Your Meditation Guide Blog

Since the dark days of the attacks on America by radical, Islamic terrorists on September 11th 2001, there has been a growing intolerance here for non-Judeo-Christian religions. This has, unfortunately, been mostly aimed at the American-Muslim community in a misguided attempt to combat radical Islam.

Unfortunately, there are numerous people in America who can't seem to make a distinction between an Islamic terrorist and an Islamic moderate practicing their religion freely as allowed under the American Constitution. But I digress. One of the targets of the this fear of anything Islamic has come in the form of a wide-spread paranoia of Sharia law.

In brief, Sharia law is law based on the Islamic holy book, the Qur'an (koran). The Islamophobia is so rampant in America these days that states have taken to banning Sharia law in a preemptive move to prevent such law from taking root. This is occurring despite no movement to impose or establish Sharia law in America. The silliness of it all is that such moves by these states are a waste of time since the American Constitution supersedes any other form of law within America!!

But the politicians of Arizona didn't stop there. They wanted to make sure ALL non-Christian religious beliefs would have no influence in Arizona state law. This included banning karma, which I didn't even know was possible considering karma is basically the idea of, "cause and effect" or causality. So, in one sense, by banning karma, these politicians are essentially trying to ban the scientific law of cause and effect. They seriously banned karma within the state of Arizona, which for a Buddhist is all rather odd considering karma isn't really a form of law to base a government around, but rather a natural consequence of our actions. I'm not angry or offended by their attempt to ban karma but I am certainly amused by it all!! It makes me laugh because banning karma is like banning gravity.

However, what I do take seriously is the generalized intolerance of anything that's not Christian or of Anglo-Saxon cultural origin. The last thing we need in this already complicated world of suffering is additional reasons to divide ourselves and fuel hatred. It truly makes my heart ache to see such narrow-minded thinking in my country, which has often been the example of tolerance in the world.

James: I know karma doesn't necessarily work this way, but this sure is ironic:

Bernard Matthews, known in Britain as the 'turkey tycoon,' died on Thursday [Thanksgiving, when many Americans eat turkey and give thanks for things in their life] at the age of 80, his company said. "He is the man who effectively put turkey on the plates of everyday working families."

It has been brought to my attention that there is someone going around the buddhoblogosphere plagiarizing not only my blog but several others. In some cases it is word for word what I have written, and the blog owner is, so brazen to even include my name in the posts! The blog name is, "Buddha Rocks" and is run by someone who goes by the moniker, "Lord of the Blogosphere." They are changing a few words and using terrible sentence grammar but on the whole it's my posts verbatim. And, I'm not the only one. Several other Buddhist bloggers are being targeted.

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but this is straight out plagiarism. I'm not angry at this person but rather have compassion that they feel such a desperate need for attention as to steal another person's hard work. I want them to know that they have the potential to write interesting content if they would simply let go of trying so hard to impress people. Plagiarism will only leave them feeling hollow and empty inside.

May they realize that such stealing only brings increased suffering to them. I don't want to see them suffer, so I am calling upon them to end this practice and find their own voice. I'm sure they have something interesting to say on their own and I encourage them to just write from the heart, and I know that will bring them greater fulfillment than stealing.

My writings lately on the Kalama Sutra being a Buddhist version of the "scientific method" have sparked a discussion about its essence. Found here. And, so, I decided to make a new post using my comments addressing the points of the readers Dylan and Jayavara. Dylan mentioned a discourse of the Kalama Sutra by the Theravadan monk Bhikkhu Bodhi. I won't speculate on Dylan's intentions in posting that link but I do disagree slightly with the Bhikkhu's analysis on the sutra. I want to make it clear that I'm not ascribing any of the following Bhikkhu Bodhi comments as being the same of Dylan. In the discourse, the Bhikkhu seems to reject the idea of using the Kalama Sutra as a guide for knowing when a teaching of Buddha's is helpful. Bhikkhu Bodhi said:

Now does the Kalama Sutta suggest, as is often held, that a follower of the Buddhist path can dispense with all faith and doctrine, that he should make his own personal experience the criterion for judging the Buddha's utterances and for rejecting what cannot be squared with it? It is true the Buddha does not ask the Kalamas to accept anything he says out of confidence in himself, but let us note one important point: the Kalamas, at the start of the discourse, were not the Buddha's disciples. They approached him merely as a counselor who might help dispel their doubts, but they did not come to him as the Tathagata, the Truth-finder, who might show them the way to spiritual progress and to final liberation.

