WoodMoor Village Zendo

Are Conservatives Happier?

Before I read the following article I would have shouted Hell No! But check out the following article "Conservatives Happier than Liberals." Also please read T's (Republic of T) post on this article. He does a good job of parsing out arguments about such supposed happiness by Conservatives. Here's a teaser:

"Regardless of marital status, income or church attendance, right-wing individuals reported greater life satisfaction and well-being than left-wingers, the new study found. Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person’s tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities.

The rationalization measure included statements such as: "It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others," and "This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are."

Maybe they are happier at that! Go figure. Funny thing of course is that in order for that claim about conservatives being happier than liberals (if we take the labels at face value) to work, the definition of happiness cannot even be "the reduction of suffering" because apparently conservatives are happier regardless of suffering caused by injustice and inequity.

What if we defined happiness as "a place, or state, where enjoyment is obtained?" Ouch! Makes things worse.

Surely we could, in Buddhist fashion, define happiness as contentment with what one has -- and conservatives would have fared better no? Uh, no. That seems to bring the same share of difficulties as noted in the article.

Ok then, what about using the phrase "Happiness is a how, not a what." This is the "happiness as process" argument, oftentimes heard as: You don't find happiness, you make, and choose, happiness. Well heck, this is precisely what the article is claiming. Conservatives make, and choose, happiness alright, but seemingly at the cost of the happiness of others.

Let us try two other definitions:

"Happiness is contagious...when you reflect happiness, then all others around you catch the happy bug and are happy, too." - Jennifer Leese

"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony." - M. Ghandi

Hmmm, conservatives do not fare well by those two definitions either. The first one seems to falsify the article (in the scientific sense) -- conservatives are happier but others are unhappy. The second one, by Ghandi is troublesome because it is too abstract and disconnected from outcomes, from normativity about the content of one's actions. Evil people could be quite happy carrying out their evil deeds, as long as what they think, what they say, and what they do is seen, by them as harmonious and bringing them joy.

In any case, while much difficulty also lies in taking labels of conservative and liberal as concrete... in your experience, has this relationship between conservatism and happiness proven to be the case?

International Women's Day

Felicidades! Today March 8th is International Women's Day. It is a day marked and celebrated by many around the world, commemorated by the United Nations, and apparently a national holiday in some places. It is a day for celebration, joy, and recognition of the struggles for equality, justice, and peace that women have spearheaded and being central in founding and developing. A day, and certainly only one among what should be every day, to stop and look deeply at our interconnection, and to cherish the global, economic, political, and social achievements of women (in the face of much discrimination and social injustice), but also a day to consider the challenges that still lie ahead.

In our interconnection we may recognize that such celebration of women's day is a celebration of us all as buddha's to be.

Have a wonderful day. A lotus for all the women who read here or stop on by, and all the rest. May you be touched by loving kindness. May you be well. May you receive this love forever. May you be at ease. May you live in peace and harmony.

I've included a few poems below, for your reading pleasure.

Gore: One Dream, Un-Deferred

Vice President Gore delivered today the defining speech in the Constitutional crisis our nation faces (click here for a link to an audio podcast of the speech). It was a cogent, clear, and strong response to the situation. As Gore noted, the President himself has dared the American people to do something about his abuses of power. Well, it is high time we did so. You can support this clear call to the American people to change the direction in which our nation is headed by deeply contemplating Mr. Gore's case, talking with others about the arguments presented, writing in your blogs, sending letters to your Congressional representatives, writing letters to local newspapers, engaging in peaceful demonstrations, sending email alerts... and definitely calling into question the assertions of an administration that appears drunk with the heady liquor of what they claim is executive power and privilege.

To be sure, our actions must be grounded in nonviolence and peacefulness, but they also ought not be couched in the timidity that fear to say what we think (for religiour or political reasons) engenders. We do face a defining moment, and as U.S. citizens we must own up to the moment. Either this is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and we reassert that, or we give it up to the cabal that believes in the annointed right of the "unitary" Presidency. For those who are not U.S. citizens, your support as global citizens is also invaluable. Individually and collectively we must exercise and defend those freedoms inherent in our democratic dreams, and in the moral imagination that sought expression in a democratic system of government that would serve as a shining city on the hill to all.

Published on Monday, January 16, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
'We the People' Must Save Our Constitution
by Al Gore
Constitution Hall, Washington, D.C.
Monday, January 16 2006 12:30 PM

Congressman Barr and I have disagreed many times over the years, but we have joined together today with thousands of our fellow citizens-Democrats and Republicans alike-to express our shared concern that America's Constitution is in grave danger.

