Zen's Grave Precepts, Tibet's Non-Virtuous Actions

Well, here's something new! After tonight's meditation class, I was thinking back to the "ten non-virtuous actions" that our teacher mentioned. As we were going through them, there were a couple that stuck out to me as novel. I thought I knew this list of 10 very well, and yet I was slightly surprised. The non-virtuous actions (which are to be avoided by Buddhists) are:

1. Killing
2. Stealing
3. Sexual Misconduct
4. Lying
5. Divisive Speech
6. Hurtful Speech
7. Idle Chatter
8. Covetousness
9. Malice
10. Holding wrong views

Huh. I thought that this list usually began with the typical Five Precepts of Buddhism: no killing, no stealing, no sexual misconduct, no lying, and no intoxication.

Thinking that perhaps this was a strange deviation of the New Kadampa Tradition, which runs the center I've been going to, I looked around some more. As it turns out, this is simply the Tibetan approach; and New Kadampa Buddhism borrows heavily from Tibetan Buddhism. So at least in that regard, they are consistent.

Below are the Ten Grave Precepts of Zen Buddhism, as described by Robert Aitken in Taking The Path of Zen. They are similar, but there are some differences:

1. No killing
2. No stealing
3. No misuse of sex
4. No lying
5. No intoxication (alcohol, drugs, etc.)
6. No speaking of others' faults
7. No praising yourself while abusing others
8. No sparing "Dharma assets"
9. No indulgence in anger
10. No defaming the Three Treasures: Buddha, Dharma, Sangha

#5 has always struck me as a particularly important precept. Anybody want to venture an explanation for why that's missing from the Tibetan list of non-virtuous actions? I know that avoiding intoxication is an important teaching in all schools of Buddhism, including Tibetan schools, but I didn't realize till now that this list of 10 varied in this way.

My Buddhist Fear

No, this post is not about how I am afraid of Buddhists! That'd be silly, since I am a Buddhist. Discovering Dharma (the Buddha's teachings) is one of the greatest blessings I've had in my life, and I'm convinced that it is one of the greatest possible blessings in any life.

That is what this post is really about. In tonight's meditation class, our focus was on karma. We often think we know what karma is, but we really only use the term in a very superficial way. We say good stuff happens to us because we deserve it, and yet bad stuff happens because of everybody else. It doesn't work that way, friends! To borrow from Lama Surya Das, "If you plant apple seeds, you do not get lemon trees." If life is giving you lemons, that is old karma you are working out -- maybe from a year ago, 10 years ago, or 10 lives ago.

This sounds harsh, cruel, or depressing, doesn't it? We don't like thinking that the bad stuff that happens to us is our fault. Perhaps we should say that it is not so much our fault as it is where we ended up as a natural result of the course we've taken in the past. If you drive down the highway to El Paso, don't be too shocked if you find yourself in El Paso eventually.

But the law of karma is really good news. The good news is twofold:

1. The good stuff in our life is the result of some good seeds we planted sometime in the past. Though we cannot coast on that goodness forever, it shows that we are capable and have been capable of doing good things that bring us to a good place.
2. Regardless of who and where we are, we can sow good seeds for a good future. Since we can't put ourselves on cruise control and expect to become enlightened because of stuff we did in the past, it's a very fortunate thing that we can create positive karma to keep going the right direction.

In Buddhism, one of the most fortunate circumstances you can find yourself in is to be born as a human. Better still to be born as a human in a favorable situation for learning Dharma -- you are born in a land without war, a land where Dharma is known and available to practice, etc. Given that, the fact that the eight of us found ourselves in the meditation center tonight is the fruition of very positive karma!

So regardless of whatever imperfections my life has (and every life has many of them), I am lucky to have this opportunity. Clearly, I acted with enough goodness in the past to bring me here. That good momentum needs to be maintained, though, because even the best, most nobly-earned karma will be used up eventually.

What, then, is my "Buddhist fear"? It's hinted at in #2 above. If being born as a human is one of the best blessings on the Buddhist path, then being born as something else would be one of the worst. To be born as an animal would mean I'd be unable to hear and practice Buddhist teachings; to be born as a god would mean I'd be so concerned with godly pleasures that I would have no interest in developing spiritual practice. To be born as a human is a happy medium -- we have the tools and opportunities to learn spiritual teachings, and enough suffering in our life to fuel our passion for doing so. We've got the engine (Dharma) and the fuel (suffering) to propel us onward through the sky, like an airplane.

Thus my Buddhist fear is that despite the good momentum I've developed in the past, and am developing now, I may blow it someday. I could progress steadily for the rest of this life, and for a hundred more, moving closer and closer to enlightenment and pure, boundless compassion. And then in that 100th life, I might squander all the great fortune and endowments I'm born with, using them to cheat people, go on sexual rampages, or conquer the world at gunpoint. And all that good karma would be expended, and I'd be back at square one -- or worse, somewhere so far below square one that it would be an eternity before I'd accumulated enough merit to encounter the Dharma again.

Note to future-self: Don't blow it, Thomas!

(Photo courtesy of consumerfriendly.)

Dalai Lama Controversy: More Background

I've blogged about this controversy twice before. To catch up, I recommend reading these two posts before continuing:

• Dalai Lama = "Religious Dictator"?
• Dalai Lama: Compromised By Politics?
  

I also highly recommend this short (10 minute) documentary on the Dorje Shugden issue: People & Power - The Dalai Lama.

While poking around in the New York Times archives, looking for mainstream coverage of the Dalai Lama/Dorje Shugden controversy, I found a link to a lengthy article in Himal Southasian. The article seems to have vanished from their site, but an old copy is still available in the Internet Archive.

This article offers detailed and very neutral background on the issue at hand. I'd like to start with one excerpt:

There might have been no story if the advice the Dalai Lama did give regarding non- worship of Shugden had not been taken up too zealously by some Tibetans. Taking the cue from the Dalai Lama’s statement that those who worship Shugden should best dissociate from him, some enthusiastic followers including those in the Tibetan Youth Congress are said to have gone around monasteries in India demanding that monks pledge loyalty to the Dalai Lama.

