Santorum, abortion, and equanimity.

Below is an email conversation that I had with my friend "S" about Rick Santorum and abortion. I'm always surprised when people condemn others.

S: this guy is a real ass hole. 

Article: GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum explained his opposition to abortion even in cases of rape during an interview Friday, saying that women who face such circumstances should "make the best out of a bad situation."

Asked by CNN's Piers Morgan what he would do if his own daughter approached him, begging for an abortion after having been raped, Santorum explained that he would counsel her to "accept this horribly created" baby, because it was still a gift from God, even if given in a "broken" way.

"Well, you can make the argument that if she doesn't have this baby, if she kills her child, that that, too, could ruin her life. And this is not an easy choice, I understand that. As horrible as the way that that son or daughter and son was created, it still is her child. And whether she has that child or she doesn't, it will always be her child, and she will always know that," Santorum said.

"And so to embrace her and to love her and to support her and get her through this very difficult time, I've always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created -- in the sense of rape -- but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you. As you know, we have to, in lots of different aspects of our life we have horrible things happen. I can't think of anything more horrible, but nevertheless, we have to make the best out of a bad situation and I would make the argument that that is making the best."

(Video above via CNN)
Santorum has crusaded against abortion throughout his tenure as a legislator and presidential hopeful. A recent analysis of his time as a U.S. senator showed an almost obsessive tendency to talk about abortion-related subjects on the Senate floor. His strict views on the issue, as well as gay rights, have repeatedly drawn aggressive pushback from his detractors on the campaign trail.

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, Santorum called Obama's support of women's reproductive rights "radical and extreme," arguing that this was illustrated through the president's recent statement on the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Other hardline anti-abortion advocates have explained their views much like Santorum has. In 2010, Tea Party-backed Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle was asked to explain her belief that abortions were unacceptable even in the case of a girl being raped by her father.

"I think that two wrongs don't make a right," she answered. "And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at-risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade." 

Mr. Kim: I don't think this is so black and white. He's compassionate (in perhaps his limited way) for the well-being of both the child and the mother. Though you and I might direct our compassion in a different direction, I don't think he should be demonized for his view. There are at least three things to consider: the psychological distress that may be caused by an abortion, the distress of having an unwanted child on the mom and the child, and the life of the child. No solution is without costs. 

S: It's clear that he thinks that the moment of conception = personhood. And then it would follow that if you think that since every time you have sex, you might be conceiving (since he also believes that any and all forms of birth control are "unnatural" and definitely out ) then, I guess, even married people [pre-marital sex??? oh my god!!! HELL, FIRE AND BRIMSTONE!!!] should not have sex at all if they don't want kids. But, that too is interfering with what is "natural" and not in [his] book. He seems ready to give others no choice and force his religious beliefs onto others in laws that he would support or veto. I am not sure that is a President's prerogative. Or ??? What about the right to privacy? He would work around that by making it again a crime to perform an abortion? What about the sacredness of medical records? We all have to sign papers now about privacy matters. The medical staff of a doctor can't even confirm with husband/wife an appointment!!! So now, the doctor is going to tell about performing an abortion. That is violating the trust between the woman and her doctor. What about supporting or not supporting personal religious practices: congress shall make no law that supports or does not support any particular religion - [even atheism]. Or? I interpret his religious beliefs are not just for him, but for everybody.

Mr. Kim: Abortion is the perfect opportunity to practice equanimity. As I meditated this evening, I started to mourn for the apple seeds that I throw on the compost pile. How insensitive of me, I thought. Perhaps these seeds should have a better opportunity to sprout. Maybe they will just decay and become dirt.

Abortion is about drawing a line. Actually drawing many lines. We can kill cows but not dogs. We can eat carrots and apples, but not canaries and cats. You could define personhood as when you become an adult, or even when a couple beds down together... or anywhere in-between. Mr Santorum has his views. Everyone has views. Is one view "right" and another "wrong"? Of are views merely fashions, constructed from the world through our particular lens. 

Part of Santorum's religion is to have others do as he believes. Others do not have his religion. Is this a reason to hate the man... to despise him? I think not. Don't vote for him if you want, but why get riled up about it? He draws the line in one sandbox, you draw it in another. Yes, persuade others to do as you do... but don't demonize him. He's a sincere and conscientious human being, as you are.

Kate's comments on prosperity.

Prosperity should appeal to everyone. --- Mr. Kim

True. By definition, being prosperous is good. How individuals define prosperity might be different.

Dictionary.com defines prosperity: 1. a successful, flourishing, or thriving condition, especially in financial respects; good fortune.

Any compassionate person would wish prosperity for all. The question is the means toward that prosperity. And what is the cost in terms of money and freedom?

I doubt it will be from taking from the rich and giving to the poor. --- Mr. Kim

Is ‘taking from the rich and giving to poor’ different from ‘redistributing resources more equitably among all peoples’?

Both statements are biased. And each in a different direction. I question who has the right to make giving to charity a law.

Are we talking opportunity or assets? --- Mr. Kim

Assets equal resources. Access to resource is opportunity. The absence of resource is lack of opportunity.

Equality of opportunity infers better access to education, health care, fresh air and water, etc. for all. --- Mr. Kim

Education, health care, fresh air and water are resources. Access to resource is opportunity. Equality of opportunity is Equality of ‘resource’. Resource equals assets.

The advantage of improving resources is that then everyone's assets can grow. Who should be the one doing this? Who can best do this? Who knows best what the individual needs?

I can't think of communist/socialist societies that have provided prosperity and equality of opportunity. So I'll say that Karl Marx is not good. --- Mr. Kim

I can’t think of any society were there is peace and goodwill toward all beings. Does that mean Buddha is not good?

I think the division of labor and the free market have contributed greatly to peace and goodwill. Not necessarily "intentional" goodwill, but knowing that you need your neighbor for your survival encourages you to treat her well.

Kennedy had it wrong when he said, "...ask what you can do for your country." --- Mr. Kim

Because he should have said . . .

He should have said, "ask what your country can do for you." That is the basis by which many people will vote. I like better Abe Lincoln's "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth." The cumulative effect should be awesome of everyone voting for a president that would make them more prosperous. Wouldn't everyone become more prosperous and therefore the country would be more prosperous? And prosperous in the way that people want to be prosperous. There is a "virtue to selfishness" as Ayn Ryan's book indicated.

Karl Marx: Is it good or bad? Prosperity and Equality for all.

Kate asked if sounding like Karl Marx is good or bad. I've been thinking about that. And Mr. Obama will be talking tonight about how he (the government) will provide prosperity and equality should he be reelected.

Prosperity should appeal to everyone. Everyone, that is, except the environmentalists who might infer that if we have more then the environment will be further depleted. Prosperity is a goal for many. We believe that we'll be a little happier and will suffer a little less with prosperity.

