't give up the fight! (yeah!)

The chorus repeats albeit with some extra exhortations thrown in. "can't give up the fight" and we must "keep on struggling on". The Transcendent Perfection of Diligence (vīrya pāramitā -वीर्य पारमिता) is one of the qualities that a being must cultivate on the path to Awakening. Other translations for 'vīrya' include energy, vigor, effort, and heroic perseverance. Shantideva says:

"Diligence means joy in virtuous ways.
Its contraries have been defined as laziness,
An inclination for the unwholesome,
Defeatism, and self-contempt".

The song finishes off with a little rap, courtesy of Peter Tosh, another of reggae's pioneers:

We're sick an tired of a your -ism-schism game -
Dyin' n' goin' to heaven in a Jesus' name, lord.
We know and we understand:
Almighty God is a living man.

The "-ism-schism game" referred to here is the strife and suffering caused by people (violently) grasping on to labels, specifically religious ones. It is unfortunate that religion has been used to justify so much violence and suffering throughout world history. Crucifixions, The Crusades ("Dyin' n' goin' to heaven in a Jesus' name"), colonialism, Kristallnacht, the Cultural Revolution, and Islamic terrorism are all based on "-isms and schisms". In these situations you are either a human part of the group or you are an inhuman enemy. Nonetheless, there are many brave people who refuse to give into such delusion, people who "know and understand that Almighty God is a living man".

To say "Almighty God is a Living Man" may seem highly unusual, controversial, and even a blasphemous thing to say but is it really so? In the Dhammapada chapter called "Violence" (Dandavagga) it says:

"All tremble at violence; All fear death. Seeing beings as like yourself, Do not kill or cause others to kill. All tremble at violence; Life is dear for all. Seeing other beings as like yourself, Do not kill or cause others to kill".

The concept of tathāgatagarbha (Buddha Nature) teaches that we all have the potential to realize Full Awakening. If this is indeed the case, then its not so absurd to look upon all living beings as future Buddhas. For those who believe in Supreme Being, understanding "Almighty God is a living man" means we recognize the divine essence that is within us all. The traditional Indian (and subsequently Buddhist) gesture of 'Namaste' (or Gassho) means "I bow the common divine essence which we both share". In Buddhist terms, the saluation of the Buddha Nature, or "ground of being", is nicely described by Thich Nhat Hanh's salulation of "A lotus for you, Buddha to be".

You can fool some people sometimes,
But you can't fool all the people all the time.
So now we see the light (what you gonna do? ),
We gonna stand up for our rights! (yeah, yeah, yeah!)

Many intelligent and reasonable people can often be swayed by charismatic figures. An infamous example from American history is the McCarthy period. Senator Joseph McCarthy was responsible for a "Red Scare" during the 1950's. As part of the "House of Un-American Activities Committee", he sought to keep the nation safe by ridding it of Communist collaborators. What soon happened however, was that innocent people were being accused, tried, and imprisoned simply because their beliefs or lifestyles were deemed "unacceptable". At the time, many people in American and in the government went along with McCarthy unquestioningly but there were others who were able to see through the fear mongering and make a stand. Prominent broadcaster Edward R. Murrow was able to show the world the illegal and unethical tactics that McCarthy engaged in. Murrow's investigative news stories eventually contributed to McCarthy's downfall.

Murrow's courageousness is an example of how "you can't fool all the people all the time".

The song ends with a chorus fade out:

So you better:
Get up, stand up! (in the morning! git it up!)
Stand up for your rights! (stand up for our rights!)
Get up, stand up!
Don't give up the fight! (don't give it up, don't give it up!)
Get up, stand up! (get up, stand up!)
Stand up for your rights! (get up, stand up!)
Get up, stand up! ( ... )
Don't give up the fight! (get up, stand up!)
Get up, stand up! ( ... )
Stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up!
Dont give up the fight!

Introduction to "Buddhist Commentaries"

One of the definitions the Oxford English Dictionary lists for the word "commentary" is:

A treatise consisting of a systematic series of comments or annotations on the text of a literary work; an expository treatise following the order of the work explained, Anything that serves for exposition or illustration; a comment, remark.

