Buddhism and its values have inspired a tradition of non-violent protest more powerful than secularists understand

Monday October 1, 2007
Pankaj Mishra
The Guardian (UK)

In recent months, militant atheists have tried to convince us religion ought to be expelled from public as well as private life. It is not hard to imagine how their salon wisdom would have fared last week in the streets of Rangoon, where ordinary Burmese protesting against a military dictatorship rallied behind Buddhist monks - the "highly revered moral core", as the New York Times put it, of Burmese society.

If the images of saffron-robed mendicants braving police brutality seem oddly familiar, it is because Buddhist monks left their monasteries and led protests against political repression frequently in the 20th century. So great and prolonged was the suffering of war in Indochina that the Buddhist attempt to alleviate it may seem a distant memory. But it was the self-immolation of a monk in Saigon in June 1963 - rather, pictures of him serenely meditating as flames devoured his body - that first troubled America's conscience about what was then an obscure war.

Thich Nhat Hanh, another Vietnamese monk, was a prominent figure in the anti-war movement in the US who eventually persuaded Martin Luther King to pit his voice against the destruction of Vietnam. In Cambodia, where the Khmer Rouge killed almost all the 60,000 monks, the Buddhist monk Maha Ghosananda became a major figure in the reconstruction of his country.

In September 1987 Buddhist monks and nuns began the first major political demonstration in Tibet in years by unfurling the Tibetan flag in central Lhasa. They were arrested and severely beaten, sparking off clashes between Tibetans and police that provoked Hu Jintao, now China's president and then the Chinese administrator in Tibet, to declare martial law.

How did a supposedly meditative tradition produce political protesters? If "religion is a poison", as Mao Zedong informed the Dalai Lama - a sentiment echoed by the secularists of our time - why then has Buddhism proved such an effective means of mass mobilisation against tyranny?

The Buddha himself was no political theorist or activist. He preferred to address the question of what constitutes the ruler's right to rule. Unlike the theorists of ancient India who claimed divine sanction for kingship, the Buddha did not find the ruler's legitimacy in some transcendent realm. As the many stories about ideal kings in the Jataka Tales - a compendium of Buddhist stories - attest, righteousness is the only proper basis for the ruler's authority.

The Buddha preferred small political communities in which all members shared the power of decision-making. In his lifetime, however, he witnessed the emergence of large states. Aware that these impersonal regimes exposed many people to a sense of powerlessness and insecurity, he hoped that the Buddhist sangha, or monastic order, would base itself near urban centres and help give newly uprooted people a sense of spiritual community and tradition.

Thus Buddhist monks, living not in forests but in retreats close to populated settlements, are traditionally bound to laymen by an ethic of social responsibility. Not surprisingly, in Tibet and Burma, where a modern, militarised state tyrannises a largely pre-modern and unorganised population, monasteries have been exalted as alternative centres of moral and political authority, and monks and nuns have come to spearhead resistance to unrighteous regimes.

Certainly, Buddhists are not immune to ideological delusions. In early 20th-century Japan, and in Sri Lanka in the 1980s and 90s, many Buddhist monks succumbed to the lure of nationalism and militarism. Nevertheless, with its absence of dogma and emphasis on intellectual and spiritual vigilance, Buddhism has proved to be less vulnerable to fanatical zeal than not only other major religions, but also such modern ideologies as nationalism and secularism. As Nhat Hanh exhorts, echoing a major theme of the Buddha: "Do not be idolatrous about, or bound to, any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. All systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth."

It helps, too, that Buddhist political methods aim, relatively modestly, at dialogue and moral conversion rather than total revolution. Writing to Martin Luther King in 1965, after another Buddhist self-immolation in Vietnam, Nhat Hanh explained that "the monks who burned themselves did not aim at the death of the oppressors, but only at a change in their policy. Their enemies are not man. They are intolerance, fanaticism, dictatorship, cupidity, hatred and discrimination which lie within the heart of man."