How can the government provide prosperity for all? I doubt it will be from taking from the rich and giving to the poor. That will (superficially) help the poor, but will not contribute to the prosperity of the rich. We'll hear tonight how the government will increase prosperity. Most of what the government does, when it does anything, is spend money. Whose money? Our money, of course. So to increase prosperity, there must be a "value added." They must spend our money more efficiently than we can. For example, when I go to the grocery, I get $10 of fruits and veges. If Uncle Sam takes my $10 and buys me groceries, the inference is that I'll get $11 of fruits and veges. My suspicion is that I'll end up with about $3 of corn syrup... but we'll see.

Equality. That's a big one. Are we talking opportunity or assets? Robin Hood provides equality of assets. Superficially, I believe, because Robin Hood destroys incentive. Why should I try so hard if so much will be taken from me? Or should I hide my $$$ on the Cayman Islands so that I can take care of myself on a rainy day. Equality of opportunity sounds great to me. I suspect that we have more of that in America than has ever existed in any country ever... and we have a long way to go. I'm hoping Obama will have some good suggestions on how equality can be provided. Equality of opportunity infers better access to education, health care, fresh air and water, etc. for all.

I can't think of communist/socialist societies that have provided prosperity and equality of opportunity. So I'll say that Karl Marx is not good. But more importantly (in my view) is that the shortcoming of the planned society is that we have less freedom to pursue our aims. I might have tremendous skills to practice medicine, but tremendous interest in making bad art. I'd rather live where I can pursue bad art. In a planned society, my life will be dictated by the boss. Kennedy had it wrong when he said, "...ask what you can do for your country."

$20,000 an hour

Yesterday a Facebook commenter to my previous post pointed out that Romney earned $20,000 an hour last year, suggesting that no one can be worth that much. Yet he was paid that much. Worth in economics is what the market is willing to pay. The Museum of Modern Art reopened their doors a few years ago charging $20 admission. They are still packed. Is it worth it? Obviously, if people are willing to pay that.

Anonymous wrote,

The wealthy executives and people who have accumulated wealth have done so because they have taken some of the financial worth of their masses of employees. They've already taken money from the bottom, and higher levels of taxes at the top acknowledges that fact and re-balances the system."

This statement could have been written by Karl Marx. The inference that wealth was accumulated because employees are short-changed is highly contentious. "...taking money from the bottom..." suggests that companies should pay their workers more than the going rate. For the vast number of publicly owned companies, paying employees more would mean that the stockholders get less dividends, the companies would have less cash on hand, and/or CEOs would get paid less (or perhaps all three). Either of these actions would start a vicious circle. If the stockholders get less dividends, the stock and the profits will go down. Then there would be less money for the generous CEOs to give away, presumably to rebalance the system. And the CEOs, perhaps not being so altruistic, would go to work for a different company willing to pay them more.

I don't expect to settle this argument. I do wish more people would voluntarily share their riches with those less fortunate. It seems that the great benefactors usually choose to give to the truly unfortunate, or to cultural or educational institutions. And maybe some will pay their workers enough to "balance" the system. I can not think of a business that does that, but maybe one does exist.

Or another note, I would mow my small lawn for $5. Yet, even with the great unemployment we have, I can not find anyone to do it for less that $20. Why is that?

Why is life not fair?

Last year, [Apple] earned over $400,000 in profit per employee, more than Goldman Sachs, Exxon Mobil or Google. Much of this money could be distributed to their employees... or it could use the money to hire workers to make their products in USA (instead of China). Is this what they should do? What would happen to their stock if they did this? And what would happen to their research and development?

Romney pays a lot of taxes.

I just read Taxes at the Top, by Paul Krugman. He dished out his usual garbage, this time talking about how little in taxes Romney pays. Let's say that Romney made 387 million last year. At 15% that would be almost 58 million in taxes. For most of us, that's a lot of money. I suspect it goes way way beyond the benefits he derives from the Federal government. In addition, he pays state tax and sales tax, and a host of other taxes embedded in the prices of the items he buys. Let's say that someone who earns 100,000 pays at a 37% rate. They might end up paying 20 or 25 thousand. That's 3-4% as much taxes. Please tell me, Robin Hood, why Romney should be paying more than he is? I think 58 million is plenty.

P.S. This is not a paid ad for Romney.

P.S.S. I'm not voting for Krugman.

Answering a question about buddha nature with a question.

I asked, "if everything changes why doesn't buddha nature, which is unchanging and eternal, change?" Kosho answered, "does it matter?" I said "no." The crowd laughed, and we went on to the next question.

It was an easy out for me. Kosho implied from the question that he thought the answer was no. But is it? Janie came up to me afterwards and said that medieval Jewish scholars debated this question and she would send me the name of a book about it. But until then...

Perhaps the changing world is the relative world (in Buddhist terms) and buddha nature exists in the absolute world. And, so I'm told, both exist together. Things that we really value, like love, don't (in themselves) come and go. Our "love" for something may cease, but the "love" itself doesn't disappear.

Buddha nature is both an ideal and a reality within ourselves. It is the part that we come back to when we are authentic. It is the response of a mother protecting her only child (from a sutra we chant). Though Buddhists claim they are without goals, I think it is a goal to meet and entertain this buddha nature part of ourselves. It is who we are.

Perhaps for those who believe in rebirth it is that part of us that we can't get rid of... the sticky part. Maybe it allows us to measure change. Without it there is only dukkha. Yes, it does matter both that it is and that it doesn't go away. Very much so.

And... if buddha nature did change, and did go away... then we would have to deal with that. It would be a different hand of cards.

It isn't what you plan.

I told a priest about a Southern India vegetarian restaurant. He said he didn't like Indian food... and then went on to tell me the other foods he didn't like. I asked him about the Buddhist idea of "no preferences" and he said that he tries. Then he asked the head priest if he liked nut bread, knowing that too much of that was served at the monastery where they used to reside. The head priest said that he liked it (or maybe he said he hated it). In any case, I asked, what about the buddha who had no preferences? He said that all those buddhas are dead.

Yesterday I had big plans. I was going to pick up an art work from an exhibition, get an "over 65" bus pass, buy some secret ingredient (tapioca flour)  for my soon to be successful (I hope) experiment with making perfect non-gluten bread, and see the Henry Horenstein photo exhibit. My challenge was not to waste a lot of time or gas.

I knew that you got the bus pass from the main office for Austin Metro. It was on the East side of Austin. So I went there, only to find out that I was wrong... it was downtown. I thought of the positives... that I had now seen a part of Austin new to me, and I had an opportunity here to have a disappointment and to let it "roll off my back" as Jeanie told me to do once in St. Louis.