My big problem with this whole controversy is not so much that the Dalai Lama told his followers to stop practicing worship of Shugden. My problem is threefold:

1. The Dalai Lama has two incompatible roles: political leader and religious leader.
2. When violence broke out as a result of his words and actions, the Dalai Lama (apparently) said nothing to discourage his followers from taking things too far.
3. This controversy is virtually never brought up in serious documentaries or biographies of the Dalai Lama, even though it represents a violation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see Article 18, especially). Supposedly, Americans and other Western peoples believe in free expression and freedom of religion, and yet the West remains almost entirely silent on this conflict
   

I think it's perfectly acceptable for the Dalai Lama to say he does not want to teach people who practice a belief he feels is harmful. That's fine, and that's his right as a teacher or religious authority. But when other people take it too far, I feel it is his duty as a leader to discourage them from fanning the flames of separation and violence. I haven't seen any indication that he has done that. The article goes into some detail as to why he has not, and why he perhaps cannot:

Buddhism in Tibet is a continuous history of power struggles. It was fostered mainly by the evolution of the religion into different schools of teachings with each claiming superiority over the others...

The present Shugden controversy is a legacy of this history of sectarian confrontation within and outside Tibet.

From this description, it sounds like the split in Tibetan Buddhism is rather like Democrats vs. Republicans here in America. Democrats and Republicans can't even agree on how to bring the greatest benefit to Americans, so how could different leaders in Tibet agree on how to bring the greatest benefit to all beings, seen and unseen? That is the goal of Tibetan Buddhism, after all. I certainly wish the Dalai Lama had at least made a show of trying to heal this split, though.

I can't hope to go into all the details of this issue. Read the whole article for that! I may not write on this controversy again, but I want to leave you with a few finishing thoughts:

• This is clearly a problem with deep historical, religious, and political roots in Tibetan society. Despite our fuzzy and warm views of the Dalai Lama and Tibet, the Dorje Shugden issue is not as simple as it appears.
• We need to recognize that the Dalai Lama, like any public figure of great reputation and authority, should never be blindly trusted or taken at face value. This is especially true for those of us who live outside his culture and are not privy to first-hand knowledge of what really goes on.
  
• I feel deeply disappointed that Buddhists, of all people, get so caught up in this that they resort to violence or slander. Friends, remember that we live in Samsara! Nothing is perfect here -- not the Dalai Lama, not Tibet, not every element of the human sangha. Take refuge in the Three Jewels, cultivate your practice and your wisdom, and keep to your vows of universal compassion. All beings need compassion, whether you agree with their views or not.
  

Light The Night: Thank You!

Since July, I've been talking to people, blogging, tweeting, posting on Facebook, and sending out letters -- all in an effort to raise money for Light The Night, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society's annual fundraising event. I'm not at all good at fundraising, and I only managed to reach about 60% of my $1,000 goal... But thanks to the help of many amazing people, I've gotten farther than I ever thought I could.

Now that I'm back from the event, it's time for immense an thank you to those who donated. In order by date of donation, starting with the earliest:

• Nadia Ballas-Ruta, a.k.a. @HappyLotus, and fantastic spiritual blogger.
• Yvette Lyle, my good friend (and former boss).
• Jamie Hanson, a great long-time friend.
• Suzy Liu, my lovely wife.
• Amy Bigbee, Jim Beeson, Maisie Creelman, and Trevor Brown -- my colleagues and friends.
• Helen, owner of the Great Wall Chinese Restaurant.
• Paul Montz, a.k.a. @RVPaul, who donated twice. Double "thank you!" to you, Paul!
• Sarena Ulibarri, a.k.a. @sarenaemily, and a writer at Associated Content.
• Russell Grimm
• Majid Razvi, a.k.a. @majidrazvi.
• Uncle TJ
• Howard Milburn
• Anonymous, who donated nearly $275 to the cause. I wish I knew who you were!
• Lori Deschene, a.k.a. @lori_deschene, and wonderful blogger behind Seeing Good.
• Shenmin Lo, a.k.a. @Kytoo.
• William Beene, a guy who hates backpacks and has a funny beard.
• And all my customers who generously donated whatever they could via our donation boxes at work.

I'd also like to thank all the people who helped spread the word about this fundraiser. Without them, many of whom are also listed above as donors, half of the donations I received never would have happened. In this category, a very special thanks goes out to Lori Deschene, Nadia Ballas-Ruta, and Dorian Rhodes (@coffeesister). These wonderful ladies, who are always so inspiring and thoughtful, were also very generous in their help to raise awareness for this fundraiser. If not for their efforts, I bet I would have raised only a fraction of the money I did.

As you can tell, this fundraising is not really my story -- it's about those wonderful people I just mentioned. The success of the last 2 months really belongs to all of them, because they are the ones who gave their money and their time to help me work towards my goal. So to everyone who gave something, big or small, money or otherwise, I say...

Thank you!

Whatever merit I've gained by the tiny role I've played in bringing all these generous people together -- by that merit may all beings benefit, may they be free of suffering, and may they find peace. _/|\_

Book Review: The Ghost War

Alex Berenson's Ghost War is the kind of book I usually don't buy these days: paperback fiction. I really enjoy reading good fiction, but most fiction is better off borrowed from the library. I'll generally only read it once, assuming I like it enough to even get through the whole book. Unlike good nonfiction, a novel is usually not something I will return to frequently. Why spend money on something I'll read at most one time, and then end up donating or trying to sell at a garage sale?

However, when I saw The Ghost War for only 50¢ at a nearby thrift shop, I couldn't resist. The book is attractively designed, with an embossed dragon on the cover. Its unusual size, taller than most paperback novels, is also appealing. Once I read the teaser on the back cover, I knew it was worth the two quarters.