In spite of our differences over ideology and politics, we are in strong agreement that the American values we hold most dear have been placed at serious risk by the unprecedented claims of the Administration to a truly breathtaking expansion of executive power.

As we begin this new year, the Executive Branch of our government has been caught eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens and has brazenly declared that it has the unilateral right to continue without regard to the established law enacted by Congress to prevent such abuses.

It is imperative that respect for the rule of law be restored.

The Finer Points of... De-Centering the Self

A while back I posted a neat quote from Alexander McCall Smith's At The Villa of Reduced Circumstances, one of the novellas in his Professor Von Igelfeld series. At the time, Tom asked me why I found that quote memorable or good, worthy (not exactly his words). I got caught up in other things and didn't respond at the time, but the answer for me is simple. I see good Professors doing what is highlighted by that quote. I agree with the sentiment. But mostly what I like is the silliness of it all. You have to read the series in order to get the humor of it regarding the misadventures of Professor Von Igelfeld as he tries to make his way in the world. Von Igelfeld is a likable character in spite of himself, and has moments of buddhahood in his otherwise delusional world. In any case, I thought I'd add another neat quote from this series, as a way to inaugurate what I hope will be a periodic entry that borrows the title from McCall Smith's second book in the series The Finer Points of Sausage Dogs. The entry might just be called The Finer Points of... whatever I guess.

Such is the complete confidence of childhood that we are each of us at the centre of the world - a conviction out of which not all of us grow, and those who do grow out of it sometimes do so only with some difficulty. And this is so very understandable; as Auden remarked, how fascinating is that class of which I am the only member. (emphasis mine)

Common Courtesies I

The first title I gave this post was Why Don't You Stick it Up Your...... but that would not be in the Christmas spirit now would it? So, here is my plea in a better tone and spirit. If you know somebody who smokes please convey this message strongly: Do not throw your cigarette butts on the sidewalk, or out of the car window. One of my pet peeves is when smokers put out their cigarettes and with seemingly no care in the world... drop them on the street and keep walking as if the street, indeed our world, was their ashtray. If you must smoke, please do so in a way that will minimize the ill effects of the smoking to all other living creatures. If you already do that, thank you. But please consider sharing that with your friends. Our world is already polluted enough, and littering of cigarette butts does not just have aesthetic consequences, but quite toxic ones for our environment, for all of us. If you enjoy smoking please consider picking up after your smoking a responsibility that comes with such enjoyment.

Oh, and please, if you must smoke, can you try not to do it around children? Have a good day, and remember, cancer cures smoking.

Feliz Navidad!

Feliz Navidad, Merry Winter Solstice, Merry Christmas (and XMas), Happy Kwanzaa, Hannukha, Joyous Yule, and all other celebrations. I hope that whether you celebrate or not, you are enjoying this season in fun, loving-kindness, joy, and unity. Hey, give yourself a present: a fast from negative thoughts, dwell in compassion, may you always embrace yourself and others embrace you with love. Don't let it be for only one day, or one season!

Christmas Cheer

I'm full of good Christmas cheer and wishes for folks everywhere. Truly. This season is one where we celebrate common values associated with redemption, hope, and love. I value those highly. But this is also a season where, traditionally, our highest aspirations are embodied most strongly in myth and mythical figures (Santa Claus, La Befana, the Green Man, the Yule Goat, Three Wise Men, Elves, and not just in the incarnation of the Christian baby jesus). It is an enchanted view of the world, that at its best can spark a recognition that such common values are to be found deep within us instead of in those seasonal figures. At its worst however, we abdicate our moral responsibility and imagination and remain content with shopping, and letting our common aspirations be dispersed amid those mythical figures, and the glitter, tinsel, bright lights, and commercialized Christmas "cheer." But this 2005 Christmas/Solstice season can be different.

A Loving--but Cheeky Message to Teachers

In tune with our recent posts on the nature of mindfulness, here's an interesting statement from a recent conversation in the Mindfulness in Education Network email list, and posted here completely with permission from the author (Maya Talisman Frost).

A Loving--but Cheeky Message to Teachers
by Maya Talisman Frost

As a mindfulness trainer, I’m a big fan of promoting greater mindfulness in the classroom. However, it’s interesting to me that those who seem to be the most thoughtful and passionate proponents of mindfulness in education are the ones most likely to be trapped by their limited thinking.

Now, don’t get me wrong.

I praise those who introduce silence, stillness and contemplation among students. I applaud those who explain the concept of mindfulness and invite their charges to explore the wonder of watching the mind in action. I celebrate the teachers who use “mindfulness” as an everyday word in their lessons.