Then I took off to the Horenstein exhibit (which I enjoyed tremendously). Animals shot at zoos and aquarians. I thought it was between where I was, and downtown. I set my GPS to the new location, and discovered that I passed downtown towards the west side to get there. Oh well, I thought, next time I'll know better.

Then I went to pick up my artwork, which was not only in downtown Austin near the other Metro office, but included free parking for the day. After returning to my car and wrapping the work in my yoga mat, I decided to walk to the Metro office. I got the pass, and then realized that I would have to ride the bus six times over the next two years to pay for it ($3). I was then within walking distance to a couple of museums. So I walked to the first one, which turned out to be further than I remembered. This is good, I thought, I get to walk more. On the way I found a third museum. It was closed while they were setting up an exhibit.

Then I got there (or at least where Google said it should be, and found a deserted museum. I checked Google again and concluded that when it merged with a second museum it had actually dissolved into nothing. Oh, great, I though, another opportunity to not get disappointed.

So then I went to the museum that it had merged with. I didn't think I'd have to pay there because I had donated a work to them for a future exhibit. I got there and the door had a padlock on it. I figured that this must be the wrong door... so I walked to the other side of the museum and found the door locked. Then I walked back to the locked door and read the sign. Not open until today. Another opportunity to enjoy the nice sunny day in Austin, I thought.

At City Hall, where I had my artwork, I got to see the folks who were occupying City Hall. Countless sleeping bags were set up on the steps, and two guys were throwing a football back and forth. Four cops were giving a hard time to a guy who'd been drinking. Throughout  my walk through the downtown area I found an interesting assortments of street people and home people. It took a second look sometimes to tell the difference.

Finally, I returned to my car at City Hall, and drove off to Natural Grocers to get the Tapioca and some organic short grain rice (much better than long grain). I found also some non-gluten pretzels... that I shouldn't have bought... and if I bought, shouldn't have eaten. But I did and I did.

This might have sounded like a shaggy dog story... but it was really a great day. Lots of disappointments took me to see things I've never seen, and an opportunity to "go with the flow" rather than to lament that life isn't how I planned. 

P.S. Thanks to Angela for telling me about a cool new 99¢ iPad program called "Artpad" that I used to make the image above.

More on Vulture Capitalism

You raise some interesting questions in the tradition of "Uncle Miltie," but the memory of what Carl Icahn did to TWA and by extension to the St. Louis metropolitan region gives me the creeps. I remain suspicious of these takeover artists. H.

It is interesting how different things are seen from different vantage points. For the worker and her family who loses a job because Romney does what he is hired to do, the takeover is a disaster. For the companies that prosper and hire more people, Romney is a breath of fresh air. Growth is painful. Maybe sometimes it probably doesn't need to be as painful as it is. But who knows?

The other objection to Romney's work at Bain capital is that he charged so much for his services. This complaint takes me back to Christ kicking out the money changers, explicating the view that making money is evil, and the more money one makes the more evil they are. In my book, letting companies fail is evil if someone could save them.

You might think that I'm advocating Romney as a candidate. Not at this point. I'm just bothered by the attacks on vulture capitalism and making money.

Vulture Capitalism

Someone quoted the Dalai Lama the other day saying that the essence of Buddhism was being kind. Or maybe it was being nice. Or maybe it doesn't matter.

Yesterday there were criticisms of Mitt Romney because he failed with his assistance in the takeover at Kansas City's Worldwide Grinding Systems steel mill. Newt Gingrich claimed this was the wrong type of capitalism. He did not acknowledge that Romney was hugely successful as a takeover artist and in the end probably created far more jobs that he lost. What would kitten capitalism be? Would you go into a failing company and tell everyone that they could keep their jobs, and that nothing would change, and hopefully things would get better?

In this case "nice" or "kind" is not so obvious. Is "have a heart" always the best policy?

How to post a comment on a blog post.

Some have asked how to post a comment on a blog. The secret is to click on the word "comments" which is circled in red above.

Then you pull down the "jump menu" and choose who you want to comment as. If you want to be anonymous... and/or you don't have a Google account, you can choose anonymous.

Then click Publish... and... your response will be deeply appreciated. I can't read your mind, so if you do have thoughts about something I've said, I'd love to hear them. 

Thanks,

Kim

What was Buddha Thinking?

The RISD Museum Buddha
by Pujakins

The large wooden Buddha
Sits placidly in a quiet room
Far from his native land.

No priests tend his temple.
He smiles on museum visitors
Peace in his glance.

Once he contained prayers
Dropped through openings in his lotus legs
Does he miss his worshipers?

I sit quietly on a bench
Breathing in his vast presence
Breathing out awareness of peace.

On Mondays at noon I go to one of my favorite classes. There are five of us, and a Zen priest, Kosho. We each read from a book of quotations... and then we interpret the quote. Usually Kosho will comment, leading us toward a deeper understanding.

Today I sat on the other side of the table and faced this Buddha above. He silently meditated despite our stumbling over such concepts as the difference between pain and suffering, the significance of ordinary things, and the importance of this moment. Buddha (or, as my wife pointed out, a photo of a statue of the Buddha), sat quietly and did not flinch as we revealed what we call in Zen our "beginner's mind."

I felt there were seven of us in the room, with Buddha teaching by example. 50 years ago I read the Tao statement, "He who speaks does not know. He who knows does not speak." The Buddha didn't say a word during the entire class. Normally we don't speak either, except when it is our turn with the quote... or during the the last 10 minutes. But our minds go a million miles a minute, generating countless "dukkha" as we think about what we'd like to say about someone else's quote, what we did earlier in the day, and what we'll do after class.

We disband sharply at 1pm. The Buddha doesn't get up, doesn't flinch, and doesn't even gloat that he no longer needs to struggle with such concepts. How did he figure things out? Did he one day have "beginner's mind?"

I do not know.

Dialogue with Angela on Freedom, Veganism, and the Environment

Is there a new priest at the zen center who is vegan or recommending that Buddhist followers should be vegan? I just wondered if that had something to with you going back to vegan? Are you off cheese too?

I haven't eaten cheese for a long time ... except in some weak moments.

No ... I believe that all the priests other than Trevor eat meat. And Trevor is gone.

I'm feeling much more peaceful not eating meat.

Remember that the monks asked Buddha if he'd make vegan a rule. He said no ... that we'd have to eat what is given to us. And he died from eating bad pork ... that he knew was bad, but did not want to insult the giver.

So the stories go.

I think each person should do what is right for themselves:)

How about if that means depleting the Earth of its resources. I heard yesterday that if everyone on Earth lived as we (Americans) did, we'd need five Earths.

Imagine we are on a ship. There are limited resources on the ship, and we want the ship to go on as long of a journey as possible. We start with the premise that we'll all be free to use and to refrain from using resources as each of us sees fit. Then the environmental committee, charged with creating a sustainable environment, notices that we are depleting resources at an alarming rate. What do we do?