The Ghost War is primarily about a CIA operative named John Wells, who was the protagonist in the author's first book, The Faithful Spy. I haven't read The Faithful Spy, but I may do so after having finished this book. Anyway, what attracted me was the story: "A power play in China is causing deadly repercussions that will result in chaos around the globe." Sounds right up my alley!

The novel has a strong opening, with a nail-biting rescue op taking place in North Korea. Things quickly spiral out of control until the story spans Iran, China, the USA, and Afghanistan. Berenson doesn't push it too far, though; you don't have to worry about too many threads and characters going off in different directions that are hard to keep track of in your head. The various threads of the story do converge towards the end of the book, and things seem to slot together nicely.

However, I do feel that the ending is the weakest part of The Ghost War. The tense, page-turning action of the beginning continues into the middle chapters, but fizzles out by the last pages of the book. In fact, the ending is so anti-climactic I thought I had skipped a chapter where some action took place -- but no, The Ghost War really does end in a pretty lukewarm way.

It feels like this was a concession to allow for the inevitable sequel featuring John Wells. I think Alex Berenson really could have put more work into setting up for a sequel and giving a satisfying ending to this particular part of the series. Looking back on some elements of the story, this becomes even more obvious as Wells and other characters seem to defy their basic personalities to allow an easy setup for future confrontations in another book. Not to give anything essential away, but why does a man who frequently remarks to himself on his ability to kill with ease find it so difficult to kill a cold-blooded murderer when he has the chance? The reason: part three of the series, of course!

So, here's my basic feeling about The Ghost War. It has some great action, plausible political drama, and lots of authentic details that I know to be true from my own experience in China. It is clear that Alex Berenson is a very talented adventure writer. The ending is an extremely weak cop out allowing for a sequel, but that shouldn't stop you from reading this otherwise excellent book.

Wow! Big (And Bizarre?) Donation - Thank You!

On Tuesday night, I put out the call for donations on the home stretch to Light The Night this coming Saturday -- by e-mail, talking to people at work, on Twitter, Facebook, and here on the blog. I offered to match any single donation up to $100, and it didn't take long. Thanks to one person's extreme generosity, it looks like I will soon be donating that full amount!

Last night, I received confirmation that an anonymous person donated $271.82 to the cause through my online donations page.

Whoever you are, anonymous person, thank you for your generosity! The odd amount says to me that you might have converted it from some other currency, or you really want to keep me scratching my head about who you might be. Either way, thanks!

So now... Anybody out there willing to top that unusual amount? C'mon, you know you want to.

Movie Review: Knowing

So tonight, I strolled over to the local Redbox machine and rented "Knowing." I like Nicolas Cage, and the description of the movie said it was a sci-fi film. I don't get to watch much sci-fi these days, so I figured... Hey, what the heck?

Knowing is a pretty good flick. The plot is not overly surprising at any point, but there was enough suspense to keep me watching. There are some moments in the movie that are a bit of a stretch, not insofar as the events themselves but rather the way some main characters act. There's one point in the story, a rather pivotal point in my opinion, where Cage's character seems to make a total 180 mid-scene, and act completely opposite to how he was acting just seconds before. The change is inexplicable -- maybe something was cut out? Or perhaps I just missed something. Anyway... On the plus side, there are a couple of good "oh shit" moments of realization in the movie, which I enjoyed quite a bit.

For most of the film, I found myself thinking, "This is classified as sci-fi?" The first two-thirds of Knowing really felt more like a ghost/horror flick than sci-fi. However, it does eventually become clear that the overall premise is sci-fi. In fact, by the time the credits rolled, I found myself thinking that this movie is far more suitable for the label of "science fiction" than most movies in that category these days.

This is perhaps the greatest success of Knowing, but it is a success that will be lost on most people. Knowing has a similar flavor to a lot of hard core science fiction writing that you usually see in under-appreciated sci-fi novels at the book store. That, to me, is a great achievement for a Hollywood flick. Knowing is not the lightweight stuff we usually see lumped into the sci-fi category by the mainstream. It will probably disappoint people who expect something along those lines, though.

So, overall? I think Knowing is suspenseful enough and interesting enough to be well worth watching. I certainly got my dollar's worth! It's not a groundbreaking or unpredictable movie, but I had a good time watching it. Knowing also made me smile a bit at its Trojan horse way to give a Hollywood nod to sci-fi of a sort that we usually don't see on the silver screen. Go for it!

Twitter Geekiness: MySpace, Retweets

So, two interesting things are going on with Twitter in recent days:

1. MySpace added Twitter syncing, which means that your status updates on MySpace can be pushed out to Twitter, and vice versa.
2. Twitter has been publicly talking about how they're going to officially integrate "retweets" into how the service works.

First, my thoughts on the MySpace thing: it's great that they beat Facebook to full two-way sync with Twitter. I think it'll be useful for some people. For myself, since I only log in to my MySpace account maybe once every couple of months, syncing it with my Twitter account will actually make it seem like I'm somewhat active on MySpace! Not sure that that's worth much, but it's something.

My main beef with the MySpace sync is that it's not very intelligent, especially for the Twitter→MySpace direction. Probably 50% or more of my tweets on Twitter are directed at other people -- so-called "@ replies." These are not messages about what I'm doing or thinking, but rather my responses to other people. Odds are, those people are not on MySpace. Even if they were, my other friends on MySpace have no idea who those Twitter people are and probably do not want to see my messages to them. So, MySpace needs to seriously add an option to filter out @ replies, and do it fast. I'm sure I'll get a lot of "WTF?" messages from my friends when they see all my seemingly spammy posts to people they know nothing about.

