‘Buddhism hasn’t has an original idea in 1000 years.’
Edward Conze. Thirty Years of Buddhist Studies

Buddhism arrived in the West early in the nineteenth century, after the centuries of Western economic and political expansion. Asian religions like Buddhism were certainly known to travelers and missionaries long before then, but it was not until the early nineteenth century that Buddhism fully captured the western imagination.

The nineteenth century was one of social and philosophical upheaval, both for the west as well as for Asian cultures newly exposed to western ideas, education, and values. So inevitably, the versions of Buddhism that have come to the West, from that time forward,  have been impacted by Western ideas, directly and indirectly, at the hands of both Western interpreters and Asian exponents.

Sometimes Buddhism is used to refute western ideas and support traditional world-views and values; sometimes it is adapted to meet the west on the west’s terms, to make it palatable and accessible; sometimes it takes on the form of an apologia, to appease disparagement from the West and to meet Western approval. Some in the West, like Schopenhauer in the 1830s, and of course many since then, hope to find justification for their own ideas by affirming common ground with Buddhism. Inevitably, Buddhism in the west continues to be filtered through Western ideas and expectations of it, just as Buddhism in Asia is influenced by its western adaptations, as well as by conservative reactions away from them.

Cultures are not static. They adapt in the same way that living organisms do. If true stasis ever existed, it would lead to stagnation and extinction. This is as true for a culture, or an idea, as it is for a species. Cultural experience centers on the evolving tensions between opposites, tradition and change, inertia and momentum, innovation and tradition.

The interplay and tensions between nomads and farmers, between urban and rural populations, between orthodoxy and heresy, between members of one religion and another, between invading and indigenous people, is often the lifeblood of change and renewal, however violently it may play out, and however self-defeating the long-term consequences may be. Tensions of all kinds are how cultural renewal, change, and innovation, and the impulse for human survival, have found expression down the ages.

No wonder then, that as a species we also hunger for unchanging truth, for ideas that are pure and reliable, uninfluenced by the flux of human tides. Our quest for it may be as old as human thought itself. How many angels can fit on the head of a pin? Why am I here? How did neutrinos and quarks emerge in the milliseconds following the big bang?

The quest for certainty has shown itself in Buddhism as it has in all the great traditions. Instructions handed down from founding sources have been taken to be absolutes, whether we call it Dharma, or The Word of God. How wonderful, an impartial observer might say, that the Truth has so many complex and contradictory ways of expressing itself!

Exponents of Buddhism often pride themselves on the practicality and flexibility of their tradition, and the fact that they have no need for a ‘God’ or of any transcendent authority. Teachings about the relativity and subjectivity of the ‘self’ – anatta, and of the nature of reality – śunya, have provided Buddhism with an effective eject button whenever there has been a tendency to be caught in absolutes. However, this has not prevented what has come down to us as instructions, anecdotes, or analogies to be taken as literal truth. Such is our hunger for certainty. Such is the tension between knowing and being, between understanding and embodiment – another tension of opposites that plays out inside us.

Truth and power are inexorably interconnected. The quest for redemption through certainty, for the security of knowing oneself to be one of a ‘chosen’ group, for knowing oneself to be ‘right’, has played into the hands of those who would wield power. Whether that power is exerted consciously or not, benevolently or not, it has been the proving ground of another polarity of opposites – those who would contest and challenge the status quo, and those who would maintain it; those who favor certainty, and those who favor the ongoing quest for being, however uncertain the ground may be.

There are always individuals who at different times, and in different ways, deliberately or accidentally, have placed themselves outside the status quo. They are those who favor being and embodiment over knowing and certainty. They are part of a tradition within Buddhism that itself goes back to the earliest time, and includes Ananda’s insistent request to the reluctant Gautama, the historical Buddha, that women should be included in the monastic order. The Third Zen patriarch had to flee the monastery for his life because he did not conform to the status quo. A well-known Korean teacher of recent times was publicly scolded in his youth for taking the shoes from the nuns’ quarters and placing them outside the abbot’s door.  In private the abbot quietly praised his student’s mischief.

Can there be Outsider Buddhism in the west when there is already so much innovation and adaptation, Edward Conze’s assertion that Buddhism has not had an original idea in a thousand years notwithstanding? As Buddhism finds its place in a rapidly evolving global culture, it continues to look for ways to integrates with Psychology, Movements for Social and Environmental Justice, Science, Business and the Arts. Isn’t Buddhism in the west already Outsider Buddhism?