I believe that laws are a last resort, but certainly necessary in a case like this. In Austin, we are just allowed to water our lawns once a week when there is a shortage. I do not see an alternative to some laws like that one.

Each of us is free to follow or break the law. But, obviously, there are usually consequences for those who break it.

I think back on that anime presentation we went to where that man talked about the people in the future mining the landfills for plastic. Who knows what is in the future?

People should be taught to be more mindful of the earth for their own future. It is not enough for them to care about the future of their children. If they were led to believe that they would be reborn on earth to live in the mess that they created then they might be more mindful. Instead they are taught that they will be reborn in heaven where things are good, so they just trash up where they live now. Sad, but the reborn into a living creature and eating the flesh of the living is all mixed into that equation. Who can say what is right and wrong? Who is qualified that walks on this earth? That is what I would like to know.

I like your point that the concept of Heaven doesn't encourage people to take care of Earth. Unless we say that part of the resume that one turns in on judgement day will include how they took care of their spaceship (Earth).

Who is qualified to make judgements? Nobody knows anything for sure. But we need to be able to predict consequences in order to live. I don't drive 100 mph because I predict it might lead to disaster. So I listen to myself and others about the risks of various behaviors and act accordingly. Those who like the "rush" from risks live dangerously. Others live more conservatively.

It isn't a matter of absolutes like right and wrong. It is a matter of “it seems that this (or that) behavior will lead to these consequences.” We are constantly making decisions based on our sense of what might happen if we do or don't.

If I can keep my hummingbird feeders full for the hummingbirds that are stuck here for the cold winter and I can keep my flowers alive for the monarch butterflies that are stuck here too and I do not use poison on my yard and not eat other living flesh animals, then I am doing what I can in a small way. If everyone did something in a small way to make the Earth a better place then it would add up to something big :)

We certainly need a mix of all kinds of people doing all kinds of things. Some say that the situation is too critical on Earth for people to just go about their business. We generally go to war when we see no other options (as trying to stop Hitler in WWII). I do not know if we are at the point where we should drop our paint brushes and blow up industrial complexes. And I have no idea if that would make things worse (though I suspect that it would).

I agree that if everyone did something small it would add up to something big.

Born again Vegan

This is my second day of being a vegan, after about a six month break. Before that, I did it for about ten years. I lost track it was so long.

I do have a rather serious problem: I have a bunch of frozen food in the freezer that might have meat in it. Unlike most of life's problems, I guess the solution is pretty easy. Eat it? Throw it away? Yes... that's what I'll do... throw suspect food away.

And another problem: I am getting closer at making good non-gluten bread and the recipe requires two eggs. So tomorrow I'm going to get some egg substitute... and then hope for the best. My wife is having a some people over on Sunday and I'm going to make bread to go with the soup.
So why did I become a vegan again?

Five reasons I can think of:

1) It is better for the environment. There are lots of facts I could give. This is one about the comparative water use to produce a pound of beef or a pound of corn:

Just a pound of beef! Conservatively taking 2000 gallons (I've read elsewhere that it can be as much as 5000 gallons) as the means for producing a pound of beef, think about how much 2000 gallons of water is. How much water do you drink in a day? A gallon? Half a gallon? How many gallons of water do you think you use when you shower? 30-40 gallons? Every time you flush the toilet in a day, how many gallons? 15-20? Every time you wash your hands? 2-3 gallons? Let’s go for the high end and say that the average human uses 100 gallons of water in a day. After 20 average days of your use of water, you would have created 1 pound of beef. 1 pound. You could conservatively eat for 2-3 days on a pound of beef. Now think about the fact that it is possible to take four times as much water to create a pound of beef—80 days worth of your daily water consumption to make 1 pound of beef. The water that you use over about 3 months time will produce a pound of beef. ONE POUND. 

Now look at the alternative. A pound of corn is grown using 100-250 gallons of water. How long will that last? 2–3 days? Obviously a pound of corn would get boring and it isn’t nutritionally sound, but if all you had was a pound of corn, you could eat it over 2–3 days. Now looking at the high end, if we’ve reasoned that the average American uses 100 gallons of water a day, how many days worth of water would it take to make a pound of corn? 2–3 days. And how long could you live on a pound of corn? 2-3 days. (http://enviroveggie.com/)

2)  It is more healthful:

There is abundant evidence that vegetarian diets are more healthful than the average American diet, especially for preventing, treating or reversing heart disease and reducing the risk of cancer.¹ Research has shown a low-fat vegetarian diet is the single most effective way to stop progression of coronary artery disease or prevent it altogether. Several other health conditions, such as diabetes,² obesity,³ gallstones,⁴ and kidney stones,⁵ are much less common in vegetarians. The health benefits of a vegetarian diet may be linked to the fact that vegetarians tend to eat less animal fat, protein and cholesterol and more fiber and antioxidants.⁶ Simply put, the fewer animal foods and the more varied, whole plant foods consumed, the healthier the individual will be compared to the general population. (http://www.vegsource.com/articles/veg_definition.htm)

3)  Eating non-meats is not connected with violence and animal maltreatment. It surprises me when I hear about someone going to jail for mistreating a dog or cat, but never hear about any penalties for slaughtering a pig or cow. I don't think one can be a peaceful human being and at the same time be an accessory to hurting animals. 

4) Meat is expensive. Better meat (like animals that have been treated well with healthful diets) costs even more. Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an acre: 40,000. Pounds of beef produced on an acre: 250.

5) It reinforces the idea that Earth (and its animals) are not solely for the benefit of humans. I like to think that we share Earth with our furry friends.

Not convinced? See http://www.consumercide.com/js/index.php/food-supply/39-necessarily-vegetarian/379-how-to-win-an-argument-with-a-meat-eater

Any of these ideas would be sufficient. And I remember that Hitler was a vegetarian and the Dali Lama (on the advice of his doctor) ate meat. That helps me realize that those who make other choices are not evil and I'm sure that can find five good reasons for their indulgences as I found with mine.

More questions about "No Self"

Note: I had to cancel my Netflix subscription to write this. I started it up about 4 days ago... and since them I've been addicted to Breaking Bad. And then, 12 hours later, I reinstated my subscription. Maybe the series will end. 


Now for the questions...

I'll do my best... though I'm just a beginner at all this. I'm sure others will correct me.

You said, (earlier) “…that which is changing, …” So isn’t the “that” the “self” even though it changes?

This is one of those cases where language doesn't cut it. "That" was the best word I could think of. I don't think "self" is normally thought of something that changes. It is more the platonic form that is the essence of the object. I see no convincing evidence that there is this thing which carries on throughout our lives.