James: I am not saying in my post that Buddhists should dispense with all faith and doctrine because of this sutra. I think you should be balanced with both faith and reason. As for this sutra being specifically for the Kalama people and not applying to actual Buddhists; I would disagree because many who first read the sutra are already Buddhist practitioners. Additionally, to say that certain sutras are only for Buddhists and others for non-Buddhists is a form of dividing people and denying the oneness of all beings that Buddha taught. All of us can learn from the sutras whether we are full blown, card carrying, Buddhist or just investigating Buddhism. To say some teachings are just for Buddhists seems somewhat elitist. All of us come to Buddha to dispel our doubts and answer our questions of life. Not just Kalamas. To suggest otherwise is to say that Buddhists don't need to dispel doubts or answer questions. It seems to suggest that Buddhists already have it all figured out, which clearly isn't true.

Bhikkhu Bodhi goes on to say: Thus, because the Kalamas had not yet come to accept the Buddha in terms of his unique mission, as the discloser of the liberating truth, it would not have been in place for him to expound to them the Dhamma unique to his own Dispensation: such teachings as the Four Noble Truths, the three characteristics, and the methods of contemplation based upon them. These teachings are specifically intended for those who have accepted the Buddha as their guide to deliverance, and in the suttas he expounds them only to those who "have gained faith in the Tathagata" and who possess the perspective necessary to grasp them and apply them.

James: Here the Bhikkhu seems to be saying that the four noble truths are only for Buddhists. How then do you teach someone about Buddhism (as the 4 noble truths are apart of the very foundation of Buddhism) without mentioning the four noble truths? The idea that Buddha would categorize those seeking his wisdom doesn't jive with my own experience and with other teachings of his in other sutras. And I gain that insight from using the admonitions in the Kalama sutra to use (in-part) one's own experiences and observations as a guide. Not the only guide but a necessary tool to help figure out what makes causes less harm and what doesn't. Then Bhikkhu Bodhi seems to contradict himself and agree with the line of thinking that I was expounding upon.

Thus the discourse to the Kalamas offers an acid test for gaining confidence in the Dhamma as a viable doctrine of deliverance. We begin with an immediately verifiable teaching whose validity can be attested by anyone with the moral integrity to follow it through to its conclusions, namely, that the defilements cause harm and suffering both personal and social, that their removal brings peace and happiness, and that the practices taught by the Buddha are effective means for achieving their removal. By putting this teaching to a personal test, with only a provisional trust in the Buddha as one's collateral, one eventually arrives at a firmer, experientially grounded confidence in the liberating and purifying power of the Dhamma. This increased confidence in the teaching brings along a deepened faith in the Buddha as teacher, and thus disposes one to accept on trust those principles he enunciates that are relevant to the quest for awakening.

James: Here he seems to be backing up the idea of using the Kalama Sutra as a "control" to assess further the core of Buddha's wisdom and enlightenment. He calls it an "acid test" (which is a scientific test). Just like the idea of it being a form of the "scientific method." In the end, you have to make up your own mind about this sutra by putting it to the test. Like all of the Buddha's teachings in the Sutras. While I do put a lot of weight behind the Kalama Sutra I also advocate (as the Bhikkhu does) cultivating faith and adhering to doctrine that one finds helpful. I don't agree that the Kalama Sutra only applies to non-Buddhists. If it's not a sutra that Buddhist practitioners should listen to then why is it in the "sanctioned" Pali Canon?

