Your Meditation Guide Blog

The November issue of National Geographic magazine features a moving photograph of chimpanzees watching as one of their own is wheeled to her burial. Since it was published, the picture and story have gone viral, turning up on websites and TV shows and in newspapers around the world. For readers who’d like to know more, here’s what I learned when I interviewed the photographer, Monica Szczupider. On September 23, 2008, Dorothy, a female chimpanzee in her late 40s, died of congestive heart failure. A maternal and beloved figure, Dorothy had spent eight years at Cameroon’s Sanaga-Yong Chimpanzee Rescue Center, which houses and rehabilitates chimps victimized by habitat loss and the illegal African bushmeat trade. Szczupider, who had been a volunteer at the center, told me: “Her presence, and loss, was palpable, and resonated throughout the group. The management at Sanaga-Yong opted to let Dorothy's chimpanzee family witness her burial, so that perhaps they would understand, in their own capacity, that Dorothy would not return. Some chimps displayed aggression while others barked in frustration. But perhaps the most stunning reaction was a recurring, almost tangible silence. If one knows chimpanzees, then one knows that [they] are not [usually] silent creatures."

James: It touches me deeply that this chimpanzee family lined up to view the dead body of one of their own as it passed by them. It's similar to the funeral possessions that are common amongst humans, which makes sense on one level when you consider that humans and chimpanzees have DNA that is 95-98% similar. In Buddhism we are taught that the human realm offers the best chance for realizing liberation from suffering and the cycle of birth/death. In addition to that it is said that the animal realm is a horrendous station and from what I have observed of the animal kingdom it does seem rather harsh and rough. Sometimes this unfortunately leads people to see animals as "dumb" and that delusion often leads to taking advantage of them.

We do so at our own peril because animals are embedded in our DNA if you believe the generally accepted theory of evolution. Taken a step further in Buddhism, of course we know that we are interconnected to all beings regardless of evolution or not. The molecules that make up our body blend with the molecules that make up the air, which blend into the molecules that make up other people, animals, rocks, water and on and on. It is not a connection we can see with our eyes of delusion but if we look closer with a mindful eye that web of connection shines forth in beautiful and reassuring ways.

Those chimpanzees might not know the Dharma but they do understand love and compassion. How could a mother of any species not have a bond with their offspring that is an expression of concern and care? In my mind, that is but another way of showing and experiencing compassion and love. The uncharacteristic silence of the chimps is something a being wouldn't show if it didn't experience expressions of sorrow and respect. We know chimps are capable of showing respect in how they stratify their family groups. Respect is shown to the experienced and strong male as well as the alpha female.

So they may not know how to liberate themselves from suffering but in my opinion they deserve respect, dignity and a chance at life that we expect for our own offspring. It's not my place to say that someone should be a vegetarian--that's an ego boosting exercise nor it is skillful means. Besides, Buddha didn't set a strict rule about it nor can all people follow a vegetarian diet due to climate and health considerations. I don't eat meat and abstaining from it is for me personally apart of keeping the first precept to avoid violence. However, I struggle with other precepts so I don't have any right to condemn anyone for eating meat -- nor would I do so. I may not eat meat or kill animals but I do still struggle sometimes with verbal violence so I keep working and practicing. There is no point to judging others or guilting people into doing something or not doing something. In addition, people can be very compassionate, loving and caring toward animals regardless of diet. Although for some, vegetarianism might be helpful, rewarding and beneficial to understanding compassion as a universal right.

The recent news coming out of the perennial war of ratings among cable news channels was shocking, I tell you, just shocking: CNN, which three decades ago invented the whole business of cable news, is now dead last in terms of prime time viewership!

The numbers speak clearly: in October, CNN averaged 211,000 daily viewers aged 25 to 54 (the people who matter, because they have money and the inclination to buy what the advertisers sell), against 221,000 of HLN (formerly known as Head Lines News, ironically, a CNN spinoff!), 250,000 of MSNBC, and a whopping 689,000 for Fox.