Buddhists speak of the relative and the absolute. Here is one of many discourses on the subject. The relative is the world of Sansara and the absolute is the world of Nirvana. The relative is supported by our senses. It is the "Cyclic existence, the beginningless and endless wheel of rebirth. The world, the realm of desire." The absolute is supported by enlightening experiences. It is "The ineffable ultimate in which one has attained disinterested wisdom and compassion." (Quotes from http://sansara-nirvana.tripod.com/) The challenge is to hold both of these "worlds" in your mind simultaneously. We need the relative to navigate, and we need the absolute to relieve suffering. The acrobat trusts his skill, but is prepared, should he fall, to not land on his head.

I know that you said that your parents were different to you than to each of your siblings. I get that. I know that I am different to each person I come into contact with because my response is based on how everything about me relates to everything about that other person.
However to me, I am still the same person, I have the same sense of self now as I did when I was 5.

For whatever reason, we believe many things that are not the way things are. In what sense are you the same person? You've heard that every seven years your atoms are exchanged with new molecules. Click on the link to read of Rudolf Steiner's idea that not only do the atoms change but our personality changes as well.

When I was a small child, at about 5, I had an experience that was very clear. I had an instantaneous sense or awareness that I existed. It was almost a physical sensation. I am. I exist. And with it, I was also aware that it was different from not existing. But the not existing did not lack an awareness of not existing. I think this is why I asked about this.

Is this like Descartes, "I think therefore I am"?

If the “self” is consciousness, then consciousness though evolving, is still consciousness, the same consciousness, which upon death is also reborn.

It is not the same if it is changing. I'm today different from you today. You today are different from you yesterday. But as to rebirth, I have no idea what happens upon death other than how the effect we have had on people continues.

Also you said, that though “Zen people aren’t very concerned with rebirth at death…[and]…few say you are not a Buddhist if you don’t believe in it. 

So isn’t the real point is not whether we are reborn or not or whether we create good or bad karma, but whether we live to cause less or more suffering.

We don't "cause" suffering. We can cause pain, but suffering is more about how we respond to pain.

And wouldn’t it follow that to desire to live to cause less suffering, that we must not only experience suffering in our own “self” but also to acknowledge the self in each of us in order to care whether one’s suffering is eased?

Sounds like you are talking about compassion. But imagine that you aren't a separate being but interconnected with all things. Your suffering continues until all suffering ends. Compassion doesn't end suffering as much as it eases the pain. What a person does with their pain is up to them.

No Self for Dummies

I was feeling guilty for not explaining "No Self" better to H and C. I was driving along and then it hit me. "Self" is actually much harder to understand than "No Self" because it is invented much as G_D, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Stork... are invented. Where is this "Self" to which we are so attached? When was it born? Does it die? Is it fully developed early on?

Having realized that "Self" is totally a construct of our mind I realized that "no Self" is a much clearer view of this changing entity ("I") that, as well, is also a construct of our mind.

Sorry, C, that I couldn't do it in 30 words or less. Another challenge.

This monologue hurts my brain...

My friend Hans wrote that about my last post about "no self."

Exactly, Hans. The brain cannot comprehend very much. It is the wrong tool for the job. Our western delusion is that we can figure things out with brain power. Socrates (the epitome of Western thinking) said that it is better to be dead because then our heart (emotions) won't get in the way and we could see things clearly. I doubt that he found that to be true after he took the hemlock.

Our brain constructs lots of garbage—convenient ways for us to understand the world and for us to relieve suffering. It is not our best friend, yet we rely on it "to sort things out."

Just as I posted yesterday that everything changes I read that "Buddha Nature" is eternal and never changes. Now that hurts my brain.

My understanding of "no self"

My main question is this: If there is no "self" ("The "self" is itself a mental formation - a product of mind. It is therefore empty of inherent existence."), then what does Karma, or the result of our actions attach to? And further, what is reborn if not the self?
I know big questions. Can you answer them in 30 words or less? : )

Key to Buddhism is the idea of impermanence. Things are always changing. There is no self in the sense that there is no abiding (enduring) entity. Our karma attaches to that which is changing, and our karma (or actions) contributes to those changes.

Suzuki Roshi was one of the most important Zen teachers who brought Zen to America. He said,

"The teaching—the teaching that [laughter]—the teaching that everything is changing—in Japanese, shogyō-mujō[1]—or Chinese shogyō-mujō—teaching that everything is changing. This teaching can be—could be understand in two ways: the one—the teaching as the law of the truth. This teaching is always true, you know, whether we observe it or not. The—so—if everything is changing, that means non-substantiality. There is no substantial being, you know. We are only composed being from various elements. So we are non-substantial being. (a) Non-substantiality."

When I discuss my parents with my sisters we realize we each had different parents. Each of us constructed different parents, and our parents evolved and responded differently to each of us.

I like this description of rebirth from Wikopedia,

"Rebirth in Buddhism is the doctrine that the evolving consciousness (Pali: samvattanika-viññana)[1][2] or stream of consciousness (Pali: viññana-sotam,[3] Sanskrit: vijñāna-srotām, vijñāna-santāna, or citta-santāna) upon death (or "the dissolution of the aggregates" (P. khandhas, S. skandhas)), becomes one of the contributing causes for the arising of a new aggregation. The consciousness in the new person is neither identical nor entirely different from that in the deceased but the two form a causal continuum or stream."

Aggrevates are form, feeling, perception, mental formation or volition, and consciousness. It is the way that we experience the world.

The word "stream" is key in the quote above. One thing leads to another to another to another. 

Rebirth happens throughout our life, with each breath, with each time we walk into a room, with each day of our life. Zen people aren't very concerned with the rebirth at death, though a rare few say you are not a Buddhist if you don't "believe" in it. Even the Buddha said that we had enough to think about in this life (to reduce suffering). He was not interested in what happened next.

The real issue to me is how do we know things. Is it with the discursive mind, or is it the heart and intuition? You know that part of you that makes artistic decisions. "That's too close... that's too red... that's shape needs to be a little sharper." The difficulty in teaching art is that there is no way to really explain any of this. I was asked, "how do you know when to take a picture?" I had no idea how to answer that question. A famous violinist was asked how he did this very difficult movement. He could never do it again.

The most interesting thing about Zen for me is learning to understand without analyzing. Someone like Mr. Wikopedia could have all the right answers to your questions, yet would not really know anything in the same way that art historians do not know how to make a painting. As much as they know about the artistic process (much more than we do), they had no idea how to generate and develop an artistic idea.