The Buddhist tradition, like many of the world's great religions, has a long history of commentary composition. In Sanskrit commentaries are known as shastras (शास्त्र). The importance and influence of these works is so great that the commentaries are typically included with the collections of scriptures.

Despite the title of these posts, I will not be talking about Buddhist commentaries on scriptures. In fact, my purpose is NOT to look at anything specifically Buddhist.

Vipassana teacher, S.N. Goenka, made the provocative (and technically correct) assertion that he doesn't teach Buddhism, rather he, like the Buddha, teaches dhamma - truth.

Truth, as it were, is simply that; something which is true. It is beyond race, language, geography, religion, and politics. Truth can be found anywhere and everywhere, including the influential literature, music, and key documents in Western history. The purpose of this posting series is, therefore, to look at these things from a distinctly Buddhist perspective. Some things, like the poetry of Walt Whitman, readily lend itself to a Dharmic commentary but what does the Buddha's teachings say about something like Adam Smiths "The Wealth of Nations"?

To look at Western culture through the lens of the Dharma is not a new idea. In fact I was inspired after reading Dan Taigen Leighton's masterful work "Faces of Compassion: "Classic Bodhisattva Archetypes and their Modern Expression". Like Sensei Taigen, my purpose is not to "claim" anything for Buddhism or assert that any of the things I'll be looking at had/have any direct connection to the Dharma whatsoever. Rather, it is my hope that by looking at familiar things from a "fresh" perspective, we can learn a bit more about the familiar as well as the practice of Dharma.

Poem of the Week: Poem to Samantabhadra Bodhisattva

The livelihood of my house is nature's source,
In all lands, countless as dust, Samantabhadra is seen.
A rhinoceros horn has a single point; a toad's shadow is transparent.
The spirit jewel has nine facets; a line of ants is penetrating.
Awakening has no gradual stages and erases embroidered edges.
Illusions naturally melt away and blend into the circle.
The wondrous response pervades the body without front or back.
The ancient flower mirror is not stained by dazzling beauty.

-Hongzhi Zhengjue (宏智正覺)

Dropping the "V-Bomb" (2 of 2)

One of the most insightful ways to probe vegetarianism (or lack thereof) in Western Buddhism is to look at just how the Buddha's teaching came to the West. The earliest and perhaps most influential Buddhist schools to gain widespread popularity were the Japanese Zen traditions. Initially presented by Beat Generation writers like Gary Snyder and Jack Kerouac, the word 'Zen' can now be found on everything from cereals to portable music players. The Zen traditions in Japan, despite being transmitted from the Ch'an masters in China, did not and still do not place a large emphasis on vegetarianism.

The second major influential tradition in the West comes from Tibet. Doctrinally, many of the tantric texts that are part of the Vajrayana teachings actually encourage the consumption of meat and view vegetarianism as unnecessary. Furthermore, meat eating is specifically recommended in some esoteric rituals. Practically, vegetariansm in Tibet was extremely difficult if not impossible due to its harsh geography and climate, especially during the winter.

Finally, practitioners of Theravada tradition (mostly Vipassana meditation schools) represent the third most popular school. As the "strictest" tradition, the Theravada school focuses on the early Pali scriptures which do not specifically recommend a vegetarian diet (or meat eating for that matter). Meat eating is thus widespread in the major Theravada regions like Sri Lanka, Burma, and South East Asia.

Because vegetarianism is not particularly encouraged or observed in these three traditions, the phenomenon of "importing" a living vegetarian Buddhist tradition has been very limited. There are certainly exceptions though. The Chinese Buddhist traditions (Ch'an and especially Pure Land) as well as some of the Korean and Vietnamese traditions are gaining popularity and are also vegetarian.

Looking at it from this lens, the reasons for the lack of vegetarianism amongst Western Buddhists are easily understood. So what's happening now? Despite a general climate that may have de-emphasized vegetarianism, something very interesting has begun happening: many Western practitioners and teachers have begun to embrace the way of the herbivore.

