Sitting with Jundo Cohen.

Awhile back I was contacted by Zen teacher Jundo Cohen about his wonderful Tree Leaf Zendo, which provides insightful v-cast teachings that include a time for sitting Zazen. It's a very effective way of staying interconnected with a teacher and the sangha of practitioners if one has needs that precludes a person from sitting formally.

I know the advent of the "Online Sangha" has been of some controversy of late on the Buddoblogosphere. I personally find it change to embrace and appreciate. It is allowing and enabling the Dharma to reach more and more people who seek its wisdom. People are discovering the Buddha's teachings through the internet who might not ever have come into contact with them if it were in years past.

I do not understand how enabling more people (through technology) to sit with and learn from ordained teachers as well as enjoy support from fellow practitioners is a less helpful. It seems to me that such thinking is allowing yourself to be tethered to the "iron ball and chain" obstacle of "I'm here" and "you're there." Just because people aren't sitting the same room does not mean that their sitting is less helpful, less real or a "fad." If we believe that we truly understand interconnection then the idea of a sangha meeting virtually from all corners of the world should make complete and total sense. It is a creative way to make that understanding of interconnectedness stronger to encompass the world and beyond. Jundo Cohen speaks of the illusion of "Now" and "There" quite beautifully in this v-cast:
James:Along this same parallel, I believe that there is other life out in the universe (as even the atheist Richard Dawkins believes). As Dawkins writes in his fantastic book, "The God Delusion":

Now suppose the origin of life, the spontaneous arising of something equivalent to DNA, really was a quite staggeringly improbable event. Suppose it was so improbable as to occur on only one in a billion planets. And yet, even with such absurdly long odds, life will still have arisen on a billion planets -- of which, Earth, of course, is one."

James: This was in response to the creationist claim that evolution means life was created spontaneously, whereas evolutionists know it evolved over billions of years. He was saying, however, that even if it was spontaneous--the probability still makes it very likely.

That all said, I do not believe that alien life has contacted us or our world--yet. But my point in all of this "alien life" discussion is that idea of infinite lives being connected to all things and beings regardless of proximity to a meditation center or physical presence at one. We are interconnected with things that we haven't even discovered yet!! How cool and humbling is that idea?!! Imagine one day being able to virtually meditate with Buddhist practitioners of some other planet?!! You could be meditating at the same time with someone from your country, another country on the other side of the planet and another life form on another side of the UNIVERSE!!!! That would be quite the mindful moment of awareness of the many levels of interconnectedness. What a marvelous thought. Even better? We can do that right now. We can imagine all forms of life as we meditate on interconnectedness, which makes the Universe (I find) very personal and easier to grasp.

UPDATE: I wanted to elaborate a bit more on why there is some blow-back (resistance) to online sanghas and online or telephone interactions with teachers. I suspect that some of the "anti-internet" sanghas stems from a perhaps hidden desire to maintain their position as "Abbot" of some prestigious temple. Or as an ordained practitioner by a prestigious and famous "Master." This is not to say that there is anything wrong with ordaination but there seems to be a bit of a tendancy for some traditional practitioners to act as "purists" when someone discovers another way of diseminating the Dharma.

It's sad that rather than welcome another way to spread the Dharma and sustain practitioners who can't access physical sanghas; some of these folks laugh off online interactions as "not as real" or "authentic." As if there is anything "real" to begin with but that's a topic for another time. Part of these backlash could also stem from a desire to maintain their institution and steady line of devoted students. Such a position of importance can easily fuel their egos and push them to seek maintaining such a situation regardless of what it might mean for others.

I don't see how online sanghas and online interaction with ordained teachers threatens traditional "brick and mortar" sanghas. They both administer to different groups of practitioners. Some feel the need for physical interaction like those who attend school on a campus. Versus those who attend online classes. This doesn't threaten the disappearance of traditional sanghas and temples for people will always have a need for sacred places. It's to say that no one needs a savior, a "master" or any other being to wake up. It's not a matter of one or the other.

Physical sanghas, temples and monasteries simply need to adapt a bit. Perhaps setting up an online sangha on their own web page administered by a senior monk would help people continue their practice while maintaining a deep connecting with their teacher and that particular sangha or temple. Even just maintaining an interactive website where senior monks answer questions as they can would help maintain both needs of updated sangha options and making sure our institutions are still honored.

Establishing or growing retreats and especially days or weeks when the temples and sanghas celebrate and honor traditions and festivals. That way people would be more willing drive an hour or so to attend something to connect with fellow physical practitioners from time to time without having to drive hours upon hours every time sangha meets. It would also enable people with psychological conditions to be apart of a communion and connection with a physical temple/sangha while limiting the stimulation that they easily become overwhelmed with.

Even just maintaining an interactive website where senior monks answer questions as they can would help maintain both needs of updated sangha options and making sure our institutions are still honored.They are all helpful, useful and I believe essential to a degree. However, they are still, in the end--fingers pointing at the moon. No one can do the waking up but us.