Things don’t look any better for good old CNN if we look at the performance of individual anchors: Anderson Cooper’s show was dead last at 211,000, while Keith Olbermann was at 295,000, and Bill O’Reilly beat everyone at 881,000 (this is total viewership, regardless of age bracket — notice that O’Reilly is particularly popular with the old white male cantankerous crowd...). The only consolation for Cooper, but not for CNN, is that Lou Dobbs could interest only 162,000 viewers with his cheap populism and anti-immigration rants.

Now, we could be spending our time decrying the fact that Americans seem to have a strong preference for opinionated editorializing (be it Obermann or O’Reilly) over real solid news. Except of course that CNN hasn’t offered real solid news in a long time. Or we could bemoan the fact that a vitriolic ideologue like O’Really totals almost three times more viewers than the equally ideological but far less vitriolic and infinitely more sane Obermann.

But that would be missing the real story. Let me give you some other numbers for comparison, so that we can put things in proper context. The total adult population of the United States is 231 million, which means that even O’Reilly is not actually followed by more than 0.4 percent of the population. The daily readership of the much dreaded (by O’Reilly) New York Times is about 1 million, the audienceship of the beleaguered (by Republican-led budget cuts) National Public Radio is a whopping 6.5 million daily. For crying out loud, even Jon Stewart’s Daily Show beats O’Reilly hands down, with an average viewership of over 2 million, and a peak performance of 3.6 million!

So the real question is: why do we give a damn, as a nation, about what O’Reilly, Obermann, Dobbs, and company say? Why do these people have the power to affect national debates about health care, wars, and the environment, while clearly more reasoned voices actually get much more attention, and when the overwhelming majority of Americans are paying no attention at all?

The latter, of course, is the answer. Yes, O’Reilly’s power derives in part from the dollars that advertisers “invest” on his programs, and in part from the fact that we live in a society where those who shout — even when they are a small minority — get to dictate the terms of the “discussion” to the rest of us (witness the inane spectacle of last summer’s “town hall meetings”).

But it is us who let them do it, largely through apathy. Progressives in this country could count on an overwhelming majority of votes if the majority of eligible voters bothered to vote. A few weeks ago, instead, even in New York City — where there are more political activists than in almost the entire rest of the country combined — a tiny fraction of voters turned out for a runoff primary that for all effective purposes decided the election of a crucial political post like that of City Comptroller.

Republicans know this and act accordingly. Years ago the Christian Coalition devised their “12.5% strategy” to control the country. They reckoned that less than 50% of Americans go to vote, and that the fraction is about half that at primaries, which means that a candidate only needs half again of that (i.e., slightly above 12.5% of the total) to win the primary, which often means winning the general election. It worked, until recently, when the Obama machine turned out unprecedented numbers of minorities and poor to vote during the last presidential election.

Americans are so full of themselves that one of their favorite mantras is that they are “the best democracy in the world,” while actual comparative sociological studies show that the US only ranks below the middle of the pack in terms of quantitative measures of democracy (including, of course, voter participation). As the near certain reelection of Michael Bloomberg as mayor of New York City next week attests — despite the fact that the guy shamefully overturned a term limits law that would have barred him from running a third time — this is simply, the best democracy that money can buy. And what do we do about it? Instead of getting mad and throwing out the clowns, the ideologues and the rich people who think of politics as their personal pastime, we change the channel and watch reruns of Two and Half Men. We truly deserve, then, the little we get from our political class.

Baseball player Alex Rodriquez is reportedly going to convert to Buddhism for his girl friend, actress Kate Hudson. I'm not a Religious Studies professor but I do know that converting to a religion out of a feeling of obligation or to please a person is a horrible reason. I was apart of a belief system growing up in which I remained for longer than I should have out of a feeling of obligation and It was gut-wrenching. I finally realized that I was living a lie and deceiving my parents into thinking I was a loyal member.

I can't say whether A-Rod will stay with it or not but too often we do things for the wrong reasons and the biggest example I can think of is with love/happiness. We might think that we have to be a certain way in order to gain the love of someone and be happy. The other side of that coin is when we withhold love to get things from someone. That isn't love or true happiness. That is loved based on attachment. It's like saying, "I love you but only if you do the things I like, be the person I want and believe the things I do." The Venerable Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh says of happiness and love in his book, "Teachings on Love":

"Our idea of happiness can prevent us from actually being happy. We fail to see the opportunity for joy that is right in front of us when we are caught in a belief that happiness should take a particular form."