On to the retweets integration. I'm moderately glad to see Twitter is making this an official feature, because it's an important element of the Twitter ecosystem: you see great stuff, you pass it on to your friends. If I say something or link to something cool, my followers pass it on to THEIR friends. There's a lot of cross-pollination going on. I learn all sorts of cool stuff from my friends, and they influence a lot of the stuff I write and do online. It's not exactly hard to retweet, though; a lot of Twitter clients have this feature built-in, and even if you use the web interface, is it really that hard to copy and paste and put some thought into your retweet?

Hmm... On second thought, perhaps it'd better if Twitter didn't remove the barriers to retweeting. We've all seen what happened when they moved Twitter Trends from an obscure search page to the front page everybody sees -- spam, idiotic trends like #threecondimentsonly (wtf?), spam, spam bots, and spammy spam that spams you with lots of spam.

So, two cool-but-not-as-cool-as-they-could-be-or-should-be developments in the Twitter world. At least it gave me something geeky to blog about today!

Cancer Fundraiser - Matching Donation

Time is running out. This coming Saturday, the 26th, is the Light The Night fundraiser for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. I've been burning up the wires and trying to get donations for this great cause, and I'll also be there way early on Saturday to volunteer with setup and other stuff to make sure this event goes off without a hitch.

My goal was to raise $1000 in about 3 months. From family, friends, and generous colleagues and customers at work, I've managed to pull in around $150 in donations. More than a few people had to dig really deep just to spare $5 for the cause, and I am deeply grateful to everyone who has donated -- right down to those customers who dug around for a few extra coins to toss into our donation box at work. From the smallest donations to the biggest, they are all greatly appreciated and a wonderful tribute to the spirit of generosity that still lives.

As you can see from the numbers, I'm far shy of my goal -- I'm at about 15%. And I'm still below the national individual average of $200, which I had hoped would be fairly easy to crack.

So with just four days to go, I would like to put out the call one more time. If it is at all possible, please donate. You can send me a check or a money order, bring me a jar of coins, or donate online (online donations are 100% secure, tax-deductible, and go directly to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society). Whether it's $1, $5, $20, or more, it makes a difference to those who are fighting cancer this very day.

And here's my offer: between now and the start of Light The Night on Saturday, I will match the largest single donation I receive, up to $100. If the biggest donation I get between now and then is $25, I'll match that $25 out of my own pocket. If it's $50, I'll match it with another $50. If it's $100 or more, I'll donate $100. Basically, if you donate the most, you will effectively double the bang for your buck. That's double the care, double the support, and double the cures for cancer fighters

To those who have donated already, or who expressed a desire to but who can't in these tough times, I thank you and I salute your generosity. To those who have not yet donated, please consider doing so! I'll be very grateful, and I can only imagine the boundless gratitude of those who will benefit from what all Light The Night supporters have accomplished this year.

Welcome to Autumn

Today is the Autumnal Equinox, so... welcome to autumn! Hard to believe how fast the year has gone by. Before you know it, it'll be Christmas, and Suzy & I will have lived here for a year already. Insane!

(Photo courtesy of Lutz-R. Frank.)

This Time Last Year: Liurong Pagoda

One of the most inspiring places I visited while living in Guangzhou was Liurong Temple. As a Buddhist, the temple has a special significance for me, but it has a wonderful spiritual energy for most people, I imagine. And it's a relatively cheap and beautiful tourist trap, too!

I visited the temple a couple of times, and each time it was filled with rhythmic chanting, the smell of incense, the gentle rustling of leaves, and the soft sound of a babbling fountain. The temple dates back to the mid-400s AD, and it features a nine-story "1000-year" pagoda. Climbing to the top of the pagoda is both exhilarating and scary, since the top makes you feel very exposed -- especially to random gusts of wind you don't feel down at street level in the city.

Obama: No Surprises

Should any of us really be surprised about Obama's take on things like universal health care and the like? As far back as January 2008, a table at 2decide.com indicated Obama's position on a variety of campaign issues. See that green checkmark next to "Universal Healthcare"? Can't say there wasn't any warning about it.

Of course, when I was referencing such things about the election, universal healthcare did not seem to be on the radar of most people, including myself. And I surely didn't know enough about it to see the implications of what people are now arguing/debating about. (Goes to show the importance of reading up on all the issues, not just the ones that are in major debates and headlines. 20/20 hindsight!)

If I had time, I'd probably research more of those checkmarks and X's on that page, to see how closely Obama has stuck with the positions he proclaimed over a year and a half ago. But at least as far as healthcare goes, none of us should be surprised about where he stands on the issue today -- if anything, the real surprise is just how contentious the whole issue has been.

From Fear to Faith

My friend Lisis (@Serene_Balance on Twitter) often writes spectacular stuff on her blog, and today is no exception. In a post today titled How to Get From Fear to Faith, she writes:

"We aren’t settling, we aren’t taking the easy route, we aren’t relying on others to take care of us. THIS time, we are setting fear aside and surrendering to Faith. I don’t know how things will work out, but I feel certain they will."

The people I know who are most satisfied (not necessarily the most "successful" or affluent) tend to be the ones who live life with some measure of faith. In my own life, the best decisions I've made have been the ones that required me to dive in with faith that things would turn out all right. That's the real secret of living for the journey, rather than just the destination.

When I left Air Force ROTC and thus plunged myself into financial and career uncertainty, that took a measure of faith. ROTC was a sure-fire way for me to have some income and a good scholarship, and to establish a rewarding career. But I didn't feel true to myself by settling for that route, so I left. It led to some struggle (and more than a little family strife), but it led me down a path that's taken me places I couldn't have imagined.

When Suzy and I left the relative safety of her hometown of Changsha to live in the sprawling metropolis of Guangzhou, we left with a fairly tentative job offer and no clue where we were going to end up. Along the way, we found a great place to live, met amazing people, and had experiences beyond what we expected.

Now, here we are in the USA. It's been a little over nine months since we came here from China, and it's been quite an experience for the two of us. And yet, going forward, the uncertainty of where we're going and how we'll get there makes it all the more exciting and ripe with promise.