Maha Ghosananda, who lost his entire family in the Cambodian killing fields, insisted on including the Khmer Rouge at UN-sponsored talks on the future of Cambodia, claiming that he wanted an end to antagonism, not to antagonists. (Such practical wisdom traditionally preserved peace in Afghanistan's tribal society, and the country's current president, Hamid Karzai, appears to have embraced it by offering a seat in his cabinet to the Taliban.) Similarly, Samdhong Rinpoche, the monk prime minister of the Tibetan government in exile in India, claims he opposes the injustice and violence of Chinese rule rather than the Chinese people or state. Calling for a Gandhian-style campaign of satyagraha, or non-violent resistance, Samdhong Rinpoche asks Tibetans to actively reject Chinese rule through non-cooperation and disobedience, without hating or harming any Chinese. Both he and the Dalai Lama have reservations about even an economic boycott, which they believe hurts ordinary people more than it damages governments.

Living through a worldwide upsurge of violence, most of us may find it hard to conceive of Buddhist principles as politically efficacious. Nevertheless, the history of the modern world furnishes many examples of political victories achieved through moral persuasion and spiritual strength: national self-determination in colonised countries, the civil rights movement in the US, the velvet revolutions in Russia and eastern Europe, the end of apartheid in South Africa, and the gradual spread of parliamentary democracy around the world.

Today the Burmese generals confront the "authentic, enduring power" of people, before which, as Hannah Arendt presciently wrote in her analysis of the Prague Spring of 1968, a repressive regime eventually surrenders. The Buddhist monks chanting on the streets of Rangoon may look naive and defenceless when you consider the power of the political-military institutions of the modern, secular era that they are up against: heavily armed nation-states with hyper-competitive capitalist economies. Certainly, the Burmese generals know the way the world works. Apparently isolated, they play shrewdly the game of international realpolitik, buying the silence of their two rising and needy neighbours, democratic India as well as authoritarian China, with oil, gas and timber. However, to such a ruthlessly amoral politics, based on purely rational self-interest, the moral and spiritual values of religion can and often do pose a challenge.

No doubt devotees of science and rationality will continue to call for a religion-free politics. But what the Burmese demonstrators prove is that, as Gandhi said, "those who think religion has nothing to do with politics understand neither religion nor politics".

Pankaj Mishra is the author of Temptations of the West: How to be Modern in India, Pakistan and Beyond

kannauj@gmail.com

In our hyperlinked world - to understand the reality of life and religion

In our hyperlinked world, we can know anything, anytime. And this mass enlightenment, says Buddhist scholar Bob Thurman, is our first step toward becoming Buddha. When we can know everything, we can see how everything is interconnected -- and we can begin to feel compassion for every living being.


---------------------------------------
Comedian and playwright Julia Sweeney performs the first 15 minutes of her 2006 solo show Letting Go of God. It begins on the morning of her seventh birthday, when Julia learns from her Catholic parents that she has reached the age of reason, capable of being judged by God. That morning she also learns another great truth, equally devastating. This sets the stage for Sweeney's freewheeling, conversational examination of her own faith. (Filmed at the TED Conference.)

----------------------------
It's a classic problem in theology: How can the existence of evil be reconciled with a God who is supposed to be all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful? Many Christian thinkers have attempted answers to this question. In the days following the thousands of personal tragedies recorded during the South Asian tsunami of 2004, Tom Honey pondered those answers and found them wanting. Instead, he penned his own, personal, and sometimes dramatic response to the tsunami. This is a courageous talk for a Church of England vicar to have given. It concludes that certain traditional concepts of God just won't do ... and calls for believers and nonbelievers alike to dig deeper in their quest for truth.

-------------------------------
In this stunning slideshow, nature photographer Frans Lanting presents The LIFE Project, a collection that tells the story of our planet, from its eruptive beginnings to its present diversity. Hoping for a glimpse of the world the way it was in the age of photosynthesizing stromatolites, "back before the sky turned blue," Lanting journeyed to a remote lagoon in Australia, the only place in the world where stromatolites still exist. The story moves forward from there, via a lyrical collection of photographs set to a soundtrack from Philip Glass.

Religion: End of Faith?

Religion : End of Faith?