The late Roshi Phillip Kapleau, teacher in the Soto/Rinzai Japanese Zen schools was an ardent supporter of vegetarianism. His classic treatise, "To Cherish All Life: A Buddhist View of Animal Slaughter and Meat Eating"is still widely read. The famous Tibetan yogi Shakbar Tsodruk Rangdrol (1781-1851), was famous for his teachings on vegetarianism. This is quite remarkable considering view of meat eating as an "unfortunate necessity" among many Tibetans (and other Buddhists around the globe) past and present. Additionally, many modern Tibetan teachers in the West, such as Chatral Rinpoche, have become strong advocates of abstaining from meat. Satya Narayan (S.N.) Goenka, the highly influential teacher of Burmese Vipassana meditation, follows a vegetarian diet and the retreat centers founded by him serve only vegetarian meals.

This last paragraph may seem a bit strange given the earlier description of the Japanese Zen, Tibetan, and Theravada traditions as being very meat tolerant. But is it really so strange? That teachers who come from traditionally non-vegetarian schools would adopt and champion vegetarianism is not a new occurrence. In fact, its very, very old. Just like the early Mahayana Buddhists of ancient India, many Buddhists in the West have now begun to realize how large a contradiction intentionally eating meat and trying to practicing the Dharma entails. They have recognized just how peculiar an institution meat eating is. Having teachers/students from non-veg lineages now advocating a meat free diet also points to something very profound about our situation. We are not wandering ascetics in ancient India begging for food and we are not living in the snow capped mountains of Tibet.

As people living in the West, we have access to an absolutely dizzying cornucopia of culinary variety. Simply put, we can eat what we want, whenever, and however we want. The fact that we can intentionally choose what we place in our bodies is the vital point here. Because we're blessed to live in a society where its so easy to cut meat from our diet, I will argue that it is our obligation as followers of the Buddha's way to go vegetarian. If this, for whatever reason, is not possible then at the very least we should significantly minimize the amount of meat that is consumed.

The physical, spiritual, economic, environmental, financial, and heath-related benefits of the vegetarian diet have been known for millennia and are far too numerous to expound here. While there may be a few (certainly disputable) benefits to consuming the flesh of animals, the spiritual, ecomomic, environmental, and financial benefits are essentially non-existent. Not only does the methane produced by livestock contribute signficantly to global warming, deforestation, and transportation also burden an already burdened planet. As for world hunger, imagine if all the food and resources used to feed animals awaiting slaughter were instead used to feed human beings.

One criticism non-veg Buddhists make against their herbivore bretheren is that many vegetarians cling to this view and use it to boost up the ego. There is certainly some truth to this criticism. I've personally encountered many vegetarians (mostly not Buddhist) who struck me as arrogant [expletives deleted]. Eating meat doesn't make you a "bad Buddhist" by default anymore than being a vegetarianism makes you an enlightened being (although its a start!). Ad hominem attacks however, do not deal with the real issue. Although arguments can be made for some extenuating circumstances where meat would have to be consumed, to defend meat eating as institution is a clear violation of the First Precept: not to take the life of any living creature. From Buddhist point of view, to rationalize the absolutely unnecessary killing of animals for an irrational food preference is most unskillful indeed.

Lay teacher and Dharma Friend Michael Roehm says of food "eating is the most intimate thing we do, more intimate than sex. Think about it. But not too much".

If you haven't noticed already, I am a fierce advocate of vegetarianism, particularly for those who wish to seriously practice the Dharma. However I do realize that there are situations were this may not be possible. My arguments outlined above are concerned with intentionally (as in karma) eating meat. To be clear, let me summarize my arguments for a Buddhist vegetarian lifestyle:


1. To willingly choose to dine on meat is a violation of the First Precept.
2. There are reasons why past Buddhist traditions have not been vegetarian. This is not the past. It is the present and it will be the future.
3. As people living in the West, we can choose to eat whatever we wish.
4. Because we have this choice, we have an obligation as followers of the Buddha to make the skillful choice and be vegetarian. The benefits are limitless.
5. If meat cannot be completely removed from one's diet, then one should significantly minimize the consumption of it.
6. Think hard about where your food comes from and the labors that brought it to you. If you eat meat, think very hard about this.

As a vegetarian, I find the prevalence of meat eating among Buddhists in the West disheartening but I hope that many will continue to recognize the opportunity we have to do away with it. May the peculiar institution of meat eating soon become an illegitimate and outdated one.