Enough babbling from me... Go read the rest of Lisis's post to see her insights into the subject. ;-)

(Photo credit: NeilNorman Light Tamer.)

Dalai Lama: Compromised By Politics?

(Note: My intent in this post is not to senselessly bash the Dalai Lama. The intention is to point out some concerns I have, and to show that the Dalai Lama is no different from any other public figure in one sense: his words and actions cannot be taken 100% at face value, because no public figure is immune to the politics and social issues he is enmeshed in. The fact that virtually nobody in the USA has heard of the controversy I'm writing about is rather scary, and hints at just how untouchable and free of criticism we think the Dalai Lama is.)

I wrote earlier that I was looking into the "Dorje Shugden Controversy" -- a kind of split within Tibetan Buddhism, centered around the Dalai Lama. The core issue is the worship of Dorje Shugden, who is either a manifestation of Buddha Manjushri or (according to the Dalai Lama) an evil spirit.

The Dalai Lama has established his position as follows: Dorje Shugden is a mere spirit, and worshiping him as one would worship a "true" Buddha degenerates Tibetan Buddhism to mere superstitious spirit worship. He sees this kind of worship as "troublesome" for Tibetan society and strongly advises against it. To quote his web site on the issue:

Whether or not his advice is heeded, His Holiness has made clear, is a matter for the individual. However, since he personally feels strongly about how negative this practice is, he has requested those who continue to propitiate Dolgyal [Shugden] not to attend his formal religious teachings, which traditionally require the establishment of a teacher-disciple relationship.

Some of my thoughts on this statement:

1. The Dalai Lama, as a religious teacher, is well within his rights to establish guidelines for who he wants to teach. If he finds Shugden followers to be a distraction or problem in his formal teachings, then I've no problem with that. However, I do have other issues with this, which I will get to in a second. But strictly speaking, he has the right to teach or not teach whomever he chooses.
2. "It is a matter for the individual" -- this is a distinctly Buddhist sentiment about the issue, and it is a good thing that it is included in the Dalai Lama's statement. However, I seriously wonder if that same sentiment has been expressed to the Dalai Lama's own people and followers. There is the very real possibility that this statement on the Dalai Lama's web site is written to appease English-speaking Western audiences, while on the other side the flames are being fanned by more aggressive rhetoric. I don't know if that's the case or not, but it is a possibility that casts some shadow on the issue.

Having said that the Dalai Lama has the right to restrict teachings to whatever audience he wishes, I will also say that I think it is a very bad idea to do so. For someone who preaches about universal compassion, this seems like a particularly divisive stance to take. Given that the Dalai Lama is a public figure who many people look up to, I fear it is a bit irresponsible to take this position.

In fact, the Dalai Lama himself says that worshiping Dorje Shugden is what creates division within Tibetan Buddhism. Maybe that's true, I don't know. Clearly this issue is revealing something very important that most of us outsiders aren't aware of: strong political tensions within Tibetan Buddhism. Despite the rose-colored glasses with which we view the Dalai Lama and Tibet, it is obvious that some powerful political issues exist. Whatever they are, they are tainting the goodness that does exist within Buddhism.

This brings me to my ultimate conclusion, which is the realization that the Dalai Lama is, to some degree, compromised by his multiple roles as religious leader, political leader, and global figure. It would seem the Dorje Shugden issue exposes the problems with playing all those roles, and it saddens me to see that the Dalai Lama can't (or won't) find a way to totally live up to his preached ideals of universal acceptance, compassion, etc. where some of his own people are involved.

The moral of the story? Nobody is perfect, not even the Dalai Lama. And Tibet is no Shangri-La, since this issue has apparently degenerated into violence on more than one occasion. Considering the overall harmony of Buddhism over the centuries (despite the wide variety of schools and practices across the globe), it is very sad to see something like this happen. It is also sad to see that the Dalai Lama, who so many people respect and love, is in fact just as fallible and perhaps as political as anybody else.

I still find the Dalai Lama to be an inspiring and insightful teacher, but unfortunately the shadow of this controversy will forever color how I see his words and actions.

Why I'm Not Using Posterous Anymore

For the last few months, I've been blogging using a wonderful service called Posterous. It's a brilliant tool that lets you e-mail your content in, and then spreads it out to whatever services you want to share it on: Flickr, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, your other blog(s), etc. I originally set it up so that whenever I posted something, it would also be published in my Twitter and Facebook streams -- also, anytime I posted photos, they'd go to my Flickr account.

It's a fun setup. I ended up with two Posterous blogs, which both funneled into this blog here at hochmann.org (which you are reading right now). Having two blogs, one for my normal posts and one strictly for my Buddhism-oriented content, worked out pretty well, especially since everything still ended up archived here on Thomas Time for anybody who cared to see it all thrown together. Having Posterous promote my content on Twitter and Facebook was also a huge plus, because it gave me an automated way to get my stuff out there for friends to see.

Basically, Posterous takes a lot of the chores out of blogging. In that light, I think it is an amazing service and one that I highly recommend to people.

So why am I stepping back from Posterous? Precisely because its biggest asset, taking the chores out of blogging, is also a big drawback for me. Posterous makes it so easy to share whatever I'm looking at online, that I ended up developing a lot of bad habits. I see something cool, I click a couple buttons, and it's shared -- usually with little thought, effort, or comment by myself. That's great, but if I want to share stuff, I can just give it a quick link on Twitter and Facebook.

What I want to do here is blog. Precisely because blogging takes more effort than just clicking "share" on a web page, it is a more satisfying experience for me. Something has to be really worth it for me to open up my blog, login, and post to it. If it's not worth that effort, it probably should not be on my blog.

My bad habits have turned me from a writer/blogger into a sharer/aggregator, and I don't find that very satisfying. I want to write lengthy posts more often, and not post things (especially hot-headed political things) at the push of a button without thinking about them.