Perhaps… Yet orthodoxy also evolves as part of the normal course of events. Inquisitors or public witch trials may no longer exist as they once did. Yet, just as there is an urge to innovate and integrate, so there is also an urge to conform, to be right, to convince others to agree, to be the arbiter of the authentic truth, by whatever markers authenticity and truth are measured.

Buddhist Outsiders may reject orthodoxy but they also play a part in the evolution of the whole. It is important that we see beyond acts of innovation or rebellion towards a deeper appreciation of the spirit of this tradition we know as Buddhism.

I once imagined that if I found the right teacher, the right path, and that if I tried really, really hard to get ‘it’ ‘right’ .. and that if I could understand what apparently I did not yet fully understand .. then everything would be okay, and I would magically wake up to be someone else, not my ‘self’ – which I didn’t like very  much, and which I had been told was an illusion anyway. I would wake up to be an entirely different person!

And so I undertook a fool’s journey to enlightenment.

Then I learned that life is both easier and harder.. which is something, it turns out, I had known all along. I learned (remembered) that no singular set of beliefs or behaviors can provide an absolute solution to the puzzle and miracle of living. I learned that ultimately it’s up to each of us to discover the truth of our lives.

I also learned some really, really cool tools from the ever-evolving field of NLP .. well, NLP is not a field exactly, and they weren’t tools exactly  .. more a way of thinking outside the conventional Aristotelian mindset box .. which is more of a tyranny of NOT thinking than a mindset.

Also, I had been teaching with Michele for many years already, so I decided to stop teaching the fool’s way, to stop helping people get comfortable with their limitations, and instead to start to help them feel un-comfortable enough, so that, like me, they might step outside the Aristotelian box .. and discover that just about any pattern of thought, belief, perception, feeling can change, and more importantly, can BE changed!

More on “Aristotelian boxes” coming soon ..

The teachings were not intended, so far as I can tell, to be a fixed metaphysical, or metaphorical, system. The practices (meditation, prayer, chanting, monasticism, ritual, ethical constraints) were not intended to be a drug – neither a sedative nor a stimulant. The underlying goal was, and remains, to be happy, aware, and internally congruent; and by so doing to lead others through example.

What’s all this about ‘non-self’!

The Buddha’s refutation of the contemporary ideal of Atman has very little to do with what we now call ‘soul’, or ‘self’; and referred to a specific construct in the religious and cultural milieu of his time.

This is not to say that a separate abstract entity called ‘me’ either exists or doesn’t exist. It would perhaps depend on how you define ‘me’. The Buddha did point to inherent existential paradox all those centuries ago in a remarkably sophisticated way. My only concern is that the idea of ‘not me’ has become an excuse for would-be Buddhists to avoid dealing with some of the realities and responsibilities of their life.

I don’t like myself!

If you don’t like yourself very much, and imagine that if you learn and practice an ideal of non-self long enough maybe you’ll no longer actually exist! How great that would be!(or not) Perhaps you can decide, “If I become fully ‘enlightened’ I’ll wake up and no longer recognize that awful person that used to be me!”

I am not saying that anyone consciously thinks it though in this way. But the implication of such thinking is evident.

Can I get it onto the back of a truck?

I had been leading retreats for many years, and doing my best to refute the assumption that the Buddha taught that there is ‘no-self’. The ‘self’ is a construct, an arbitrary distinction in an interconnected holographic universe. Korzybski would call it a nominalization. A nominalization is something that you can’t put in your pocket or on the back of a truck. Our lives are full of them. If something is a nominalization it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. It probably exists as a function of some sort. To say that ‘self’ doesn’t exist is to give it more weight than it deserves, and to miss the point. It functions. It’s real.

It seems however, that in the popular representation of Buddhism, there is this persistent idea that the ‘self’ doesn’t exist, and that if it does, that it’s a bad thing. This dichotomous absurdity causes a far greter confusion than if you just accepted yourself, and got on with your life.

You must admit that to deny that something exists, and then insist that you must get rid of it, is the kind of double-speak that is worthy of Absurdists like Ionesco or Jarry. To then equate mastery of some sort over this ‘no-self’ with gaining ground in the wisdom game, adds pathos and tragedy to the mix. Throw in a mistranslation of Freud’s German terminology – ego – and you have a recipe for an altogether unprecedented sort of theater of the absurd. Confusing in the extreme!

Resignation is NOT faith.

I’d like to say all this with kindness. I have encountered many western students and teachers of Buddhism who seem to be uncomfortable enough with life in the 20^th and 21^st centuries to welcome this idea of ‘no-self’ in order to immunize themselves from their own disquiet. Rather than resolve their discomfort creatively, their choice has been to resign to this notion of no-self, and then to use the teachings of the Buddha’s First Noble Truth to justify continuing to feel bad about themselves.