Usually, to decide if I should read a book on religion, I would refer to its index page to check how the Buddha and Buddhism are depicted. If the descriptions are lame, I would chuck the book aside – because it betrays the lack of accuracy, and possibly, that of the writer's missing objectivity. Why do I check only Buddhist references? Because it is the religion I’m most familiar with.

There is quite a fuss over “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason” by Sam Harris. I could not resist seeing what he had to say about Buddhism. The below is what Harris wrote. Inserted between are some of my personal comments. I’ll be sending this article to Harris. (By the way, it’s interesting that during a talk, Harris mentioned that he practises meditation. Could it be Buddhist meditation?)

Harris: Even the contemporary literature on consciousness, which spans philosophy, cognitive science, psychology, and neuroscience, cannot match the kind of precise, phenomenological studies that can be found throughout the Buddhist canon. Although we have no reason to be dogmatically attached to any one tradition of spiritual instruction, we should not imagine that they are all equally sophisticated. They are not. (p.217)

Comments: Fully agree.

Harris: Buddhism, in particular, has grown remarkably sophisticated. No other tradition has developed so many methods by which the human mind can be fashioned into a tool capable of transforming itself. (p.283)

Comments: Yes, thus the saying that Buddhism offers 84,000(denoting many) skilful means to liberation.

Harris: (Continued from above) Attentive readers will have noticed that I have been very hard on religions of faith – Judaism, Christianity, Islam and even Hinduism – and have not said much that is derogatory of Buddhism. This is not an accident. While Buddhism has also been a source of ignorance and occasional violence, it is not a religion of faith, or a religion at all, in the Western sense. (p.283)

Comments: Buddhism is a source of ignorance and violence only when its adherents stray away from its core teachings, which obviously emphasise on the importance of objective wisdom and universal compassion (the opposites of ignorance and violence). Buddhism does require faith as a spiritual faculty, though generally, it is more experience-centric and wisdom-centric, than faith-centric. Some faith is after all required in oneself's potential, in the Buddha's enlightenment being supreme, in the efficacy of his teachings and the reliability of Buddhist teachers. Perhaps, technically, Buddhism is not a religion, but if loosely defined, it can be considered a religion too, as worship has evolved to be a facet of Buddhist practice. However, in other aspects, it can also be considered a form of spiritual psychology or practical philosophy.

Harris: (Continued from above) There are millions of Buddhists who do not seem to know this, and they can be found in temple throughout Southeast Asia, and even the West, praying to Buddha as though he was a numinous incarnation of Santa Claus. This distortion of the tradition notwithstanding, it remains true that the esoteric teachings of Buddhism offer the most complete methodology we have for discovering the intrinsic freedom of consciousness, unencumbered by any dogma. (p.283)

Comments: Many nominal Buddhist do pray for boons. Granted that the Buddha’s teachings are for much more than the mere fulfillment of worldly prayers, it is nevertheless true that the enlightened can help facilitate good-hearted requests to some extent. This is attested by countless miracles experienced by devoted Buddhists. The ultimate aim of Buddhism though, is to lead its practitioners, using its many methods, to liberation of the mind – which is true salvation itself.

Harris: (Continued from above) It is no exaggeration to say that meetings between the Dalai Lama and Christian ecclesiastics to mutually honor their religious traditions are like meetings between physicists from Cambridge and the Bushmen of the Kalahari to mutually honor their respective understandings of the physical universe. This is not to say that Tibetan Buddhists are not saddled with certain dogmas (so are physicists) or that the Bushmen could not have formed some conception of the atom. Any person familiar with both literatures will know that the Bible does not contain a discernible fraction of the precise spiritual instructions that can be found in the Buddhist canon. Though there is much in Buddhism that I do not pretend to understand – as well as much that seems deeply implausible – it would be intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge its preeminence as a system of spiritual instruction. (p.284)

Comments: Difficult not to agree.

Harris: Without denying that happiness has many requisites – good genes, a nervous system that does not entirely misbehave, etc. – we can hypothesize that whatever a person’s current level of happiness is, his condition will be generally improved by his becoming yet more loving and compassionate, and hence more ethical. This is a strictly empirical claim – one that has been tested for millennia by contemplatives in a variety of spiritual traditions, especially within Buddhism. (p.191)

Comments: Agree too.