Then, my friend Jayavara said the following when addressing my last post: I think we are in danger of over cooking the (so-called) K?l?ma Sutta. Yes, it is a charter for an empirical approach, but to what?. But there are quite a number of limitations on this approach. The Buddha seems to be only talking about the moral sphere in that discourse. He is telling the K?l?mas that they should decide what is ethical on the basis of what they know to be good. There was then, as now in our societies, some doubt as to the basis of morality. Specifically moralities based on ideas of karma and rebirth of which there were a number of variations at the time.

This can be seen in the varied ways that karma is talked about in the P?li texts themselves, and in texts which are likely to date from near that time like the early Upani?ads, particularly the B?had?ranyaka. The Buddha was suggesting natural morality to the K?l?mas - i.e. that they don't go on ideology, but on "what they know to be right". But I don't think he goes beyond this into the sphere of meditation or wisdom and there we cannot use it as a measure for judging any teachings per se, but only for judging the suitability our own actions. Because of the subjective nature of Buddhist morality - it's all about what's going on your mind when you act - it makes applying the scientific method quite difficult. Science is all about repeatability and on the level of individual actions, none is ever repeatable.

So we tend to look in hindsight, and to try to assess actions collectively. At best it gives us broad brush strokes like: "refrain from acting when angry otherwise you will cause harm, or at least unhappiness." This is indeed the kind of truism that 'social scientists' come up with after years of research, which make us wonder why we fund such 'science'. I've trained in both disciplines - Science (I have a B.Sc in chemistry) and Buddhism. I do find some cross fertilisation. But it's more a spirit of enquiry and observation, than a full blown application of scientific method. And since it is all very subjective, all about knowing my own mental states, the scientific method has little to get a purchase on. In short there is nothing to measure. Learning from experience is not necessarily the scientific method - everyone does it. The only way to know if a teaching 'works' is to try it out for yourself.

James: Just because Buddha is mainly speaking to the Kalamas about karma and rebirth doesn't mean that the wisdom can't be applied to other teachings that one is doubting or investigating. For example, the heart sutra applies to many situations. As does the Diamond sutra and others. I think compartmentalizing his teachings as addressing only the people he is directly speaking to in a particular sutra; and about only that specific situation presented, is limiting the impact of the Dharma. We are limiting the Buddha's scope. Faith also requires us to have faith in ourselves that we can adapt Buddha's teachings to guide us in all situations. Otherwise, none of us should be following ANY of the sutras because they were all spoke to people that are long dead. So how can any of the sutras apply to us if we are to only look at them in the context of who he was historically addressing?

To teach otherwise seems to be focusing more on protecting a particular tradition or dogma than encouraging direct experience based on the faith in Buddha as a wise teacher. As we know, there are many varied schools of Buddhism. So, if it's possible to have such diverse styles of practicing the Dharma then surely it's possible to interpret the sutras several ways. And apply them to several time periods and situations. It feels like limiting the scope of Buddha's wisdom. I would only somewhat disagree with you that all actions aren't repeatable. If Buddha is specifically saying in the Kalama Sutra that testing his teachings will help you realize whether they help cause less harm or not then I think testing them to see if greed (for example) causes harm is pretty repeatable. As millions throughout varied ages have discovered the same reality that greed is harmful using the directions from Buddha to not accept anything that causes you harm.

I don't mean to say that the advice in the Kalama Sutra is EXACTLY like the scientific method. But that there are similarities, which would seem to be beneficial in understanding the wisdom of the Dharma to the modern mind that is so influenced by science. I agree that the only way to know if a teaching works is to try it. Just like the only way to know if a scientific hypothesis is right is to try it in a test. That's why I compared such advice to the scientific method. Again, they aren't exactly the same but both provide a way to test ideas based on direct, concrete actions. I also don't suggest that we should only follow our direct experience and intuition. Of course, faith and trust in our teachers is important as well.


PHOTO CREDIT: Students in the Emory Tibet Science Initiative take turns, looking through a microscope. Emory University.