Dropping the "V-Bomb" (1 of 2)

Some time ago, I met up with a number of Buddhist friends during a temple visit and we decided to go to lunch afterwards. We went to an Indian restaurant, we all sat down, and then we started talking about what to order. It sounded something like this:

"Hmm, I wonder how their roghan gosht is".
"Oh no, you HAVE to get the chicken vindaloo, its awesome!"
"I think I'm gonna go with the chicken tikka masala".
"I'm dying for some lamb curry, I haven't had it in ages. Rob, what are you gonna get?"
"Aloo gobi" I said, referring to the classic potato and cauliflower dish.

If you consider yourself a Buddhist, then there are two possible responses to this little episode. It may seem completely mundane and uneventful or it may strike you as inappropriately awkward, to say the least.

Vegetarianism, the "V-Bomb" if you will, always seems to be controversial for vegetarians and non-vegetarians alike and this is, interestingly enough, true within modern Buddhist practice too. Worldwide, the majority of Buddhists out there are not vegetarian. There are reasons for this, as will be discussed later. However, there's something particularly curious about this fact: most Buddhists in the West are not vegetarian either. There are explanations for this too but is this really what we would expect?

In Western civilization, vegetarianism has an ancient history, going back at least 2500 years to ancient Greece. Mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras (of a² + b² = c² fame) was a proponent of vegetarianism and the long list of noteworthy and influential vegetarians includes Leonardi da Vinci, Thomas Edison, Seneca the Younger, Voltaire, and Samuel L. Jackson.

Generally speaking, in the West, those who are drawn to Buddhist teachings and especially those that actually practice tend to have a very socially liberal persuasion. The vegetarian movement within Western liberalism has been around for a long time so it would seem that when Buddhism, in its various forms, started to come West, vegetarianism would be the norm. The reality, as mentioned above, is the opposite.

It seems to be a taboo topic for a veg and non-veg Buddhist to discuss. I try hard not to bring it up (in a serious manner at least), with my Buddhist friends because it almost always gets awkward since I myself am a vegetarian. Some responses I've gotten from non-veg Buddhists include "oh well, you don't need to be a vegetarian to practice" or "uhh well um, yeah I'm working up to it...slowly". Simply put, meat eating among Buddhists in the West has become a most peculiar institution. To figure out how it became so and what, if anything can or should be done, we first need to go back the source: the Buddha himself.

In the Pali texts, generally regarded as the oldest extant sources of Buddhist teachings, we find a set of teachings called the Five Precepts. These Precepts are, in a way, the "kindergarten" of Buddhist practice, the bare minimum guidelines we should try our best to follow. What's precept number one? "I undertake the training rule to refrain from taking the life of any living creature". That's right, do not kill, anything. Many people, myself included, interpret a vegetarian diet to be the one of the logical, natural, and obvious implementations of this rule. Others however, don't stretch the First Precept that far because, as they correctly point out, the Buddha didn't.

According to the Pali sources, the Buddha himself was not a vegetarian and, although certaintly a good idea, did not mandate his students to be vegetarians either. Why would he do such a thing if he was on the earth for "benefit of gods and men"? One answer is that this was an expedient means. Back in ancient India, the practice was for monks and nuns to wander. Then, as now, the diversity of cultures, languages, and customs from region to region was enormous. The monks were supposed to accept ANY food offerings from the laity and as long as the meat wasn't killed specifically for them, it was OK. The life of a wandering ascetic is tough and its also possible to find oneself in a situation where it just wasn't possible to avoid taking meat. From this perspective, it all seems very practical, especially when the main concern is on the spirit of generosity from the giver and the spirit of humble gratitude from the receiver.

While the early texts have a more pragmatic view towards meat eating, the Mahayana tradition has a much more strong take on eating meat: DON'T DO IT. In many extremely popular and influential Mahayana texts like the Lankavatara, Shurangama, and Brahma Net Sutras, we find mild to extremely powerful condemnations of meat eating. The gist of these arguments is that eating meat extinguishes the seed of compassion of one following the Bodhisattva Path.

Historical and sociological explanations for why vegetarianism became so emphasized in early to middle Mahayana teachings in Buddhist India abound. We don't, however, need to delve into such academic discussions in order to understand this from a "Buddhist" point of view: being a vegetarian while not explicitly stated in the early texts, is a natural and immediate practice of compassion, one of the "signature" Mahayana emphases.