So, look forward to more actual writing from me, and less random linking & quoting. Though there will still be some of that, of course! ;-)

Beyond "Nope"

This post is way off-center for my usual posts, which tend to be political rants, quotes, or photos of my dog. This time I'm going to talk about marketing -- but not in a really academic way, but in a practical way that is a part of my job and should be part of anybody's job when they step out of their office to do business of any sort. If you work for a small business, or for yourself, what I'm going to highlight here is doubly applicable to you.

 

Today while I was helping a customer, I noticed that she works for a local business which offers a service I happen to need right now -- vision care. It's time for me to look into getting a current eye exam and some new glasses. We were chatting a bit while we worked through the things she came in for, and I said something like the following: "So you work over at the XYZ Vision Clinic -- we usually see your colleague Jane in here, and I've been meaning to ask if you folks have any specials going on right now. I'm due for an eye exam and new glasses."

 

Her answer? "Nope." That was basically it.

 

Now I'm not really trying to criticize this lady, but she did miss out on an opportunity. It's always important, but in this tight economy it's doubly so, to raise awareness of your business and what it offers. Especially for a local business that doesn't have the benefit of national brand recognition being burned into everybody's retinas via TV. Whether you work on commission or not (and I don't), getting more business and getting more customers are never bad things!

 

Some alternatives to her one-word answer of "nope" could be...

• Well, we don't have any specials right now, but if you drop by with my business card, they'll give you a 10% discount.
• Not at the moment, but our prices are very competitive and we offer better service than the big-box names.
• We have a deal coming up next month -- 50% off your eye exam when you buy glasses. Here's my card, just give me a call when you're ready.
• Actually, I have a couple extra coupons here. Go ahead and take some to share with your coworkers, too!

(If you'll notice, 3 of those 4 options include an "action item" -- something, like a coupon, that your potential customer gets which invites them to take action and patronize your business.)

 

You get the idea. Of course, a big part of this also requires the business leadership to equip its employees with options to offer to people. I'm lucky that my boss has given us basically complete autonomy in what we offer to customers. Essentially, whatever we need to offer to get business in the door, even steep discounts we don't advertise publicly, is possible. As long as we don't lose money on the deal, I can go as far as I need to to make it happen.

 

I don't think everything should be about marketing, not at all. We might as well live inside our TVs, then. But clearly, if you are out on business (and wearing your logo tee & name tag, no less!) for your company and you encounter somebody actively inquiring about your business, you should be ready and willing to give them some extras to get them in the door.

 

I don't turn every single conversation into "Well, at my place we can do that for only $2.95." But when I see a legitimate need (and especially a person looking around for options I know we can provide), I'm equipped to give whatever incentives are necessary to get that person's business. Even if we just break even on the initial offer, word of mouth and a positive experience are never wasted efforts.

Posted via email from hochmann-y goodness

Hmm. Dalai Lama = "Religious Dictator"?

Hmm. I just today was digging around and found out about something called the Dorje Shugden controversy. Essentially, it is a split in Tibetan Buddhism: those who worship Dorje Shugden as a "protector," and those who see Shugden as an evil spirit. From an article about the controversy:

 

In March 1996, the Dalai Lama decreed that the worship of Dorje Shugden was ‘evil’. In what is believed to have been part of an internal power struggle in his fiefdom-in-exile in Dharamsala, northern India, the Dalai Lama ordered all worshippers of Dorje Shugden to leave his temple on 21 March 1996. A week later, on 30 March 1996, the Assembly of Tibetan People’s Deputies (the parliament in exile) passed a resolution banning the worship of Dorje Shugden by Tibetan government employees, and the Private Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama issued a formal decree for everyone to stop practising the Dorje Shugden prayer. The New Internationalist reported that the Lama’s office wrote to every monastery in northern India and Tibet demanding that they ‘ensure total implementation of this decree by each and everyone… If there is anyone who continues to worship [Dorje Shugden], make a list of their names, house name, birth place… Keep the original and send us a copy of the list.’

 

I'll have to poke around at the topic more tomorrow, when I'm awake. But it is interesting to see this -- here in the USA, we hear virtually nothing bad about the Dalai Lama. You'd think with our sensationalist media willing to pounce on any (real or imagined) conflict involving titanic figures like the Dalai Lama, there would've been some coverage of these events. Maybe there was coverage, and I just missed it completely.

 

Don't get me wrong; I've found much inspiration in things the Dalai Lama has said, taught, and done. But it is entirely possible that he is just as intolerant of dissent within his tradition as, say, the Pope could be in Catholicism. Perhaps this is a good case in favor of separation of church and state, if the Dalai Lama's decree really did impact people's ability to keep jobs, shop in certain places, and walk down the street without being harassed. Maybe this is yet more evidence of why spiritual leadership should be separated from leadership of a nation or a political body.

 

To quote Malcolm Reynolds: "This here's a spectacle might warrant a moment's consideration."

Posted via email from bits of buddhism

This Time Last Year: Guan Yin

This time last year, I was visiting Lian Hua Shan for the second time. Lian Hua Shan is home to a 134 foot tall gold statue of Guan Yin, the Buddha of Compassion. There is also a temple at Lian Hua Shan, with over 1,000 Guan Yin statues inside.

 

 

Posted via email from hochmann-y goodness

Sad, Sad, Sad: Charles Darwin is "Too Controversial" for America

File this in the "so freakin' sad" category. From an article at the Telegraph:

A British film about Charles Darwin has failed to find a US distributor because his theory of evolution is too controversial for American audiences, according to its producer.

Are tears of laughter/sadness streaming down your face yet? No? Well, here's some more to get the tears a-flowin':

However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution. [emphasis mine]

This is freaking ridiculous. The Telegraph continues:

Movieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as "a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder". His "half-baked theory" directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to "atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering", the site stated.

So, we blame scientists for the actions of other people, because those other people use the theories of said scientists to justify their horrific acts? Brilliant! So I guess we can forgive Hitler for all the stuff he did, because it's really Darwin's fault, right? I'm glad to see the idea of personal responsibility is alive and well here in America. NOT.