It seems that karma is one of the least understood principles of Buddhism. Yet, at its core it is not too dissimilar to Newtons third law of motion, which says that for every action there is a reaction. Thus, in essence karma is nothing different than cause and effect, which isn't as mystical and confusing as some might think. It stands to reason that if I hit my friend in the head with a hammer that there will be a reaction--and rightly so!!

At times though we can become obsessed with our karma wondering what previous action led to any number of things we're currently obsessed about: A disease we might be living with, a state of poverty or a perceived lack of talents. Believe me I've spent way too many nights wondering what I did "wrong" in a past life to develop a severe psychiatric condition but that's just not a good use of my time.

The problem is that karma is such an all-encompassing, timeless, constant process that it's nearly impossible to isolate what previous action led to a present condition that causes us particular suffering. There is karma at work that happened thousands of years ago. Plus, not everything is caused by karma. We know that the human form is the most suitable form to understand the Dharma in but it's not without its downsides. Some things, like sickness are just apart of the human condition regardless of who we were or are now as Buddha found out early: We get sick, we age and then die. So, it quickly becomes pointless to try and figure out what came from where. It will merely cause additional stress and suffering, which will do nothing to improve our current condition that we were suffering from originally before we started a forensic investigation into our past karma.

Physical disease is particularly hard to pin down because we are all destined for disease from our first breath as an infant. The minute we take our first breath, the countdown to death begins. That might be shockingly morbid to some of you but if you contemplate upon it you might find it frees you up to enjoy the present moment rather than obsessing about death and disease. We always seem to ask "why" when we have a major disease but not when we just have a simple sickness like a cold or the flu. Why, not? Because we simply understand that the human condition is frail and sickness is inevitable.

Yet somehow when we get a severe disease we think the severity means it must be punishment for something we did. The question becomes, "What did I do to deserve this?" The ego-mind wants some serious infraction to cling to because that would make sense to its limited and deluded nature but the real answer to that question of, "What did I do to deserve this?" is simply that you were born a human. That's it. I know, it's not a particularly exciting answer but that's the point. The ego-mind is looking for some exciting, unique reason for it. So, that even though the body is sick, at least it will get to feel important because some guru said the sickness was from some mysterious past life. It's silly isn't it when you think of it that way? It's not that we are trying to sound important--we just want to know why we're sick so we can feel better but the ego is so subtle that it can control us like a puppet and we're often none the wiser. That's why paying attention to our thoughts through meditation is so important. So that we can practice on being aware of our ego more and more.

This is important to remember when it comes to one's health because it can be easy to feel discouraged if we assume a disease we live with now is because of some terrible action we committed in the past. The point of Buddhism is not to figure out what we did wrong in the past but to stay centered in the present moment, so that we add as little additional burden to our karmic backpack as possible. Why worry if something in your past caused you to get sick? That won't help heal your disease but it will cause stress, which makes any illness worse. This reminds me of a famous lesson from Buddha, which goes something like this: A man gets struck with a poisoned arrow and the doctor wants to get it out as soon as possible and reverse the spread of the poison. Instead, the man shot by the arrow says first he wants to know who shot it, what kind of arrow is it? How was it made? Where did the wood for the arrow come from? Where did the poison come from, and what kind is it? But by the time the man finds this out he'll be dead.

Worrying about the past won't change anything--what's done is done. If you feel you did something less than helpful in a past life (or just yesterday) then don't worry about it; just live now the best way you can. Because you can't heal your physical self now without letting go of having to know all those "poisoned arrow" questions. Buddhism is about the present because it is the only time we have. We can waste our entire lives living in the past and I know some old people who have been lost to the ravages of that kind of worry. They are empty shells of people who are so balled up with stress and regret that they hardly know what is going on presently. They spent so much time lost in their past memories that even they have almost become a memory. Live in the now, not the past because we aren't guaranteed a tomorrow.

Our environment is the ultimate middle-path. In order for life to exist and thrive upon Earth the environmental conditions must be perfectly balanced for optimum benefit. It is because of the importance of this delicate balance that, as a Buddhist, I am also a committed environmentalist.