When Buddhism spread out to East Asia, China in particular, many of these same debates continued. David Loy points out in his recent book "Money, Sex, War, Karma (Wisdom Pubs, 2008)", that one of the reasons the Chinese Sangha went veg was because the laity expected it of the monastic community. To this day, the Chinese Buddhist traditions are one of the few all vegetarian traditions out there.

Nick Kristof, popular writer for the New York Times wrote of his experiences growing up on a farm and how this endeared him to the welfare of animals. Indeed, his piece entitled, "A Farm Boy Reflects" is an argument in favor of an expanded animal rights law on the Californian ballot in November. In this piece, Kristof talks about his horror and sorrow at witnessing animals being slaughtered. The kicker, as he readily admits, is that is not a vegetarian. It seems like another instance of 1+1 = 143123.984.

Meditations on loving-kindness, metta, are very popular, especially in the West. But those who willingly choose to eat meat must recognize the contradiction that repeating phrases like "may all beings be well, happy, and free from suffering", and then dining on a T-bone steak represent.

The most common rationalization for meat eating is "well I didn't kill the meat, so I'm karmically clean". Perhaps, but the butchers and those involved in the meat industry are certainly not karmically clean. The abomination of modern factory farming is well established. If you eat a dead animal, its almost certain that your meal was not treated well, did not live a happy life, and had to endure a hell of a lot of suffering.

Sure, you may not have held the cleaver yourself but if no one ate meat, what use would we have for butchers in the first place?

Feeling It

One of the most important functions of meditation practice is that it allows the mind to settle. When this occurs, we can experience both the inner and outer stillness and clarity. A big misconception people have however, is that this is something which can only occur on the meditation cushion or in a remote, mountain-top hermitage. Not so.

My usual schedule is to wake up before dawn everyday and after freshening up, shaving, etc. I prepare for the morning sit. Sitting at this time is great for two reasons. The first is that there's a good feeling of "rising with the sun". The second is that its just before the serious rush hour traffic starts on my street.

One random morning however, I overslept. "Ugh, too late for the morning sit, I'd better eat and head out", I thought to myself.

While waiting for my computer to start up, something happened. I'm not sure how to explain it other than to say I was "feeling it". What was I feeling? I could best describe it as calmness, stillness, and a kind of gentle sereneness. I had experienced something like this before...on a silent meditation retreat. Amazing, open, full of wonde-HOOOOONK HOOOONK. Before I knew it however, the computer was on, the tea kettle whistling, and the traffic rolling out in full. Nonetheless, it was still an interesting experience to have. Perhaps I should try oversleeping more often.


Sunrise from my apartment window:

Poem of the Week: Summer

"The sun blazing fiercely,
the moon longed for eagerly,
deep waters inviting
to plunge in continually,
days drawing to a close in quiet beauty,
the tide of desire running low;
scorching Summer is now here, my love".

-Kālidāsa in the "The Gathering of the Seasons" (Rtusamharam)

Siddhartha's Palace

New York Times writer Judith Warner writes in her blog about the effects of "affluenza" on our society:

The $10,000-camp universe appears to be rife with what mental health professionals are now calling “affluenza,” a social pathology that, they say, is rampant at a time when getting and spending — a lot — have become our nation’s most cherished activities, and when purchasing power has become, to an unprecedented extent, almost the sole source of many people’s status and identity.

In our society, you don’t have to be wealthy to suffer from affluenza. Its symptoms — “debt, overwork, waste, and harm to the environment, leading to psychological disorders, alienation, and distress,” in adults; “lack of motivation … apathy, laziness, or failure to commit to and achieve goals … overindulgence and attitudes of entitlement” in children, according to the New York University Child Study Center, are pervasive — and no one is immune.

For affluenza is not just a constellation of symptoms. It is an ethic, a play-the-system, lie-and-cheat-your-way-to-what-you-want, don’t-let-the-peons-stand-in-your-way ethic of amorality. You rock, kid, parents teach. And you — alone — rule.

This ethic drives behavior — like the behavior of the wealthy parents profiled in The Times who, flouting camp bans on cellphone use, sent their kids off with two phones, so that, if one was confiscated, there’d still be a spare for secret calls home. And it also permeates social attitudes and policy.

What ever happened to "no work, no food"?