My conclusion so far? Being relatively fair and insightful in his views on Buddhism, the above got me interested to know what he thinks about other religions. Harris' book on the potential hazards of blind faith (which Buddhism strongly discourages) should be worth a read.

Source: http://www.moonpointer.com/index.php?itemid=1737&catid=29

Karma : Not (Un)pleasant

From the international bestseller “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins, here are some ideas on Buddhism (mostly from Julia Sweeney), followed by some of my personal comments on them -

Dawkins: Julia Sweeney is also right on target when she briefly mentions Buddhism. Just as Christianity is sometimes thought to be a nicer, gentler religion than Islam, Buddhism is often cracked up to be the nicest of all. But the doctrine of demotion on the reincarnation ladder because of sins in a past life is pretty unpleasant. Julie Sweeney: 'I went to Thailand and happened to visit a woman who was taking care of a terribly deformed boy. I said to his caretaker, “It's so good of you to be taking care of this poor boy.” She said, “Don't say ‘poor boy,’ he must have done something terrible in a past life to be reborn this way.”' (p.442)

Comments: No comments on Christianity and Islam, but Sweeney was actually “right off target”; not on it - at least, in the eyes of Buddhists. Just because a doctrine is pretty unpleasant does not necessarily render it untrue. Though there is so-called “demotion” in the wheel of rebirth, there is also “promotion”. How one is reborn is dependent on one's self-created karma - via one's own voluntary deeds.

The law of karma is fair. If so, there is nothing particularly pleasant or unpleasant about the doctrine of karma and rebirth. If the doctrine of fair rebirth (which offers infinite second chances) is unpleasant, what other doctrine of the afterlife is truly fair and pleasant? (E.g. Eternal hellfire for a limited lifetime of evil is surely the ultimate unpleasantness, and eternal nothingness sounds bleak too.)

The caretaker does not seem to be genuinely compassionate to the boy, since her reply hinted more blame than empathy. This is contrary to the Buddhist spirit of unconditional loving-kindness to all beings despite their condition. So her attitude does not reflect the Buddhist teachings at all. The Buddha himself famously helped to nurse a sick but neglected monk with great compassion, never once blaming him for his past misgivings which caused his present condition. This is how ideal Buddhist should treat the unfortunate. In fact, the Buddha commented that “He who tends the sick tends to the Buddha”.

Is the above about Buddhism in “The God Delusion” the author's delusion? Sometimes, just because a non-fiction book is an international bestseller, it doesn't mean it sells the truth the best internationally. At least, this is so for the above book's very brief depiction of Buddhism. Am not sure how accurately it depicts other religions. I cannot comment on that anyway, as am no expert on them. The Kalama Sutta as taught by the Buddha advises against blind faith in scriptures. Likewise, we need to be mindfully discerning about what is or is not truth in non-scriptures - even if they are bestsellers.

Source: http://moonpointer.com/index.php?itemid=1738&catid=29

Realisation: Should You Call the Fashing Police?

Realisation: Should You Call the Fashion Police?

As that in trend changes, 'change' is never out of trend. - stonepeace

When we look at fashion trends of bygone eras, they often look tacky - especially the elaborate designs of clothing and hairdos. When we look back at today's fashion statements in time to come, chances are, they will look just as tacky. It's ironic that while we laugh at others' yesterday's fashion, we forget that others are likely to laugh at ours today. This makes the cheeky idea of being or having "fashion police" ridiculous? However, fashion can and almost certainly will be be reborn, ad infinitum, ad nauseam... for boundless creativity also means the once created gets reinvented. Fashion is so transient that the forgotten and that previously judged as tacky eventually gets picked up again, to be re-conditioned to be deemed fashionable - albeit in a (neo-)retro way.