James: It's hard when our vision of happiness doesn't pan out but if we can find happiness in what we already have then we'll never be disappointed. And we won't be manipulating people thus causing suffering for them too. I working on that with everyone else by the way. My pot is no less cracked than anyone else's. I hope that A-Rod finds something about Buddhism to be important, interesting or worthwhile other than being the religion his girlfriend practices. I also hope Kate Hudson didn't pressure him to convert. Because that would make me wonder just how well she knows Buddhism because pressuring people to do much of anything in Buddhism is taboo. I'm not saying that A-Rod doesn't have any personal interest in Buddhism but from what I know of the story it sounds like he is doing it just for her. I hope it works out because I sure have found a lot in Buddhism that has helped my life but it doesn't mean much if you're not fully engaged.

Knowing this, a wise and learned bodhisattva, works not towards Arhatship, nor enlightenment, nor Nirvana. In the practice alone one trains for the sake of the practice.

James: So goes the 22nd verse of, "The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines." I hadn't heard of this treasure until now. However, hanks to the generosity, thoughtfulness and compassion of two people I've been given a great gift: My friend Jamie and the blog, "The New Heretics." Thanks Dharma buds. You should take some time and read the whole discourse because it's beautiful, insightful and an invaluable teaching. As well as a gentle and wise but compassionate reminder of what the essence of the Buddha Dharma is all about. After reading it I felt as though I had just received a rare teaching from a wise monk from centuries ago. It feels as true today as it was in Buddha's era.

So without further ado, "The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines" as interpreted by "The New Heretics."

PHOTO: Bodhisattva of Wisdom, Monjusri or Monju as said in Japan. He holds a scroll to represent wisdom and a sword to cut through ignorance. He represents the wisdom in all of us.

* Believe it or not, some Republicans can even vote against the prosecution of rape crimes. Watch the Jon Stewart commentary.

I wanted to add some additional thoughts about the current discussion bubbling up to the surface in the Buddhoblogosphere about sanghas and teachers, which I addressed in my last post found here. As you know I support both online sanghas and interactions with teachers as well as the traditional sanghas and teacher environments. I am somewhat bewildered by those who refuse to acknowledge the usefulness of iSanghas (online sanghas). Especially when there are those, which are run and administered by ordained monks!! We have to let go of this idea which bubbles up from time to time that online sanghas and teaching environments are always inadequate.

So if I show up in person and talk to an ordained teacher at the agreed upon building I will get a "better" Dharma than if I interact with the same teacher via chat, phone or video-conferencing? Is the "specialness" (that some "purists" claim comes with physical presence of a teacher) the smell they give off? Is the trick being your smell mixing with their smell? I know that's silly sounding and that's the point because purists are being silly with this issue in my view. Whatever happened to the idea of 84,000 different ways of teaching the Dharma? I fully support traditional sanghas and a lot of other Buddhist traditions. However, we practice a belief system that was developed by a man who had NO Roshi or other Buddhist "Master" to help him. Even ordained teachers who wander the temples and meditation centers will tell you that no amount of interaction with a teacher will enlighten you. In the end it is each one of us who has to do the work. It doesn't matter if a Zen Master stands on his head while chanting unless you do the work yourself. That's not to say that interaction with an ordained teach is WRONG--It's not wrong AT ALL. It's very important and should remain intact but there is plently of room and elasticity in Buddhism to allow for iSanghas.

However, at what point are we clinging to something simply because "that's the way it's always been done?" Isn't being a "purist" in this case attaching way too much importance to the ritual of the student/teacher relationship? As well as the ritual of formal buildings and temples? Don't get me wrong I want to maintain these wonderful buildings and tradition of having a teacher to work with in person. However, I don't see "iSanghas" as a disease that will ruin Buddhism, which is an attitude I see behind much of this hyperventilation over these new developments in Buddhism. The original "temples" were forests. So was the change that would come with the advent of more formal temples with ornate carvings, golden statues and beautiful artwork poisoning the "traditional forest sangha" set-up? What about the great masters who left the temples after a time to study alone in a cave? Were they not "credible teachers?"