Sad! America is making me cry, people!

(Thanks to my buddy Majid Razvi for pointing out this story.)

Posted via web from hochmann-y goodness

Worry Serves No Useful Purpose « tinybuddha.com

How did it serve me to turn the unknown into a catastrophe before having proof of anything?

If you worry and nothing’s wrong, you’ve wasted precious time. If you worry and something is wrong, you’ve still wasted precious time.

via tinybuddha.com

Reminds me of a great quote, which I'm trying to re-type to the best of my ability:

"Ain't no use worryin' 'bout things beyond your control, 'cause if they're beyond your control, ain't no use worryin'. And ain't no use worryin' 'bout things under your control, 'cause if they're under your control, ain't no use worryin'."
~Ed Moses

Posted via web from hochmann-y goodness

South Africa: Pigeon w/ Memory Stick Faster Than ADSL

Broadband promised to unite the world with super-fast data delivery - but in South Africa it seems the web is still no faster than a humble pigeon.

A Durban IT company pitted an 11-month-old bird armed with a 4GB memory stick against the ADSL service from the country's biggest web firm, Telkom.

Winston the pigeon took two hours to carry the data 60 miles - in the same time the ADSL had sent 4% of the data.

via news.bbc.co.uk

Posted via web from hochmann-y goodness

Google Search for Pornography? Ad Result: Bing.com

via techcrunch.com

Posted via web from hochmann-y goodness

Separation of Church and Czar State

This is a pretty scary list. Most of this stuff is really NO business of the federal government:

According to Politico there are, not counting Jones or Bloom, 30 other Obama administration officials with czar-like duties and powers, including: Afghanistan Czar Richard Holbrooke, AIDS Czar Jeffrey Crowley, Auto recovery Czar Ed Montgomery, Border Czar Alan Bersin, California Water Czar David Hayes, Central Region Czar Dennis Ross, Domestic Violence Czar Lynn Rosenthal, Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske, Economic Czar Paul Volcker, Energy and Environment Czar Carol Brower, Faith-Based Czar Joshua DuBois, Great Lakes Czar Cameron Davis, Guantanamo Closure Czar Daniel Fried, Health Czar Nancy-Ann DeParle, Information Czar Vivek Kundra, International Climate Czar Todd Stern, Intelligence Czar Dennis Blair, Mideast Peace Czar George Mitchell, Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg, Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein, Science Czar John Holdren, Stimulus Accountability Czar Earl Devaney, Sudan Czar J. Scott Gration, TARP Czar Herb Allison, Terrorism Czar John Brennan, Technology Czar Aneesh Chopra, Urban Affairs Czar Adolfo Carrion Jr., Weapons Czar Ashton Carter, and WMD Policy Czar Gary Samore.

The proliferation of czars is a direct consequence of both the ever expanding power of the federal government and Congress’ willingness to cede ever more legislative and judicial functions to the Executive branch. Our Founding Fathers specifically created a Constitution dividing the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government into three branches so that the separation of these powers would limit the size and scope of the federal government.

Auto recovery? "Pay"? California water? Why is the federal government nannying the state of California at such a high level? Why doesn't my state, a friggin' desert, have a "water" czar? And what the hell is a "Faith-Based" Czar?

Wait, I just Wikipedia'd it: 

White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI)  was established by President George W. Bush through executive order[2] on January 29, 2001, representing one of the key domestic policies of Bush's campaign promise of "compassionate conservatism." The initiative sought to strengthen faith-based and community organizations and expand their capacity to provide federally-funded social services.

Ding ding! We have a winner: using faith and community organizations to expand dependence on the federal government and its funny money. How's that for separation of church and state?

Posted via email from hochmann-y goodness

Thich Nhat Hanh: The Gift That Keeps On Giving

I've read a lot of books on Buddhism, Taoism, and spirituality in general. And I mean a lot. Reading lots of books won't give you enlightenment, but it will give you at least one thing: an increasing awareness of real spirituality and real human beauty when you see it. I've come to realize that Thich Nhat Hanh (a.k.a. "Thay") is a source of such spirituality. So many of the books I've read are forgettable, or filled with platitudes, or repetitive without being revealing. But I've yet to feel that way about Thay's teachings.

Take his unassuming little book titled Living Buddha, Living Christ. It's about 200 pages, and it is not what I would call an intellectually challenging or academically dense book. But it has quickly become something of a Bible for me; it's a book I can pull off the shelf and thumb through, or open to some random page. Each time I do this, I am greeted with a gem that inspires me and instills me with a burst of energy. It doesn't matter that I've already Living Buddha, Living Christ from cover to cover. Whenever I open it, there is something fresh waiting for me.

I also often think back to another of Thay's great books, The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching. That book, which I am sad to say I do not currently own and have at hand for perusal, is also chock full of wisdom, inspiration, and beauty. So much of what Thay says in that book, I carry in my heart every day. His eye-opening passage on "you are what you eat" prompted me to virtually eliminate TV and junk news from my life. "You are what you eat" is not just a matter of the stomach and the body; it is also a matter of the mind and the heart. When I encounter excessive negativity and fear-mongering, I remind myself of what Thay points out: we all have a choice, and we can make the choice not to ingest spiritual poison that will blacken our hearts.

(Side note: I've never seen it discussed like this, but I also think that the Buddhist concept of "Samsara" is related to this problem of negativity. In Buddhism, the world we live in is often called Samsara; like a rose bush, Samsara has beautiful flowers, but it also has thorns that can prick you. The idea is that this world fundamentally includes some amount of unavoidable suffering, no matter how beautiful parts of it may be. Perhaps we are taught this so that we will not obsess over trying to perfect the world, thereby internalizing all the negativity and horrors it contains. If we spent all our time trying to fix something that is, by its very nature, promising but never completely fixable, we'd never make any progress in the one place we can: our heart.)