So, as you can imagine I've been watching with horror like everyone else the volcano of oil gushing night and day from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. Ultimately this BP disaster has come about from our collective greed for cheap fuel at the expense of our greater environment to power our excessive lifestyles.

Part of this lifestyle comes from a long human tradition of the ignorance that nature plays in our lives. Humanity has for centuries seen nature as an impediment to its happiness and material success. Because of its ease of exploitation nature was seen not as an equal but merely as a means to an end.

So, we sought to "tame" it to further our desires for material wealth and success. We ignorantly assumed that since we were the "smartest beings" on the planet that we didn't have to live within the limits of nature. We saw ourselves as not only independent from everything else but superior. Thus, nature was there to satisfy our insatiable greed. This was especially embraced by the monotheistic cultures who saw themselves as divine offspring and Earth their property to do with it whatever they pleased. Since in ignorance these cultures believed that they weren't interconnected with other beings, (which would have required them to live in greater harmony) and had been given dominion over all other living things then surely (they thought) pursuing such a individualistic destiny couldn't hurt us.

In Europe, they chopped down tree after tree. They couldn't tear the trees down fast enough to keep up with the insatiable fires of industry. The race to industrial wealth and easy living was so ferocious that soon Europe was nearly completely nude of trees. Yet no matter how much steel was turned into new machines to make our lives easier it wasn't enough for our greed, and so industry accelerated further and further. Once the trees were gone we began burning dirty, toxic materials such as coal and oil. Raw sewage and toxic byproducts from production were pumped mercilessly into pristine rivers, lakes and seas. The cities were dirty and the air hazy and acrid from pollution causing much sickness. Yet our lust for the easy life grew unabated.

Today we humans are waking up one by one from our egotistical binge to one nasty hangover. It is clear now that our actions aren't independent of everything else, and that our greed has sped up our own destruction. Yet still this greed has a strong hold over many people, and like an addict who knows the drug is poison, we continue to use deadly energy regardless of the consequences. Why? Because no one wants to give up living the easy life of cheap energy that enables us to spend that money on pleasure pursuits.

In order to make the right sacrifices to bring humanity more in-line with nature and the middle-path we have to realize that we are all interdependent upon one another. And none more so than Earth herself. Our past actions of environmental rape through excessive industry are already coming back to cause us suffering via climate change--in my belief, that's societal karma bearing fruit. And just like pain is the bodies way of warning us to stop what you're doing, so to is the suffering we experience now from environmental degradation an alert to change our behavior. As we know, karma has an energy of its own, which could be seen in the very real possibility of environmental destruction getting too far gone to reverse course. I fear that could happen soon if we don't take immediate action. This BP spill is one of those pains that should serve as a warning sign. Buddhism demands that we care for nature as much as we care for ourselves.

The political situation in Thailand of late (the past two months) has been intense to watch unfold and tensions seems wound tighter than a stretched and fraying rope. There have been protests of the elitists in Thailand (The government, military, entrenched business interests, and some claim the monarchy) by the poor and working classes called, "The Red Shirts" over a perceived lack of say in affairs of the state. In the past the King has intervened during protests to calm the situation but some say that the monarchy has been too politicized this time. In part because the royalist/elitist faction claims the red-shirt goal is nothing short of tearing down the monarchy itself. Irregardless the King has not done much anyway to tamp down the conflict.

So, in that vacuum of leadership there was no one to keep things from escalating into full-blown rage, which we Buddhists know can easily ignite a bigger emotional fire that involves the spilling of blood. Just so, violence has erupted and is now dangerously close to evolving into full civil war. As it is the military has called the demonstration areas, "live-fire zones," and so far, 37 people have been killed. This is a risky option given the issues in Sri Lanka of monks being (perhaps) too politicized, but is the only institution capable of bringing Thailand back from the brink the great Sangha?