Needless to say, this does not correspond to faith. It is instead mere resignation, an unconscious capitulation.

It is significant that the Buddha warned against this sort of resignation. The word he used is rendered into English as nihilism.

Buddhist meditation and mindfulness practices as they are often taught are effective remedies for stress. However, meditation is not a strong enough sedative to address the depression that resignation implies. It can help manage depression. But the long-term cost is to exacerbates it, reinforcing a fatalistic world view, resigned and passive.

This sort of joyless depression and the resignation it springs from needs stronger medicine. And I’m not talking about drugs!

N.L.P. Now Live on Purpose!™

Just as we put up walls and a roof in which to take shelter and live, just as we put up fences to delineate ownership, make maps, make distinctions between categories we invent, and then forget that the source of our life is in the primordial crucible or mud, volcanic ash, oceans, and intergalactic dust, and completely without boundaries .. so too do we make self-limiting distinctions within our minds that lead us to completely miss all that we truly are, and can be.

You could write a book to unpack the idea of the wild. In fact there have been several. I am thinking in particular of Gary Snyder’s Practice of the Wild.

Join us for a retreat to learn ways to open to the simplicity of living from the innate and naturally wild capacity of mind.

A three day silent retreat with Caitriona Reed and Michele Benzamin-Miki at Manzanita Village.

http://www.manzanitavillage.org/meditation-retreats-california-information/2010/#Quick_Links_7

Among the community of teachers from several Buddhist traditions that I am a part of, there is a topic of dicussion that is frequently revisited. This is the subject of teacher misconduct, particularly in the areas of the sex and power. Misconduct in this instance means abuse of privilege and trust by teachers.

Over the past several decades many Buddhist lineage traditions in the west have had to deal with unfortunate incidents involving bad habits, or bad choices, by teachers. These have often resulted in fragmentation, confusion in the respective communities, and the disillusionment and departure of students. Though it must also be said that, as with any collective process, such things can often bring depth of understanding and maturity to the common experience. Yet  when lessons come in this way, they come at a very high price.

It may also be true that such events have contributed to a growing puritanical tendency in Buddhist convert communities in the west.

Of course, abuse of authority occurs in other areas of our lives – in education, medicine, mental health, and in the military. However, Buddhist training usually involves a long-term relationship with a teacher, profound existential transformation, as well as  the resulting vulnerability that can occur for the student on their journey.

In addition, Buddhism has been carried for centuries by a largely male dominated and significantly patriarchal Asian tradition. There are distinct cultural differences from culture to culture; but typically, the authority of the traditional Asian teacher, and teaching style, was rarely challenged. As Buddhism transitioned to the west, this has sometimes led to a confusion between authority and privilege.

Buddhist ethics in the form of the Five Precepts has been a basic guideline since the time of the Buddha. They are generic, and they may not address the full complexity of contemporary life. Yet as a broad set of principles they seem to be a perfect foundation for conscious leadership: non-violence, respect for property, sexual integrity, mindful speech, mindful consumption ..

Here is the Manzanita Village version of the five precepts that we wrote some time ago, and have been using as our own reference for several years.

• Aware of the violence in the world, and of the power of non-violent resistance, I stand in the presence of the ancestors, the earth, and future generations, and vow to cultivate the compassion that seeks to protect each living being.

• Aware of the poverty and greed in the world, and of the intrinsic abundance of the earth, I stand in the presence of the ancestors, the earth, and future generations, and vow to cultivate the simplicity, gratitude, and generosity that have no limits.

• Aware of the abuse and lovelessness in the world and of the healing that is made possible when we open to love I stand in the presence of the ancestors, the earth, and future generations and vow to cultivate respect for the beauty and erotic power of our bodies.

• Aware of the falsehood and deception in the world and of the power of living and speaking the truth I stand in the presence of the ancestors, the earth, and future generations and vow to cultivate the ability to listen; and clarity and integrity in all I communicate—by my words and actions.

• Aware of the contamination and desecration of the world, and of my responsibility for life as it manifests through me I stand in the presence of the ancestors, the earth, and future generations, and vow to cultivate discernment and care in what I take into my body and mind.

Even systems with broad ethical guidelines, and the ability to make subtle distinctions, sometimes fail to recognize their own, or is it perhaps the human, tendency to forget that the system is only a lens through which to view the world; and as such there are always limitations to its applicability.

If it were otherwise the world would be very dull. The reality is that no single perspective, or system, or body of teaching has the ability to address every aspect of life. History is filled with bloody attempts to do so.