Were those caves hindrances to their practice? Tell that to all the great teachers who have come from that tradition, which is especially strong in Tibetan Buddhism. Tell Buddhadharma that the meditation he was doing in that cave wasn't "the real Dharma" because there was no teacher right there to constantly whack him on the back. So my point is that change is inevitable and we seem to be able to see that in our daily lives with learning to adapt to changes at work, in relationships and in all areas of life. Yet I have seen a strange stubborn streak in some practitioners when it comes to change in Buddhism seen here with the virtual sanghas and online interactions with a teacher. Hell, there are STILL people who say that Mahayanist Buddhists aren't TRUE Buddhists!! Some people are still fighting that change, which was a difference that arose ages ago.

Awhile back I was contacted by Zen teacher Jundo Cohen about his wonderful Tree Leaf Zendo, which provides insightful v-cast teachings that include a time for sitting Zazen. It's a very effective way of staying interconnected with a teacher and the sangha of practitioners if one has needs that precludes a person from sitting formally.

I know the advent of the "Online Sangha" has been of some controversy of late on the Buddoblogosphere. I personally find it change to embrace and appreciate. It is allowing and enabling the Dharma to reach more and more people who seek its wisdom. People are discovering the Buddha's teachings through the internet who might not ever have come into contact with them if it were in years past.

I do not understand how enabling more people (through technology) to sit with and learn from ordained teachers as well as enjoy support from fellow practitioners is a less helpful. It seems to me that such thinking is allowing yourself to be tethered to the "iron ball and chain" obstacle of "I'm here" and "you're there." Just because people aren't sitting the same room does not mean that their sitting is less helpful, less real or a "fad." If we believe that we truly understand interconnection then the idea of a sangha meeting virtually from all corners of the world should make complete and total sense. It is a creative way to make that understanding of interconnectedness stronger to encompass the world and beyond. Jundo Cohen speaks of the illusion of "Now" and "There" quite beautifully in this v-cast:
James:Along this same parallel, I believe that there is other life out in the universe (as even the atheist Richard Dawkins believes). As Dawkins writes in his fantastic book, "The God Delusion":

Now suppose the origin of life, the spontaneous arising of something equivalent to DNA, really was a quite staggeringly improbable event. Suppose it was so improbable as to occur on only one in a billion planets. And yet, even with such absurdly long odds, life will still have arisen on a billion planets -- of which, Earth, of course, is one."

James: This was in response to the creationist claim that evolution means life was created spontaneously, whereas evolutionists know it evolved over billions of years. He was saying, however, that even if it was spontaneous--the probability still makes it very likely.

That all said, I do not believe that alien life has contacted us or our world--yet. But my point in all of this "alien life" discussion is that idea of infinite lives being connected to all things and beings regardless of proximity to a meditation center or physical presence at one. We are interconnected with things that we haven't even discovered yet!! How cool and humbling is that idea?!! Imagine one day being able to virtually meditate with Buddhist practitioners of some other planet?!! You could be meditating at the same time with someone from your country, another country on the other side of the planet and another life form on another side of the UNIVERSE!!!! That would be quite the mindful moment of awareness of the many levels of interconnectedness. What a marvelous thought. Even better? We can do that right now. We can imagine all forms of life as we meditate on interconnectedness, which makes the Universe (I find) very personal and easier to grasp.

UPDATE: I wanted to elaborate a bit more on why there is some blow-back (resistance) to online sanghas and online or telephone interactions with teachers. I suspect that some of the "anti-internet" sanghas stems from a perhaps hidden desire to maintain their position as "Abbot" of some prestigious temple. Or as an ordained practitioner by a prestigious and famous "Master." This is not to say that there is anything wrong with ordaination but there seems to be a bit of a tendancy for some traditional practitioners to act as "purists" when someone discovers another way of diseminating the Dharma.