The fashionable is usually just the fickleness of the moment. It is "not lasting" (Anicca) and thus "not substantial" (Anatta). To cling to a fashion style being ultimate is to fool oneself, to be bound for dissatisfaction (Dukkha). The truth is, different occasions and environments require different styles. Even simply dressed monks need to dress up or down for practical reasons - for ceremonies and other purposes. Chasing after fashion trends is to be baited by a carrot on a stick - that will never be grasped. It becomes the material pursuit of happiness, while only spiritual pursuits can attain True Happiness. Hey, there's an entire industry that continually "fashions" "new" carrots for countless carrot-chasers.

Simple designs tend to be timelessly "in", outlasting passing trends because they are the basis of good design. They are minimal designs based on needs for function; not maxed-out designs based on wants for form. The functional is always in style, while embellished forms tend to run out of style. Less is not always more - but enough! Some interesting quotes on fashion... From Coco Chanel, "Fashion is made to become unfashionable." From Oscar Wilde, "Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months." From Uriel Saenz, "We only move style forward when we embrace the past, cherish the present and look toward the future." But to live in the moment is already in style. Past and future styles are unneeded burdens. Just change styles when needed! -Shen Shi'an (from moonpointer.com)

Your style is how you carry yourself, not how you carry anything. - stonepeace

Share your articles and comments at comment@thedailyenlightenment.com

Review: Response to "How to Handle the Most Difficult Person(s) in Your Lives"

More Realisation Articles

_______________________________

Excerpt: Mind Your Mind to Mind Your Life

The Buddha said that we should completely subdue our minds. Whatever we do, for good or ill, it is our mind that is the true agent. In the very depths of our being, we all desire one thing: we want to be happy. We don't want to suffer. But because of this - this wanting - the three defilements of craving, aversion, and ignorance arise, and suffering is what we get. It is because of these defilements that we accumulate actions that prevent us from escaping from Samsara [the cycle of birth and death].

So it is important right from the start to see the difference between a good motivation and an evil one. Our own mindfulness should be our teacher. We must examine what is positive [that which arise from generosity, compassion and wisdom] and what is negative [that which arise from craving, aversion and ignorance] with mindfulness. If positive thoughts arise, we should go along with them. If nonvirtuous thoughts arise, we should put a stop to them. A virtuous mind is the source of happiness. An unvirtuous mind is the source of pain.

- Counsels from My Heart (Dudjom Rinpoche)

More Excerpt Articles
This and more at www.AwarenessPlace.com

Realisation: Which Buddhist Tradition Do You Practise?

Being the teacher of many teachings, the Buddha gave no fixed teaching,
though all teachings centre around compassion and wisdom. - stonepeace

A Buddhist friend asked, "Which Buddhist tradition do you practise?" I always hesitate to give a direct answer - simply because there is really no direct answer that is fair. The usual answer I give is - I'm an "MTV Buddhist". "M" stands for the Mahayana tradition, "T" for Theravada and "V" for Vajrayana. (Together, these are the three main living Buddhist traditions.) It's kind of an fitting answer because many of my generation lived at the advent of colourful MTV culture - a metaphor for the melting pot of multiple genres of mish-mash "stuff". It was "traditional" to mix and match teachings of various traditions, though there is the danger of it being merely frivolous "window-shopping" . Usually, the next question asked is - "How is it possible not to choose one Buddhist tradition after years of studying and practising Buddhism?"

Yes, one should focus eventually, so as to cultivate deeper. I focus on "tradition X". It's Pure Land Buddhism in my case, as my main practice - but with Theravada meditation foundations, some Vajrayana flavouring, a touch of Zen etc... That's what I meant by "mish-mash"! If you can synthesise various teachings comfortably, why not? But I would still hesitate to pronounce myself as an "X-practitioner" - because there are more to the Buddhist teachings I try to live up to, than only the teachings popularly ascribed specifically to "X Buddhism". It is perfectly natural that after exploring various Buddhist traditions, one eventually settles on one that one has strong afinity with. But it is also perfectly natural that the more one explores that tradition, one eventually discovers how it is interlinked to aspects of the Dharma found emphasised in other traditions.