How strange it is that the human mind, so capable of making subtle distinctions, so able to embrace the kind of conscious evolution it seems wired for, is also pulled back  strongly into the habit of fighting turf wars, and with such stubborn sectarian blindness!

Sometimes those turf wars are fought for social, political, or economic reasons; sometimes they are fought to challenge the frightening notion that someone has another way of thinking that might be as good, or better, than your own.

When considering Conscious Leadership, whether or not it is from a Buddhist perspective, we should include among the qualities it embodies, the ability to see things from others’ points of view. More than that, to respect, to embrace, even to learn to love, those ways of seeing and learning that are so ‘other’ than your own.

For a person with a hammer, every problem is a nail. For a person with an open mind, every problem is going to suggest the most appropriate perspectives, skills, and strategies.

Religious or philosophical systems are lenses, so too are political of social points of view. Skills and interests are lenses too, inclinations you may have, preference, likes and dislikes, habits. Conscious Leadership is simply knowing what is most useful at any given moment, for yourself, as well as for others.

In the words of the teacher Atisa, “It is the job of a Bodhisattva to be interested in everything.”

Meditation is not mere passivity

Some things are best accessed by sitting meditation, other things by action.
But that’s for another time…

The universe is a hologram,

a metaphor, and a mirror for whoever is considering it

Some Buddhist teaching emphasizes the doctrine of rebirth. I hope this is an ethical device, rather than a metaphysical or ontological paradigm. Surely time, like space, as Einstein has taught us, does not travel in a straight line. Surely we are reborn into the past as much as into the future. Better still, can we not be reborn into the present. To become truly alive.

You just have to look at it, listen to it, imagine it, to know that the universe is alive, responsive .. then again, I only know the part of it that I experience. Then again, if it’s a hologram …

And if it is a choice, I choose to recognize the universe, every last part of it as alive, intelligent, and have no choice but to celebrate this living we do …

Related Blogs

• Abhishek Bachchan 'overjoyed' with worst accent award
• Abhishek Bachchan 'overjoyed' with worst accent award
• Abhishek Bachchan 'overjoyed' with worst accent award | News
• Video: Solar power solutions for off grid India « Greenfudge.org
• Bahrain 2010: The Grid » BlogF1

It’s always a revelation to see how differently we each respond to crisis. Advocates of global catastrophe compete to find evidence to support their prognosis. While those who say, “there are no real problems, only opportunities to find new solutions,” may find limits to test their optimism. Or not.

What are your values? The ones which form the lens through which you see the world? Is your glass half-empty, or half-full? Is you optimism or pessimism insurmountable?

The particular metaphor of the glass represents something we call a meta-program – meaning that you tend to incline in one direction or the other fairly consistently. The lens may work differently for different areas of your life. For example, you may see the upside when it comes to relationships, and focus on the downside when it comes to money or the global economy. It’s not something that’s set in stone. Whichever way you lean, you can change it – but it takes a little work.

One of the things I notice about people when I first meet them is how they see that glass. Do they focus on the downside or the upside? I also see how quickly people with similar orientations gravitate towards each other.

There’s no intrinsic problem here – unless your particular tendency to see the glass as half-full or half-empty is making you miserable – in which case, as your coach or meditation teacher my job becomes helping you to change it – in whichever direction is going to help your life work best.

This view, this lens, this meta program, transcends ideology. Buddhist thought, religious thinking in general, can lean either way, as can any group or individual.

Do you your glass as half empty or half full?

This meta-program is only one of about 72 that we pay attention to in our work.

The miracle is not so much that we face challenges. It’s that we are each so uniquely different in how we respond to the world and to each other.

See upcoming meditation retreats and trainings for more on meta-programs and personal change.

Typical Retreat Days include meditation, Dharma talks, discussion, and movement; with some unstructured time for hiking, reading, and resting. In addition to traditional retreats we also offer workshops with specific themes —creativity, creative-writing, martial-arts, deep-ecology, as well as queer-specific themes and retreats for transgendered people, as well as for people of color and of mixed-race.

Although we are a Buddhist inspired center and offer traditional Dharma practice, we are ecumenical in spirit, inquisitive by nature, and averse to those who espouse a singular point of view. We hold to the basic Buddhist Precepts and also recognize that “the understanding we presently posses is not changeless, absolute truth”.

The teachings given here are flexible and practical. The style in which they are presented is non-coercive, non-hierarchical, and creative, and always honors the wisdom that we understand to be inherent in every person. As a result of our open approach there is a natural sense of community that is felt on every retreat, no matter how long or short it is.

All of our work is informed by the traditions of Socially Engaged Spiritual Practice. We have conclude 2 two-year programs for social activists, and next year we will be initiating our SANCTUARY II program.