But why stop there?

About Mindfulness and the Buddhist Blog, Part IV

This hopefully is the last post on this subject... Gareth at Green Clouds responded briefly yet eloquently to Tom's essay (well, to all of us bloggers), and in my estimation did a great job. I think equanimity flows out of Gareth on that post. Gareth reminds us to enter the political fray with compassionate understanding and patience. It is wonderful to hear this because it is often that I have failed in this even though some time back I penned some similar words. It is indeed easy to be taken by the tumult of the world of politics.

His advice to check our intentions is important. He poses a good question, "Am I writing from a mindful perspective, or from a mind that is full of delusions? My answer to that, and perhaps an answer to Tom, is that we are all always writing from a place of delusion, but that such does not invalidate our efforts nor our intentions at mindfulness. Heck, we could probably say when confronted with conflict, "we are both wrong," so why not try something different? But it is important to ask the question, and to practice to the best of our abilities.

Perhaps it has to do with some Buddhist bloggers just starting their practice, as Gareth suggests. I'm sure that might play a part. The nature of blogging itself might also. But there is no lack of opportunity for attachment. Writing about politics, religion, or anything else starts always from points of attachment. The write/response nature of blogs might even provide an interesting dialectical relationship to mindfulness as Gareth suggests.

Definitional disputes aside, all our actions are always fraught with attachment and delusion. Gareth's post also brings something else to mind: mindfulness might not be something you grab, like a ball in a game, and then run with it, holding tight and never dropping the ball. The main effort being at first, grabbing the truth. The second, holding fast. Rather, it might be something we might carry as process, practice holding even though it slips our grasp at times. That practice is not just about holding the ball, but about discovery also. We get more mindful in the process.

In his plea to his readers to consider that he is not a perfect being, Gareth recognizes the violence that is done to others when we hold them to some standard of perfection. In these series of posts I've tried to be mindful, no doubt failed in many instances. But my practice does guide my engagement. As I said at the beginning, I've appreciated Tom's remarks, even if launched in a caustic style, and with claims I would not make, because ultimately it is not about him or not. Life is short. A Lin-Chi style of calling us back to ourselves aside, the point is that our life is our practice. Gareth's post enacts this well. He ends with the best advice and the best charge to us. A charge I would certainly repeat to Tom and anybody else as a form of engagement: " I will try and write with Buddha nature, if you will read with it." Gareth's response enacts what it proposes, and recognizes, in my estimation, what the word practice entails.

Public Address

Some powerful and strong language, part of Cindy Sheehan's (President of Gold Star Families for Peace) recent speech denouncing the war in Iraq, and Bush in particular for saying that comforting the widow of a soldier KIA in Iraq was "hard work:"

"Hard work is seeing your son's murder on CNN one Sunday evening while you're enjoying the last supper you'll ever truly enjoy again. Hard work is having three military officers come to your house a few hours later to confirm the aforementioned murder of your son, your first-born, your kind and gentle sweet baby. Hard work is burying your child 46 days before his 25th birthday. Hard work is holding your other three children as they lower the body of their big (brother) into the ground. Hard work is not jumping in the grave with him and having the earth cover you both,"

. . .

"We're watching you very carefully and we're going to do everything in our power to have you impeached for misleading the American people," ... "Beating a political stake in your black heart will be the fulfillment of my life ... ,"

Mother of dead soldier vilifies Bush over war

By Frank E. Lockwood
HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER

About Mindfulness and the Buddhist Blog, Part III

This is part III.

Let me state clearly that I don’t challenge any statement about the fact that Buddhists or non-Buddhists writing about Buddhism, of any political persuasion, level of knowledge, or skill, make mistakes, screw up, overstate cases, misstep, or otherwise don’t get something right when speaking about anything. I don’t grant nor expect perfection from anybody on any subject, and thus it strikes me as not significant that we might find such difficulties when Buddhists write about politics or anything else. Buddhists, like anybody else, screw up about Buddhism also, and Buddhism itself does not make it easy to explain its concepts because it aims to subvert the very means by which we can explain its philosophy.

Look, we are entering a ground that Lewis Carroll rightly, in my view, problematized in Through the Looking Glass. In that book Alice says, “The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things.” To which Humpty Dumpty replies, “The question is, which is to be master—that’s all.” I am most inclined to agree with Humpty Dumpty’s thinking about language and definitions, but my intent is not to be Master (although Humpty Dumpty does not mean it like that), I just don’t think we help ourselves at all when the struggle is about whether you are mindful enough because you meet this definition versus that one.