Anger: Decision or Emotion

But Kim, anger isn't a decision, it's an emotion. Taking action from anger is a decision, but that is not synonymous with the raw emotion. I think a person who never gets angry is either someone who has become enlightened, or else is someone who doesn't know or admit to their anger. Every human swims in the same pool of raw emotions, and I hear that enlightened beings once did too. I think that pretending, avoiding or debating whether or not to be angry is also part of being human. But it's not going to get us into heaven (wink). That's mental activity trying to decide something good or bad about human nature. I think. :)

But the main point for me is what's underneath. In my experience, sadness & fear are under or coupled with anger, so I say it's even practical to listen to the anger. It's a matter of care, to notice the fear, discover the connection, and take action that will help. After all, we aren't striving to be robots, it's an open heart we want more of. I think that making good decisions that effect life on Earth can only come from having the capacity to feel all the feelings, because raw emotions are our barometers that direct us in life, whether we know it or not.—Ginger

Decisions seem to come from the conscious mind, while emotions from the unconscious. Yet we read that several seconds before we make conscious decisions the outcome can be predicted from unconscious activity of the brain.

One question to me is whether we can do anything consciously. Can we make decisions? Can we control our anger... or our love?

Sometimes we are waiting for a parking space and someone sneaks into an open space that we've patiently had our eye upon. Some will be furious. Some will even say something rude to the space stealer. Some might try to give them a black eye. This would definitively be taking action from anger.

And some won't be angry at all. They will just say to themselves, "time to find a new space."

How did those people get that way? Good parenting? Good teachers? Smarts?

Probably a combination. I don't think the person is necessarily "repressed." They may realize, like my GPS often does, that it is time to recalculate.

Angry about the pollution

A friend wrote me that reading about pollution made her angry. I know I've written many times before about anger, but I'll do it again.

What struck me, as I though about her anger, is that two things have happened. One is that there is mercury in the ocean that has become part of the fish that we eat. I first became aware of the effects of mercury from the Minamata photos by Eugene Smith. The second thing that has happened is that someone is angry because there is mercury in the ocean.

Many say that the anger is good because it leads to attempts to clean up the environment. But who cleans up the anger, which is a kind of pollution itself? Is it necessary to be angry to act? You see a speeding car coming toward a kid in the street. Do you need to be angry to pull the kid from its path?

Here's a good link on anger, with quotes from the Buddha and the Bible.

Seafood Watch

The Monterey Bay Aquarium has a website that lets you know what seafood you should eat. The two issues seem to be the sustainability of the fisheries, and the mercury in the fish.

Environmental Defense Fund has issued a consumption advisory for longline-caught albacore tuna due to elevated levels of mercury. No consumption advisories are listed for troll- or pole-caught albacore as these methods catch younger tuna with lower mercury levels.

This sounded much easier than I thought until I started looking for Pacific Sardines. Word from Monterey is that you should only get Pacific sardines, because the Atlantic fisheries are eliminating the sardines by catching too many of them. And guess which ones cost more. At Costco, good sardines are a little more than a $1 a can, but they are from Morocco which is a no no. So I passed them by, and went to three groceries before I found some from the Pacific. $3.78 a can!

So what did I do? Quit eating sardines. The same with tuna... after I finish the three cans that I already have.

There was an artist, Mr. Otis, who would only sell his paintings for cans of sardines. Since he was from the Pacific Northwest, I'm hoping that his sardines were the good kind.

So what would you do if you liked sardines? Eat your wallet, or the Atlantic sardines?

Banks aren't the culprit.

I read something the other day about banks.  (click on link to read article). It has bothered me since I read it because I don't believe banks are doing the wrong thing by investing money rather than lending money.

At the beginning of the article Stiglitz talks about the bailout. He says that we did it because we were told that the American economy couldn't function without the overnight lending. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, it indicates how, after years of any service, we become a slave to that service provider.

Then he says that the banks used some of their money for bonuses. This suggests that we gave them too much, and/or that they didn't need as much as they said they did. I hope that they lose some credibility over this. You give your kid your car keys... and the car doesn't ever come home. You then hesitate the next time they ask for the keys.

He speaks of the lending rate being close to zero. This was done so the government could borrow lots of money, and also so the government wouldn't have to pay lots of interest. But for the average Joe, it didn't mean easy money. Not for buying a house. Mortgages are still hard to get. Car loans are easier and cheaper. That is because the car companies know that they won't sell cars unless they can entice people with low interest and low downpayment. Cars can be repossessed easier than houses (esp. with used cars being sold at a premium), so it is good business to loan money on them. House mortgages are a risky investment for banks. Why should banks take chances for a low rate of return?

Stiglitz admonishes the banks. He says they aren't doing their job. I think they are. They are making a profit for their stockholders (as their charters suggest). It isn't their job to be charities. And if we criticize them for not engaging in risky investments, as home mortgages are (especially at low rates), aren't we really contradicting what we accused them of in the past... of engaging in practices that are too risky. How can they win?

This is not to say that people don't need mortgages. It is just that the price of mortgages is artificially low, so that banks (rightfully) don't want to do them.

People pay much higher interest on their credit cards. At some cost, maybe someone would start to loan more money on houses. But I don't think we should point at the banks as the culprit.

Seven Old Images

My wife, looking for old photos of waterfalls and geysers for Stephanie, found six negatives and one postcard. You can click on the images to enlarge them.

This was taken in "Habana, Cuba" in 1941. My uncle Elvin
and my aunt Virginia are 2nd and 3rd from the right.

My sister Sandy, and the niece (Janis)
and nephew of our neighbor, Von Adams.
I think this and the ones below were taken in 1957.

My sister, Gail, on horse in Cannon Beach, Oregon.
I think that's Bobby (Janis's brother) on the right.
My sisters and I worked as guides at the stables, but at
this time I was too young, so I worked at the Burro rink
on the left. For 25¢
I'd put the kids on the burro
 and let them go around the rink 8 times.
The best part of the job was that girls would come and
talk to me... esp. Janice (not Janis, who I liked too). Janice
died in a car accident the day of her wedding.

My grandmother, Rebecca Tarlow. She was born
in Russia, raised in London, studied at the London
Conservatory of Music, and was always worried that
I was or wasn't eating right.

L to R: Rebecca Tarlow, Elvin Tarlow (her son and my uncle),
and Edmond Mosley (my dad) in Cannon Beach, Oregon. 

My cousin, Mark Kriss

My cousin, Mark Kriss

Kate's worries about the poor.

Kate: I just don’t understand how ‘improving the education system of the poor’ is different than 'giving money to the poor’ because you’re going to need money to improve the educational system. 

Kim: I think the difference relates to that saying, "Give a man a fish and he has food for the day. Teach him to fish and he has food for life."

Kate: Obama had a speech before he became president where he said, “When 2/3 of all new jobs require higher education or advanced training, knowledge is the most valuable skill you can sell.” I just want you to recognized that education is a commodity that is for sale. A person needs money to get the education. And a person needs an education to get out of poverty. So where does that money meant to improve education come from? The poors? They ain’t got money. 