It's sad that rather than welcome another way to spread the Dharma and sustain practitioners who can't access physical sanghas; some of these folks laugh off online interactions as "not as real" or "authentic." As if there is anything "real" to begin with but that's a topic for another time. Part of these backlash could also stem from a desire to maintain their institution and steady line of devoted students. Such a position of importance can easily fuel their egos and push them to seek maintaining such a situation regardless of what it might mean for others.

I don't see how online sanghas and online interaction with ordained teachers threatens traditional "brick and mortar" sanghas. They both administer to different groups of practitioners. Some feel the need for physical interaction like those who attend school on a campus. Versus those who attend online classes. This doesn't threaten the disappearance of traditional sanghas and temples for people will always have a need for sacred places. It's to say that no one needs a savior, a "master" or any other being to wake up. It's not a matter of one or the other.

Physical sanghas, temples and monasteries simply need to adapt a bit. Perhaps setting up an online sangha on their own web page administered by a senior monk would help people continue their practice while maintaining a deep connecting with their teacher and that particular sangha or temple. Even just maintaining an interactive website where senior monks answer questions as they can would help maintain both needs of updated sangha options and making sure our institutions are still honored.

Establishing or growing retreats and especially days or weeks when the temples and sanghas celebrate and honor traditions and festivals. That way people would be more willing drive an hour or so to attend something to connect with fellow physical practitioners from time to time without having to drive hours upon hours every time sangha meets. It would also enable people with psychological conditions to be apart of a communion and connection with a physical temple/sangha while limiting the stimulation that they easily become overwhelmed with.

Even just maintaining an interactive website where senior monks answer questions as they can would help maintain both needs of updated sangha options and making sure our institutions are still honored.They are all helpful, useful and I believe essential to a degree. However, they are still, in the end--fingers pointing at the moon. No one can do the waking up but us.

* A brief video discussion among a journalist, a philosopher and a scientist about what truth is.

In 50 years of exile from Tibet, this self-professed “simple monk” has been the driving force behind the growing prominence of women in Tibetan exile society. He has even suggested that his next reincarnation could and should be a girl. “Woman is more compassionate and has more power to understand and feel the needs of others as compared to man,” he said at a press conference last November in Dharamsala, his exile home in northern India. That the Dalai Lama—believed by Tibetan Buddhists to be the 14th reincarnation of the Buddha of compassion—should return to the world as a woman is a radical notion that perturbs even open-minded Tibetans, men and women alike. And despite his wishes, the 15th reincarnation will very likely be a boy, just like all the prior ones.

In the film he also spoke admiringly about a milestone in Tibetan history known as Tibetan Women’s Uprising Day. On March 12, 1959—just days before he fled his homeland -- about 15,000 women spontaneously gathered in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa in an unprecedented display of peaceful protest against China’s invasion of Tibet.

Those women were “heroines,” says the Dalai Lama in A Quiet Revolution. It was “as if they already knew the feminist movement!” He laughs gleefully as though he has told a hilarious joke. At the time, Tibet was closed to the outside world. To a Tibetan, Simone De Beauvoir and Betty Friedan might as well have been Martians.

James: I find it odd in a way that some Tibetan Buddhists who revere The Dalai Lama not only as their spiritual leader but also for being the very incarnation of the compassionate Bodhisattva Avalokitshevara (or Guan Yin) would disagree with him on this issue. How can he be wrong if you believe his very essence is to convey, show, teach and bring about compassion? He basically has a Phd in Compassion. I think he knows the subject better than most of us. Also, If we are all one then by not allowing women to potentially be a Dalai Lama is to deny a part of all of us.Besides, I have read several accounts where Avalokiteshvara is somewhat androgynous and has at least, a strong feminine side to him. In some cultures Avalokiteshvara is actually a woman in the form of Guan Yin. I don't see why it would be so controversial for the Dalai Lama to reincarnate as a woman if Avalokiteshvara is equal parts male and equal parts female. The Dalai Lama recognizes the deep compassion and nurturing instinct that many women have is essential in a world that grows more and more cold, harsh, mean and uncaring. And I can't think of a better way for the Dalai Lama to teach everyone about the equality of all people than by being reincarnated as a woman.