The beauty of Thich Nhat Hanh's writing is that he's not just giving you words to memorize, or facts to regurgitate. He's planting seeds in your heart, and these seeds have the potential to grow and bloom throughout your mundane daily life. When they do blossom, Buddhism becomes what it should be -- not mere ideas or philosophies, but an embodiment of compassion and peace that is expressed through your actions.

The living Dharma [Buddhist teaching] is not a library of scriptures or tapes of inspiring lectures. The living Dharma is mindfulness, manifested in the Buddha's daily life and in your daily life, also.

~ Thich Nhat Hanh, Living Buddha, Living Christ (p.40)

Posted via email from bits of buddhism

The Real Cost of Printing Money

Ron Paul on the Federal Reserve and what its manipulation of the dollar has done to our money:

An item that cost $100 in 1913 (when the Federal Reserve Act was passed) would cost $2014.81 in 2006. An item that cost $100 in 2006 would have cost $4.96 in 1913. As we can see, the dollar has lost nearly all its value since the Fed was established. Now if the gold standard had brought about such an outcome, we would never hear the end of all the howls of outrage. But the Fed does it and... utter silence...

And in fact the gold standard did no such thing. People's money increased in value under the gold standard. They were not looted by inflation. An item that cost $100 in 1820 would have cost only $63.02 in 1913.

(from The Revolution, pp.150-151; emphasis mine)

This is what happens when the Fed "lowers the interest rate" (something that people clamor and beg for, thinking it's a good thing). If you want to know why it's NOT a good thing, please go read Ron Paul's The Revolution.

Posted via email from hochmann-y goodness

BBC: Sudanese woman jailed for wearing trousers (via @adri_o)

A Sudanese woman has been jailed for a month after refusing to pay a fine for "dressing indecently" by wearing trousers, her lawyers say.

via news.bbc.co.uk

Posted via web from hochmann-y goodness

Fahrenheit 747: World’s Biggest Fire Extinguisher Douses L.A. County

via wired.com

Posted via web from hochmann-y goodness

Health Care for Our Heroic Citizens

Can't say it better than the man himself, Congressman Ron Paul, in his book The Revolution:

 

Those who favor national health care schemes should take a good, hard look at our veterans' hospitals. There is your national health care. These institutions are a national disgrace. If this is the care the government dispenses to those it honors as its most heroic and admirable citizens, why should anyone else expect to be treated any better?

Posted via email from hochmann-y goodness

Ron Paul on "The Soul-Killing Logic of the Welfare State"

From Ron Paul's The Revolution:

 

Issues like these [Social Security, Medicare, etc.] are predictably portrayed as contests between generous souls who want to provide for their fellow men on the one hand, and misers and misanthropes who care nothing for the suffering of their fellow citizens on the other. I should not have to point out that this is an absurd caricature. The fact is, we do not have the resources to sustain these programs in the long run. There is no way around this simple fact. (p.83)

I try to be as generous as possible, though it is a never-ending journey. I'm making room for volunteerism and non-profit work in my life, alongside work and play. But I do not support these large, unwieldy programs, despite the good intentions that probably gave birth to them.

Besides the fact that we are quickly running out of money for these bottomless pit federal programs, Ron Paul highlights Charles Murray's "thought experiment" that illustrates how the welfare state impacts our character and sense of community:

Imagine that the programs that constituted the federal "safety net" were all of a sudden abolished, and for whatever reason could not be revived... How would you respond? Would you be more or less likely to volunteer at a food bank? Would you be more or less likely to volunteer at a literacy center? If you were a lawyer or physician, would you be more or less likely to offer pro bono services?

We would all answer [positively] to these questions, wouldn't we? But then we need to ask ourselves: why aren't we doing these things already? And the answer is that we have bought into the soul-killing logic of the welfare state: somebody else is doing it for me. I don't need to give of myself, since a few scribbles on a tax form fulfill my responsibility toward my fellow man. Do our responsibilities as human beings really extend no farther than this? (p.85)

  

[emphasis mine]

Ultimately:

We have lost our belief that freedom works, because we no longer have the imagination to conceive of how a free people might solve its problems without introducing threats of violence -- which is what government solutions ultimately amount to. (p.85)

Posted via email from hochmann-y goodness

Political Blinders

We wear such amazingly effective political blinders, don’t we? It’s always "the city," "the county," "the state," or "the country," that pays for what we want and heels to our demands. Never Bob the struggling family man. Never Jill the single mom. Never anyone we know. Never anyone we have to explain ourselves to.

via campaignforliberty.com

Posted via web from hochmann-y goodness

From "Top 10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal"

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

via blog.egrantdesign.com

Posted via web from hochmann-y goodness

HealthBase Lists "Treatments" for Microsoft Windows

Apparently, there are many treatments for Microsoft Windows, such as security patches -- which are "biomed material." Don't forget your daily round of "Radio SHARK" and "PRIMROSE" with your glass of Wine...

I like how one of the treatments is "operating system." This confirms my long-standing suspicion that Windows is not really good enough to be considered an operating system!

Posted via email from hochmann-y goodness

The Mathematics of Choosing a Urinal -- xkcd

This leads us to a question: what is the general formula for the number of guys who will fill in N urinals if they all come in one at a time and follow the urinal protocol? One could write a simple recursive program to solve it, placing one guy at a time, but there’s also a closed-form expression.  If f(n) is the number of guys who can use n urinals, f(n) for n>2 is given by:

via blag.xkcd.com

Definitely read the whole blog post, it's pretty funny. Although this is definitely NOT an "international" protocol -- in China, the luxury of always having an empty urinal between you and the next guy just doesn't happen. It's called OVERPOPULATION!

Posted via web from hochmann-y goodness

Google Trends: Not Jon & Kate, But Gmail

At least I wasn't the only one who was annoyed by the Gmail outage. I wasn't bored/desperate enough to Google around about it, though...

Posted via email from hochmann-y goodness