Kim:  The average American works about 50% of the year to pay one tax or another. That is too much. But first, there is a question about whether money is key to improving education. In Washington, D.C. something like $24,600 is spent per student. And they have one of the worse educational systems in the US. Would more money make it better? I don't know. But if we really need more money I'd take it from one of many agencies that could be eliminated. 

Kate: Would you support or oppose a tax increase on wealthy people to support schools in an economically suppressed neighborhood (area where property values are low)? 

Kim: Though I wouldn't support any tax increase because I think we are taxed more than enough... and the wealthy do pay in many ways beyond "income tax," I'm not sure how taxed monies should be distributed. Maybe all schools in a city should get the same amount per student.

It is a tough one. If one city did that and the schools in the well-to-do neighborhoods went downhill, then parents would either move to another city, or send their kids to private schools.

Kate: Would you support or oppose a tax increase on wealthy people to support a school lunch program that feed students who’s parents make much less money?

Kim: Again, Uncle Sam taxes enough. If he taxes more, he'll just get bigger and there will be more waste. I like the school lunch program, esp. as in some places the meals are getting nutritious.

Kate: Would you support or oppose a tax increase on wealthy people to support a grant program that helps fund the education of people without a financial means to pay for college?

Kim: I think the best system is a loan program for all those who can't afford college. This way the least amount of money could put the most people through college. Since college increases life earnings, why not have the students give back (so other students can go to college as well)?

Kate: Did you read that article “If I were a poor black kid” that lots of people were up in arms about last week? The author of the article argues that if he were a poor black kid he would do everything he could to gain an education which would allow him to escape poverty. The backlash on that article was astounding ...  At least to me... My Facebook community had a whole lot to say about it.

Kim: As I read the article I kept thinking of Marie Antoinette saying, "let them eat cake." He is "out-of-touch" in many ways because the problems are so severe. Yet, there are places that are successfully educating the poor. I visited a school in Denver where students were learning trades. All the courses provided individualized instruction. Students could start any day of the year (except weekends and holidays, I guess). And they had babysitters for their kids. 90+% of the students succeeded. On the other hand, I saw many college students from North St. Louis who couldn't read at 4th grade level, who couldn't write a sentence, who didn't know that 1/2 is bigger than a 1/4. The problems are deep and it will take many generations to make progress.

Kate: I really don’t know if you are doing it on purpose or not, but your argument there sounds to me like that article that pissed so many people off so recently. If you didn’t know about that article before now, you should try to understand some of that backlash. If you did know about the article and wrote this with that understanding (to be controversial or what), just remember that you are what you pretend to be. 

Kim: I'm not trying to piss anyone off (though I know that happens... one of my first girlfriends unfriended me on FB). Morality is a scary proposition. Many things go quite well when people just try to make a buck. I had some great popcorn tofu tonight from our co-op grocery. I'm not sure the cook wanted to make the world better. Maybe he just wanted to pay his rent and buy a beer?

Did I answer all your questions?

Capitalism run by moral and ethical people of conscience

Herb wrote: "Perhaps a Capitalism run by moral and ethical people of conscience."

I'd run like a dog if everyone was moral and ethical people of conscience. I'd rather believe everyone is a crook, just thinking of themselves.

I think we've run into trouble believing that we can trust all those offering services to us—that they are moral and ethical people of conscience. Maybe it is safer to assume the opposite, that they have only self-interest. I'm shopping for insurance. Everyone wants to sell me their policy. I realize that and don't assume that everyone has my best interest in their heart. So I weigh one policy against the other, and hope for the best.

Imagine you go to buy birth-control whatever at the pharmacy. This ethical person of conscience says that since I am a 15 years old, they better notify my parents, because their morals tell them that 15 year-olds shouldn't be out there having sex. A clever 15 year-old might question each pharmacist, asking "are you moral and ethical?" and if they say yes, then they would question their morals and make sure that there was an "alignment of morals."

The beauty of self-interest is that it is a lot more dependable that morality. My father claimed that there is no morality... only the law (he was a lawyer). I was quite upset with his statement until I started to wonder, "what morality? whose morality?"

Capitalism won't do the job... a reply to Rachel.

Abdel works at Consuelo's Kitchen and
also has a business on the side selling hat racks.
He serves a smile and great food.

Rachel wrote, 

"I cannot imagine the capitalism I see in the world producing the things we really need, like dignified creative work for all, an unpolluted environment, time and safe spaces to be physically active, time to care for our bodies, our psyches, and our loved ones. "

You're idealistic, as everyone should be. You see good and bad coming from capitalism, and want only good. Nothing wrong with that.

The question is, "what do we do instead?" We see that "it ain't perfect," so we want to throw out the child with the bathwater.

Then what?

Do we find a benevolent dictator? What?

Your dad says it is more complicated than I think it is. Most things probably are. Though I remember that Mr. Einstein said that when we really understand things we will find very simple relationships.

I make bread, you make flour. I trade you bread for flour. You have the only wheat field, I have the only oven. Sometimes you feel I take advantage of you. Sometimes I feel you take advantage of me. But we need each other.

No, it isn't the perfect system. But I don't know what we should do instead.

The Brandeis Ratio of Rich and Poor

The Brandeis ratio, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/opinion/dont-tax-the-rich-tax-inequality-itself.html?src=recg, describes the disparity between rich and poor. The article, and believers in the the detriment of the inequality, claim that we need to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. I agree about the detriment, but not that this is the solution.

When I was growing up, Robin Hood was not a hero. No one claimed it was right for us to garnish wages because one was earning too much. We saw that Karl Marx's slogan, "each according to his ability, to each according to his need," popularized in 1875, was not to be our way.

There is another solution to inequality. But first, is it really the inequality that is the problem, or is it the poverty? Would it matter if we had ten times the number of billionaires if everyone else had what they needed?

I'm not so worried about economic power being in the hands of a few as long as we have a democracy. The other constitutes a large minority and (I believe) will eventually prevail.

Imagine if the conversation shifted to how can we reduce poverty? Do we really believe that taxing more would do anything for the poor? What it will do it to make the government (still) bigger. Why and how would these dollars trickle down to the poor? And would this enable the poor to produce more goods and services, make them more employable, and, in the end, reduce the disparity?

I believe that taxing the rich to reduce the disparity is a pipe dream. It is easy to say, "redistribute wealth to fix disparity." It is harder to say, "equip the poor with the means to earn more."

Naked or Nude or ?

Last night at the Off Center Theater in Austin, George Krause showed his sfumato (to smoke, no outlines) life-sized photos of people without clothes.