~Peace to all beings~

Read More

Buddhism and Evolution.

While Buddha didn't have much to say about the origins of life and the universe I find the Dharma to be very open to evolution. Evolution says that we evolved from other life forms and are therefore just new models of previous models of life which means that we must have genes and DNA that are similar and we do.

We humans share some 96 percent of genetic material with chimpanzees which affirms my Buddhist belief that we are irrecoverably interconnected and dependent upon other life forms. We are merely different branches on a larger tree. The tree of evolved sentient life on Earth.

As Buddhists we believe in rebirth which in my mind is a form of evolution which are both based upon cause and effect. In Buddhism we know that the consequences of our actions and certain events will stay within our "spiritual DNA" and determine what form "we" will evolve into after this current stage that we find ourselves within. And in corroboration, physics tells us that "matter is neither destroyed or created. it can only be transformed from one form to another". Which backs up the Buddhist, evolutionary teaching of rebirth.

And as a Buddhist I believe that when we die our bodies will blend back into the larger plane of existence and live on in other forms of life such as food for flowers and trees via our ashes or nutrient rich bodies decomposing in the fertile Earth. This enables other forms of life to have the best chance at thriving and continuing the evolution of life on Earth. We come from stardust and will return to stardust as the universe expands outward, reaches a stabilising point, and then reverts its motion back toward a central point resulting in its destruction, (James: the big crunch) this process again to be repeated infinitely. All forms of life depend upon each other for success and evolution. I liken it to a track and field relay event. One runner starts the race and hands a baton off to another runner once he runs his distance and then that runner goes until he goes the distance and passes the baton on to another runner, etc.

Then there is the Buddhist concept of impermanence where nothing lasts forever. We know that 90-99% percent of all life on Earth that ever lived has gone extinct which upholds my relay race example. A certain species of life might exist for awhile (dinosaurs) and then as other beings and events evolve they are eclipsed and a new life form emerges to take their place. So while in Buddhism we believe that humans have the best chance at liberation from suffering we are still nothing more than a link in the long chain of evolving species and forms of life and I take comfort in being nothing greater and nothing less than any other other sentient being.

While researching this post, however, I found the following counterpoint:

While Cooper certainly makes a valid point in stating that Buddhism has never had the problems with Darwinism that monotheism has, it does not thereby follow that one can easily harmonize the two. Buddhism certainly does talk about evolution, but never at the level of populations. Buddhist notions of evolution involve the movement of an individual karmic stream through samsara, taking on different bodies in different environments according to regular laws of cause and conditioning. The process carries no certainty of progress from lower to higher or from simple to complex, and the overall context of this is the idea of rebirth, a topic that Cooper leaves out of an otherwise fairly complete account of basic Buddhist theory and practice.

James: While I do recognize that the scientific communities understanding of evolution and the Buddhist understanding are not exactly on the same page, I think in general they are in agreement. It is not entirely accurate in my view to say (as the counterpoint postulates) Buddhist evolution is only about the individual karmic stream as Buddhism teaches that there is no such thing really as an individual. As well as teaching that there is such a concept as collective karma.

Buddhism's teaching of interconnection and interdependence do harmonize with evolution of populations. I would argue that we (as "individuals") are slightly different, (depending on karma) single cell populations of a larger "being" that is evolving both on the micro level (individuals/sentient beings/populations) but also at the macro level (existence itself). It is difficult from my point of view to separate one sentient being from another therefore I believe that it can be argued that in a way, all life evolves together. The counterpoint goes on to say that the Buddhist idea of evolution carries no certainty of progress from simple to complex.

Yet I beg to differ as in Buddhism, beings go through "lower" stages of consciousness in births (animals for example) until we secure a human birth which is the vehicle to evolve into an enlightened being. There is regression yes, as a human might act in a way that would see them reborn as, oh I don't know, a slug or something. So, yes this process may seem haphazard but I think most Buddhists would be in agreement that eventually all beings will realize liberation from suffering and realize enlightenment. Thus, in the end it is basically a process of going from "lower" to "higher" to use such blunt, dualistic terms. Besides, there is no certainty of progress in purely science based evolution either. Suppose a massive comet hits Earth and destroys not only all life but our atmosphere and all water, not much life could progress from that point. The same goes for the day when our galaxy collides with the Andromeda Galaxy, not much will survive that disruption of sentient evolution!!

True there is not a linear advancement so to speak but the science only view of evolution isn't pure linear advancement either. It is more like a tree where a branch will grow out from the trunk of the tree in a spin off of the tree but might die out eventually. The main form of the tree (the trunk), however, keeps growing and evolving. It's not simply a matter of going from point A to point B. It's more like A branches off into A1 and A2 where A1 might die off but A2 survives to reach point B where it branches off again into B1, B2 and maybe a B3. And so forth and so on.

I think I'll stop here. I've probably confused you all but if I have try reading it again, maybe it will make sense the second time. If it never makes sense then no worries, it's just another branch dying out and something else will come along later that does make sense. :)

~Peace to all beings~

Read More