Is it possible they could mediate as the Great Buddha once did during his time walking this Earth? It would be the hope of this humble member of the Greater World Sangha that they could without directly undertaking a political role in the long-term governance of that beautiful, Buddhist, Southeast-Asian country. That all said, however, some wheels once set into motion gather enough speed to be unstoppable. Sometimes violence is what develops from a long string of less than helpful actions by groups and/or whole countries. This collective "karma" of a mass of people has a lot of force behind it and sometimes the only way a person can respond is to do the best in living as mindfully in that storm as possible. It's during massive turmoil such as these where one's practice becomes very helpful.

Perhaps that message is germinating amongst the two parties. A representative of the government who spoke today hoped the countries Buddhist culture would be nourished in this time of need. He claims that because of this culture the Thai people people aren't predisposed to violence. “Between 80 and 90 per cent of Thai people are Buddhists,” he said. “Buddhists are taught that to kill — even animals — is just wrong.” Still, even Buddhists aren't immune from anger and violence. As well as being manipulated to fit a political ideology.

To prove the point, Buddhism was called upon, even while protesters vowed to keep up the fighting, "As night fell, defiant Red Shirt leaders led followers in Buddhist prayers." This is still the realm of samsara after all. May Thailand soon know a greater peace and achieve recalibration upon the middle-path through political reconciliation. I wish my brothers and sisters in Thailand well, and please know that you are all in my thoughts.

PHOTO CREDIT: Thai monks join red-shirted anti-government protesters before donating their blood during a mass demonstration.

Previously I had only known Zen master Seung Sahn through short YouTube clips but I was enlightened by what I heard. However, just before we left for a vacation in Costa Rica, I wanted to find a book that would help me stay grounded despite all the activity we'd be experiencing.

We all enjoy fun but given the reality of samsara, even the most enjoyable activity can become a source of suffering after too much indulgence. I don't necessarily believe in fate, (though I do believe in karma) but when selecting a book I couldn't find any of the half a dozen books that I was searching for at the local bookstore.

So, I wandered over to the Buddhist section as is my customary starting point when I don't have a specific book in mind. I perused the various ones taking time to flip through the pages and soaking up the relaxing smell of crisp paper. After going through several books I discovered Korean Zen Master Seung Sahn's book, "Wanting Enlightenment is a BIG MISTAKE."

I immediately performed my test of a book I haven't researched ahead of time. I flipped through the book to random pages to see if it caught my attention. After several minutes passed I realized that I had started reading the book from the beginning, and so I knew my decision was made up. This book is very easy to read but is full of teachings that will have you contemplating even the seemingly simplest teachings. Seung Sahn was never afraid of controversy, blunt speaking or odd language when the lesson required such behavior.

As one of his students said of his broken English, "You had to drop underneath his words to grasp his true meaning." I have found during my nearly decade long practice that the best Buddhist teachings come across in the fewest words.It is full of short but powerful teachings on everything a modern society struggles with. Including abortion, which is too often a topic that is avoided in Buddhist circles. During a visit to Poland a student asked the master if abortion was wrong. Seung Sahn first emphasized the first precept against killing is to be taken into consideration but that hte most important thing to consider in making such a decision is why do you do something?

"So what kind of direction do you have? Why would you abort this baby? Determining that clearly in your mind is most important. Whether or not you go to jail is not the way to decide this. The only thing that must be clear is why or why not you would have this abortion. Of course this baby is a human being. He goes on to tell the story of a person has to decide what to tell a hunter, which direction the rabbit he is pursuing went. "But if your direction for keeping the precepts is to truly liberate all beings from suffering, then you will maybe tell a lie. Our teaching says that you must not kill, especially human beings. But when a bad man comes and hurt many people, a policeman sometimes kills that person. But this policeman is not killing for himself, because of his own angry mind. His action of killing is to save sentient beings from suffering.

Every day, between seven and eight thousand people die from one or two diseases alone. Every day. No food, no clothes, no house. Babies are suffering. Why make all this suffering for babies? So, whether or not babies should be born is not the point. Instead, what is human beings' correction direction? How does this action help other beings? That is great love. That is great compassion.