Soon after I arrived at the exhibition, a woman started to undress. I thought that someone was inspired by the photographs and decided that they would make a statement as well. Before I knew it, 10 or 15 people were all naked, wandering around the pictures that hung diagonally from a grid on the theater's stage. So we had three groups of people. The ethereal ones, radiating light in the photos. Their counterparts (and some of the models in the photos), moving around the gallery as if clothes (and shame) had never been invented, and then there was me, and you, and the others, still clinging to, and hiding behind, our clothes.

Somewhat reminiscent of Richard Avedon's pictures of the American West, he photographed these people as they were, so it seems. They are not naked, as Adam and Eve are often portrayed in the Garden of Eden. There is no shame, yet the figures are not sexual. They are just there, as if they never wore clothes. Yet not innocent as Brooke Shields appeared in The Blue Lagoon.

And perhaps the man above was being a little shy. They are not nudes, as in an Edward Weston or an Alfred Steiglitz. They are not romantic. And they are very beautiful. But not beautiful like a flower, or a lion. They show more the effects of living in the 21st century. Their bodies did not seem to have been physically challenged to survive. Some have been worn from the effects of aging. Others have been shaped by their love of food.

George said that he was trying to redefine the nude. These are non-sexual figures. They are not idealized figures, but were photographed with the care that one might use in photographing the last of a species of a beetle soon to go extinct. The light from behind obscures the edges, so they appear like sources of energy rather that objects reflecting light. They are one with their surrounding spaces. As imperfect as these specimens are, they are part of the world, melting into the space that we all share. They are us. We are them.

Anger serves a constructive purpose... not.

Click on picture to enlarge.

I'm glad that Hans suggested I write about anger serving a constructive purpose... because that makes me a little angry. It is actually pragmatism that ticks me off. William James, in trying to find a philosophy that would blend the empiricist and the religious, wrote that

The tangible fact at the root of all our thought-distinctions, however subtle, is that there is no one of them so fine as to consist in anything but a possible difference of practice. To attain perfect clearness in our thoughts of an object, then, we need only consider what conceivable effects of a practical kind the object may involve—what sensations we are to expect from it, and what reactions we must prepare.

There is nothing that doesn't have a constructive purpose. If it wasn't for Hitler, my father-in-law would not have gone to Germany to fight, and instead would have had kids earlier. My wife would not have been born, and hence, my kids would not have been born, and I'd still be running around with a red wagon and two socks that don't match.

Does that mean we celebrate Hitler?

There are a number of emotions that don't make the world any sweeter: hate, jealousy, envy, and last, but not least, anger. Some constructive action comes from each of these, but we also can arrive at those actions simply by doing jobs that need to be done.

We don't need to get angry at a baby because she soiled her diapers. We can simply see changing her diapers as a job to be done. We don't need to get angry at the Exxon for polluting the air. We can simply (or maybe not so simply) find a way to improve the emissions or clean the air.

And we don't need to rationalize the poisons because of some off-beat benefit(s). We should look instead at 1) the poisons' ill effects, physically and mentally, on ourselves and others and 2) what problems need to be solved because suffering is occurring. That's it.

More on Dogma, Analysis, and Intuitive Wisdom... and Anger

So when we are in the analysis mode, and hear intuitive wisdom, rather than "waking up"... as in the koans, we take it as dogma. I think that is why the book we used for the global warming course was so upsetting to me.

My dad went from atheist, to agnostic, to... on his deathbed... speaking about meeting his wife in heaven. Dogma, analysis, intuitive wisdom. So the same thought, "atheism or meeting his wife," can be dogma or intuitive wisdom. Maybe that is what makes communication about the climate so difficult. One person's dogma is another person's intuitive wisdom.

I've heard some speak of anger as a result of fear. It seems that fear is what we feel when we don't know what to do. We are in the "victim" mode, succumbing to the defensive role. The samurai warrior does not feel any anger (nor fear). Feeling (and expressing) anger, to me, is a fault... where to others it is an expression of how we really feel... or what makes us real.

Al Gore's Dogma and Anger, and the limit to my intuitive wisdom.

Chevy Chase, from the Climate Reality Project sent me this missive today:

Dear Kim,

I don't know about you, but I get angry when I hear people claim that global warming isn't real. We know that the science is clear and climate change is an urgent problem. And we need more people to learn the truth....

The letter went on to talk about how Al Gore trained 3000 people to talk about climate change and Chevy wanted my money to pay for more presentations.

Driving to the Zen Center I wondered if Chevy Chase's anger was more a threat to our lives that climate change.

The other day I read the words in an email, "destroy the planet," and I questioned whether there was some less violent way of describing our precious lives on earth. Then G asked me if I was going to sign up for the Environmental Workshop and I told her that I would get angry. She said that it would be an opportunity to practice "equanimity." (Don't you love Buddhists?) She added, think of all the stuff you've gotten from global warming to write about.

Then I read on one of my previous blog posts a comment from a former colleague, M, in St. Louis,

"What is the debate really? This is proven and accepted science. Are we to debate the veracity of human evolution, the spherical nature of the earth, the age of the planet?"

I barely could get out of my chair this afternoon to go to the Zen Center, afraid that the dogma was making me into an obedient zombie. Anyway... I did go and was glad to be back after a couple weeks of playing hooky.

I was shoved out of my chair by this brilliant little paragraph that was sent to me from the Juniperpath.org website (no relation to Austin's Juniper).

The Three Moments is a model for describing the process of inner realization on the Buddhist path. T.R.V. Murti first coined the term in his classic work, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism¹. Murti saw the main task of Buddhist training as “purifying the mind and freeing it of the cobwebs and clogs of dogmatism.”² This occurs by examining and, ultimately, deconstructing the artificial edifice on which one’s inner life is built. The result is a refined level of awareness that is the basis for reorienting how we experience and engage the world.

The three moments comprise three states of inner maturation along the spiritual path: dogma, critical analysis, and intuitive wisdom. They can be summarized as follows:

• Dogma: the unquestioned acceptance of what we know.
• Critical analysis: examining what we know.
• Intuitive Wisdom: going beyond what we know.

_________________________________________
1 T.R.V. Murti, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, (New Delhi, India: Munshiram Manoharlal 1955), 140-143
2 The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, 146

So what a beautiful gift to get that email. Just as William Blake spoke of innocence, experience, and organized innocence, so does the Buddhist path of dogma, analysis, and intuitive wisdom show us the stages of understanding. Perhaps it is just dogma for those who claim that knowing the planet is burning is not rocket science, and that you see one melting iceberg and you know that the world is coming to an end... and that it is our fault.

If you've gotten this far, you need a little humor. Please see the Onion's take on the environment where they report that "If global warming isn't under control by 2006, scientists say it will achieve unstoppable momentum, destroying the only planet we have."

So if by now you are scratching your head and wondering what I believe anyway... join the club. I do believe that anger should have no part of this conversation. That might be the limit of my "intuitive wisdom."