Hence, what is most problematic for me is the reification and disciplining of mindfulness evident in Tom’s essay, and the generalizations about mindful bloggers that it legitimates, not the fact that he seeks to clear up the meaning of a technical term which appears to be frequently bandied about without careful consideration for the implications of its use. I agree with the difficulties posed by careless usage, although I think the concept “mindfulness” requires special consideration when we seek denotative conformity.

About Mindfulness and the Buddhist Blog, Part II

This is Part II. I start with some clarifications, and by directing myself at the arguments about the substance of some posts, not about the conceptual issues of definitions of mindfulness. I'll leave that for Part III.

Tom's point to me a while back, and his point in his recent essay uses disagreement over Chittister's argument (and a bit more general stuff) as a springboard for a claim about a certain mindlesssness by Buddhist bloggers posting about politics. He cites two bloggers as examples, me being one of those. To me this part is the least significant part of this response. That we disagree on the substance of arguments is to be expected. The charge that I might be mindless in responses or posts I also don't mind.

I’m quite certain that a great deal of the time I’m not a mindful blogger. It is not about being perfect, nor about getting it right all the time, it is about practice. Sometimes it is easier than others to be mindful. Sometimes I have to be more careful. But it is not necessarily the case that in posting Chittister’s essay, or in supporting the thesis of her essay, I am being mindless, or engaging in what Tom via Ken Wilber dubs a threat to dharma in the West. The fact is that, as per Tom’s elements of mindful blogging, considering the big picture, and accepting what I found from that big picture consideration, and trying to view it from the position of the opponents, etc., I consider the argument made by AI to be a strongly worded political indictment that given what we now know cannot be easily dismissed by focusing on the definitional appropriateness of the word Gulag nor on the casuistry of what the administration’s intentions might have been.

I think I arrive at that decision after careful, even mindful consideration, but am always open to reconsidering how delusion plays a part in my considering myself mindful. Thus Tom or anybody else reminding me to look deeper into how I see some things as mindful or not is not a problem and should be welcome to practice. How that is done does matter, as I remind myself often.

About Mindfulness and the Budddhist Blog, Part I

A while ago I promised Gareth, of Green Clouds, that I would comment on a post of his written in response to an essay by Tom from Zen Unbound. What I actually wanted to do was comment on Tom's post, but Gareth also had some insightful thoughts and I want to continue that conversation here.

My response must start with some background. Previous to writing his essay Tom had commented on my understanding of the concept mindfulness. An early comment had asked how I understood the concept. A second comment by email took me to task for the same, although this time the prompt was that I had categorized a post (an essay by Joan Chittister) under "Mindful Politics." I briefly responded to Tom by email. Subsequently, Tom wrote his provocative essay on Mindfulness and the Buddhist Blog. So, I want to address myself to Tom's essay, and also in part to Gareth's response, and continue this thread. In fact, I want to push our thinking here because, while provocative and interesting, I think some of Tom's arguments can lead us astray. The easiest way for me to do it is to post my thoughts in parts. This is part I.

I do want to thank Tom for his essay because for me this is the kind of stuff that makes Buddhist blogs interesting. Although I value and enjoy reading various "Buddhist" blogs, I seek in particular those that grapple with our understanding of Buddhist concepts, with the actualization of those ideas in our contemporary world. My own practice is a Zen one, hence I'm intrigued by those blogs that eschew dogmatic connection/understanding. I'm also interested in non-Buddhist development of mindfulness in areas like education and politics. I also want to thank Gareth, because his thoughtful response broadened the conversation, and provided more avenues for engagement. The question of how to blog mindfully about politics, and religion, ought certainly be part of our practice (but what isn't? or shouldn't?).

This might be a by now trite caveat, but I certainly am no expert and don't have any answers. I am no authority in Zen, nor other Buddhist doctrine. I try to read voraciously on Buddhism, and on Zen in particular, while understanding that such is but my own mind seeking to conceptualize and grasp some ideas, and not the thing-in-itself. As an academic I am inclined to academic research and texts, my bias shows. Such study is no substitute for practice, but it is also helpful. While I am not a newbie to practice, I have practiced now for about 8 years, the practice is always fresh to me and I consider myself but a baby in understanding. So, my thoughts and posts are as much to clarify to myself as to converse with others. To all of this should be added two more things: my own practice and understanding is more akin to that of a Zen Infidel. I call it Zen Humanism, and that is meant to inject my attempt to live up to non-dogmatic attachment, to my training in analysis and criticism, and to my own experiential encounters. Second, Lotus in the Mud has a great quote attributed to Ajahn Chah, that I think is essential to keep in mind when delving into these kind of conversations:

How Does One Observe Delusion?