James: This was my general thesis for being supportive of a woman's right to choose but it's nice to have a recognized Zen teacher underline the point. I believe that sometimes bringing a baby into the world actually causes more suffering for all involved than not. If the baby will simply be born addicted to crack or already dying from HIV/AIDs then to abort them would be in my view the compassionate thing to do. Or what if the child is born but like many become stuck in the cycle of foster homes--many of, which are abusive and neglectful as the parents are simply looking for the check they get from the government to care for the child/children.

Of course, not all foster parents are this way but enough to be a concern. Another concern is if giving birth to a child will endanger the life of a mother who has several children already. Is the life of the unborn child important enough to kill the mother of the three kids already living? In this case it would seem the greatest suffering would be from the several children left without a mother. Including then the newborn.

This all said, sometimes the less suffering choice is to indeed have the child. I like that Master Sahn said not to think about it as "good" or "evil" but why? This is the idea of Right Intention where an action doesn't necessarily cause one less skillful karma if the intention wasn't to cause suffering in the first place. Such as a young child (4-5 years old) who distracts their parent enough to cause a car crash, which kills them. It isn't that child's fault because his/her intention wasn't to kill their parent. All in all this book is amazing and despite it being a quick read it is full of great teachings, wisdom, laughter and insight. It is also a great desk reference book, so keep this one handy in your collection. I've give it 10 out of 10--it really was one of the best Dharma books I've read, and I've read many.

I may be wrong on this but it seems rare to hear of a sexual abuse scandal in the Buddhist world but there has been one brewing for some time now in the American Zen circle:

"This article, among other revelations, presents a face of Zen not ordinarily visible to the general public. That is, how well known Zen r?shis and leading Zen figures spoke and acted; or failed to speak and act, in the face of deeply troubling allegations and really severe problems. Thereby, the article also points to the underlying interests of these r?shis.

The letter makes it clear that the teachers have heard first hand reports of Eido Shimano's activities directly from a number of the women involved. The repetitive nature of the allegations over a three decade period during which these alleged transgressions occurred without any formal public investigation or adequate resolution was so great that it motivated eight prominent Zen leaders from across America to sign the document, in the name of the greater North American Zen Maha-Sangha."

James: These are some of the allegations that really seem to show the Roshi as having acted highly inappropriately. If true, (and they seem true) he has also defaced and mocked the American Zen tradition. As well as Buddhism in general:

Over the past three decades, we have interviewed many former students of Shimano Roshi. Their stories are consistent: trust placed in an apparently wise and compassionate teacher, only to have that trust manipulated in the form of his sexual misconduct and abuse. Some of these students elected to continue their practice with us; most of them wanted nothing further to do with Zen Buddhism.

James: This is extremely serious. This trusted monk was supposed to show people how to liberate themselves from suffering--not increase their suffering!! What an appalling perversion of Buddhism!! And he allegedly did it multiple times over DECADES!! He not only allegedly abused them but he has also lead people astray from the path, which is a very egregious action in Buddhism. And if other Zen teachers knew of these transgressions and did nothing about it are just as culpable in my view. A lot of Buddhists believe it is rare to find the path of the Buddha and to lead people astray from it is to hold the enlightenment of fledgling beings in the palm of your hand and then tossing that into a deep, dark and muddy hole. The karma that such a false leader incurs must be enormous.

There is a saying in a Jataka which can be summarized as follows: “When a herd of cattle is traveling, if the leading bull strays, the whole herd goes astray. So it is with the people. If the appointed leader practices adhamma or unrighteousness, the multitude will also practise it. The whole nation will suffer if that one fails to abide by the Dhamma. When a herd of cattle is traveling, if the leading bull keeps to the proper course, the whole herd will do the same. So it is with the people. If the appointed leader abides by the Dhamma, the multitude will do likewise. The whole nation will be content if the leader upholds the Dhamma. This Buddhist saying is quite clear. The behavior of the leader is of great consequence to the masses as they will inevitably follow his example."