As in the Hua-yen (Avatamsaka) teachings of universal interconnectivity, the stucture of the Dharma is a case of intricate "all-in-one" and "one-in-all". As such, it is difficult to pigeon-hole personal Buddhist practice in terms of one single tradition. As a monk I met once mentioned that though he is Theravadin in appearance, he considers himself not so much as "non-sectarian" in outlook, but "pre-sectarian" - adhering to Buddhism before segregation in terms of traditions. Me? "Multi-sectarian" sounds nicely inclusive. It would seem ridiculously small-minded to miss wonderfully useful teachings that are conventionally outside of the illusory boundaries of one's tradition. Why not keep an open heart and mind, and make the best of whatever you encounter? After all, as the Buddha put it, just as the sea is salty everywhere, the universal "taste" of all his teachings is that of spiritual freedom. -Shen Shi'an

As all Dhama teachings are interconnected, to belittle one teaching is to belittle the Dharma. - stonepeace

Cambodian: Finding Lost Glories

Cambodia: Finding lost glories

Tourists are flocking to Cambodia and discovering more than just the sprawling city of Angkor Wat. (Photo: Reuters)

Sunday September 02, 2007
By Diana Plater
AAP

It's close on sunset and the trail of tourists walking up the hill is getting longer and longer.

From the top of the 10th century Bakheng temple, Angkor Wat rises above the jungle in the distance.

Some sit on the steep steps after clambering up them. Others look through the telescopes, while below some take an elephant ride.

Angkor, the glory of the Khmer civilisation, which shaped Cambodia from the 9th to the 14th centuries, covers a vast area and has about 100 temples.

Since Angkor Archaeological Park's temples were designated a World Heritage Site and opened to tourism in 1993 - after 30 years of war - the place has boomed. Last year 1.7 million foreign arrivals were recorded , a 20 per cent increase over 2005. It's estimated by 2010 there could be as many as five million visitors.

Most tourists come only for two days to Siem Reap, the town next to Angkor Wat.

Already problems such as hotels pumping underground water for their own use are worrying locals and those working to protect the area. But others would like to see the tourists stay longer.

This is also a suggestion made by Associate Professor of Archaeology at the University of Sydney, Roland Fletcher, who has been working at Angkor since 1998 and is a project director on the Greater Angkor Project and the Living with Heritage Project.

"The Cambodian government would really like people to stay longer for the straightforward reason it would bring more tourist income into Cambodia. But the other side of it is the hotels would be washing all their laundry every two days, which is wasteful and not environmentally desirable at all."

One of the key things archaeologists are discovering about the site, says Fletcher is it's true size. "It's huge. Everybody's used to the idea of Angkor as a group of temples with Angkor Thom in the middle but in fact the Angkor urban area covers nearly 1000sq km instead of the 200sq km of the central temple area."

He says Angkor was a low-density medieval city, spread out with houses surrounded by rice fields, with a huge system of canals and human-built reservoirs known as barays.

"The Angkorian world essentially removed the forest to grow rice so this entire landscape was rice fields with houses surrounded by economic trees like palm trees. After the 16th century the forest took over again.

"It was an urban landscape. The Ta Prohm has a record on its walls of 12,640 people who worked for it on a daily basis - the administrators, cleaners and dancers."

For tourists coming to Cambodia there's much more than Angkor to see. Temples built over four centuries that once formed part of the vast Khmer empire are scattered across the country. These sites are gradually becoming more accessible. But more time is needed to visit - and appreciate - them.

Fletcher hopes tourism can be developed to take visitors on to Tonle Sap lake and up to the hills. "There could be walks through the rice fields and down these giant canals, some of which are 40km long."

IF YOU GO:

As well as seeing the monuments there's great shopping in Siem Reap, restaurants offering international cuisine, accommodation from five star to guest houses, traditional dancers, bars in Pub Street and great local spas.

Archaeological park tickets at the official ticket office: one day, US$20 ($28), three day, US$40 ($57) or one week, US$60 ($85).

Where to stay: La Residence d'Angkor, is a centrally located riverside Khmer-style hotel. Prices are from $192 a room a night for a Royal Deluxe river view room.

* Diane Plater was a guest of Orient-Express Hotels, Trains & Cruises, flying Qantas to Bangkok, then Bangkok Airways to Siem Reap