Q: I can observe anger and work with greed,
but how does one observe delusion?

A: You're riding a horse and asking "Where's
the horse?" Pay attention.

That's a great place to start. I'll see you in Part II.

Unintelligent Design, NY Times

From the New York Times Unintelligent Design. A different perspective on the Intelligent Design issue.

February 20, 2005

Unintelligent Design
By JIM HOLT

Recently a school district in rural Pennsylvania officially recognized a supposed alternative to Darwinism. In a one-minute statement read by an administrator, ninth-grade biology students were told that evolution was not a fact and were encouraged to explore a different explanation of life called intelligent design. What is intelligent design? Its proponents maintain that living creatures are just too intricate to have arisen by evolution. Throughout the natural world, they say, there is evidence of deliberate design. Is it not reasonable, then, to infer the existence of an intelligent designer? To evade the charge that intelligent design is a religious theory -- creationism dressed up as science -- its advocates make no explicit claims about who or what this designer might be. But students will presumably get the desired point. As one Pennsylvania teacher observed: ''The first question they will ask is: 'Well, who's the designer? Do you mean God?'''

Toward an Ethics of Interbeing

In the recent conversations carried out here on the subject of Intelligent Design, I've come down rather strongly in opposition to the teaching of Intelligent Design Theory in the public school Biology curriculum. I strongly believe that, and thus articulated it. But, one aspect that hasn't made it into my posts has been my acceptance of a philosophy of interbeing as grounding my ethics (it is not the only thing, but a central thing). I haven't yet posted extensively on that, but I find it fascinating. In particular, how extensive are the implications of such a concept of interbeing as ground of an ethics. In this case of Intelligent Design, what bothers me about my position is that it participates in furthering the division or disconnect between the various camps, rather than in bridging it.

Walking the Holy Land: Thoreau & Sauntering

While at the Colors of Compassion retreat in Deer Park last year, I heard Thay (Thich Nhat Hanh) deliver a dharma talk in which he spoke about homelessness.

Thay noted that even though he was exiled from his country of origin, he had a home, and that it wasn’t until he found himself without a country that he found his true home. His words were inspiring for me and others who have bounced around from place to place, or for whom our experiences as members of various marginalized groups have taken the quality of, as Huston A. Baker has noted, an “always uprooted homelessness of now.”

Perhaps because of that mobility, that sense of un-anchoredness that the idea homelessness provides, Thay’s words had a powerful resonance for me. Before graduating from high school I had already managed to attend nine different schools, and lived in about as many communities.

Cool Buddhism Books

Another old post. Bear with me as I transfer them all here.

Being an academic and a lover of books and reading I have accumulated a few books that I have found very good in terms of practice and figuring things out a bit. Here are a few of those. There are, of course, way too many books out there that are plenty cool. So, this list is not only incomplete, but outdated. Perhaps I'll post another one soon.

I have also read both books by Geri Larkin (Stumbling Toward Enlightenment, and Tap Dancing in Zen) and have found them quite fun to read. She is lighthearted, easy to read, and reaffirming. I value those qualities. I'm glad she cites Rainer Maria Rilke in her first book.

Bishop Spong & Belief

Another old post. I take "God" language with a huge grain of salt, but I think Spong has it right here, when he speaks about a new way to think of what that God is. Reminiscent of Process Theology.

A while back we had a wonderful conversation about our community, how to strengthen it, how to nurture it. Thanks for the wonderful things shared. I've been re-reading Bishop John Shelby Spong's "Why Christianity Must Change or Die" (1998) and came upon a passage that made me stop and consider some things in light of what I consider a Buddhist Sangha to be, and the power of our practice. Here's an excerpt and some thoughts, but please be advised: where the original uses the word God I have at times added next to it, when appropriate, the word Sangha.

On Enlightenment

How are we to conceive of enlightenment in our modern day and age?

For me, one of the problematics with religious and spiritualist thinking is that brought about by the language of transcendence, rapture, or "beyondness." The problem is that such language oftentimes ushers contemplation of a supernaturalist state or a higher reality intelligible only in reference to an other lower human dimension. Besides the difficulties associated with supernaturalist perspectives requiring too much of a leap for many folks, and the assumptions underlying the positing of a somehow lower human realm, such distinctions also tend to establish a dualism which doesn't quite match Buddhist non-dualist thinking. Moreover, this dualism can impair practice.