James: The Vinaya, which is a body of rules of monastics states, "Like a person, whose head is cut off, is unable to live with that mutilated body, a bhikkhu having associated with sex becomes a non-samana and non-sakyan-son (i.e. loses his monkhood and the membership among the Buddha’s sangha)." It might be tempting by some to ignore this uncomfortable issue but if we truly believe the essence of Buddha's message was to help others over-come suffering then we owe it to these victims, and even the Roshi himself to address this completely. It is so sad that this drove some people away from Buddhism but regardless, I hope that they find the peace and relief from suffering that they deserve.

A long time ago, in a universe much larger than our own, a giant star collapsed. Its implosion crammed so much mass and energy together that it created a wormhole to another universe. And inside this wormhole, our own universe was born. It may seem fantastic, but a theoretical physicist claims that such a scenario could help answer some of the most perplexing questions in cosmology.

A number of facets about our universe don't make sense. One is gravity. Scientists can't construct a mathematical formula that unites gravity with the three other basic forces of nature: the strong and weak nuclear forces and electromagnetism. Another problem is dark energy, the mysterious phenomenon that seems to be expanding our universe at an accelerating rate, even though gravity should be contracting it or at least slowing the expansion.

These conundrums may be a result of stopping the search for the riddle of the cosmos at the big bang, says Nikodem Poplawski of Indiana University in Bloomington. The big bang theory holds that our universe began as a single point—or singularity—about 13.7 billion years ago that has been expanding outward ever since. Perhaps, Poplawski argues, we need to consider that something existed before the big bang that gave rise to it. Such a scenario could address the quandaries about gravity and the expanding universe. If another universe existed before our own, gravity could be traced back to a point where it did unite with the nuclear forces and electromagnetism. And if our universe is now expanding toward the other end of the wormhole, this movement—rather than the elusive dark energy—could account for our expanding universe.

James: This reopens the door I feel to the "Cyclic Model" of the Universe, which basically states that our Universe (just like everything else) is impermanent and will be reborn again and again through a series of expansions and collapses.

The other implication I considered in regards to this theory is that perhaps rebirth of our karmic energy could occur through smaller, similar wormholes or channels toward a new incarnation. "Lorentzian traversable wormholes [not yet fully proven] would allow travel from one part of the universe to another part of that same universe very quickly or would allow travel from one universe to another."

And that new form could be in a whole other world at the opposite end of the Universe, which would explain why the population on Earth is growing. Because if other life isn't possible somewhere else in our Universe or within a parallel one then how do you explain the growing population on Earth? Some of the expansion of human lives could also involve the billions of insects.

Obviously this is mostly conjecture on my part and some of it has still yet to be proven. It really doesn't have too much to do with living in the present moment but being an intellectual I can't resist but see how science might marry up with Buddhist cosmology and thought. In doing research for this post I came across a very concrete and scientific explanation of rebirth by Bhikkhu Pesala:

Light a candle with a match, or visualise doing it. Hold the wick directly above the lighted match, but not actually touching the flame. Watch carefully. The wick will begin to smoke, and will then burst into flame. Does the flame jump from the match to the candle? Is the candle flame the same as the flame on the match, or is it a different one? If we describe the process scientifically we will say that the heat from the flame on the match vaporised some paraffin wax from the candle, and the paraffin vapour ignited, producing a new flame. The two flames are separate and burn from different fuels, but are causally related.

Likewise, kamma done in one existence is like the heat. The candle is like the physical basis provided by the parents. The candle flame is like the newly born being that arises dependent upon previous causes and present supporting conditions. One important difference between rebirth and the two flames is that the last conscious moment of the previous existence ceases totally, then rebirth consciousness arises immediately afterwards. No mental or physical phenomena “transmigrate” or pass between the two existences. Rebirth is simple a process of cause and effect.

James: The compact potential energy within the match is like the energy of our consciousness and when the flame from the match dies out the transfer is complete and the match is tossed as our worthless carcass would be. The flame that was the match and the flame in the new form (body/being/form) of the candle are neither different from each other nor the same.