Good News

Well, it's official. L got a new job!!!! We are so excited and I am unbelievably proud of her and her dedication. I am humbly grateful. The pay is about the same but the insurance is awfully expensive. She's covered 100% but to cover me we'd have to pay a $400 a month premium so we're taking the medicare route for me to cover all the drugs I have to take.

L told me that now that she has a new job that she's going to buy me a pair of non-leather, cruelty-free, sweatshop free shoes!!! I'm so excited!!! And they look pretty cool. I'm buying them through my new favorite store, mooshoes.

Here is a picture:
The Buddha picture is of the world’s biggest outdoor Buddha at the top of a mountain on Lantau Island, Hong Kong. I wish I took this picture but I found it on Google images.

~Peace to all beings~

Read More

"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

I saw this book in the bookstore months ago and knew that I would be reading it sooner of later but that I was backed up on my reading. Well, yesterday I picked it up and began reading and let me tell you that so far it doesn't disappoint. I've read up to page 23 but already the author, (Richard Dawkins) has made some intriguing points. This will be the first of many posts on the book.

First of all I want to share a great quote from Carl Sagan on the matter of a supernatural "God:"

Carl Sagan put it well: '...if by "God" one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying...it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.'

This quote pretty much sums up my attitude about and toward a "God." However, I would add the following: My personal view of a "God" is most closely to that of a pantheist (if I have to delve into definitions). I try not to put limits upon such a force. Even though I do not believe in a supernatural "God" I do believe in an Unfathomable "God-force."

I think that such a force is so Enlightened that it is not limited to a permanent body (as my friend David alludes to in my cross-post at my Buddhist blog). That all sentient beings and non-sentient things have a piece of this "God-force" within "their" very DNA and molecular structure. I call myself a "Buddhist" to make it easier for people that think in structured, dualistic 'religious' terms. However, as a "Buddhist" I see that there really is no such thing as a "Buddhist" or "Buddhism" as both are always changing--as are all things according to the Buddha. Being a student of "Buddhism" I promptly looked up "Buddhism" in the index of the book and found this lonely reference.

And I shall not be concerned at all with other religions such as Buddhism or Confucianism. Indeed, there is something to be said for treating these not as religions but as ethical systems or philosophies of life.

I do not believe in a "God" that can be conceivable to the average theist either and I would submit that Dawkins believes the same. That his belief in science is a 'religion' but as the below quote explains, he purposely does not call himself 'religious' because that word is loaded with centuries of preconceived ideas.

He seems to be a pantheist:

Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs it's workings. ...Pantheism is sexed up Atheism. He then goes on to quote Einstein's religious beliefs and agrees with them: 'To sense behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious.' In this sense I too am religious, with the reservation that 'cannot grasp' does not have to mean 'forever graspable.' But I prefer not to call myself religious because it is misleading. It is destructively misleading because for the vast majority of people, 'religion' implies 'supernatural.'

James: After reading this quote I sank my teeth into the first, real meaty issue of the book. That being the idea that anything religious deserves an abnormal amount of respect and even a state of untouchability. He gives a couple of great examples regarding this issue:

I have previously drawn attention to the privileging of religion in public discussions of ethics in the media and in government. Whenever a controversy arises over sexual or reproductive morals, you can bet that religious leaders from several different faith groups will be prominently represented on influential committees, or on panel discussions on radio and television. I'm not suggesting that we should go out of our way to censor the views of these people. But why does our society beat a path to their door, as though they had some expertise comparable to that of, say, a moral philosopher, family lawyer or a doctor?

James: This is an excellent point. Abortion for example is a medical issue and not a religious issue. Sure religions have a right to be against abortion but why should a religious belief influence our laws that are supposed to be independent from any religion? Especially if we believe in a separation between church and state? Religions have a right to be free from governmental imposition of beliefs but the government has a right to make decisions based on science, reason and sociological data rather then on faith, based on what an arguable, mythical, "man in the sky" tells us to belief or do. History has tried many, many times to run government by religion and it has made a serious mess of things. That was one of the major reasons that the American revolution took off and was so successful. If religious groups are going to be invited to discuss and decide major government and political issues then they should lose their tax exempt status.

Here's another weird example of privileging of religion. On 21 February 2006 the United States Supreme Court ruled that a church in New Mexico should be exempt from the law, which everybody else has to obey, against the taking of hallucinogenic drugs. Faithful members of the Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal believe that they that they can understand God only by drinking hoasca tea, which contains illegal hallucinogenic drug dimethyltryptamine. Note that is sufficient to believe that the drug enhances their understanding. They do not have to produce evidence. Conversely, there is plenty of evidence that cannabis eases the nausea and discomfort of cancer sufferers undergoing chemotheraphy. Yet the Supreme Court ruled in 2005, that all patients who use cannabis for medical purposes are vulnerable to federal prosecution (even in the minority of states where such specialist use is legalized). Religion, as ever, is the trump card. Imagine members of an art appreciation society pleading in court that they 'believe' they need a hallucinogenic drug in order to enhance their understanding of Impressionist or Surrealist paintings. Yet, when a church claims such an equivalent need, it is backed by the highest court in the land. Such is the power of religion as a talisman.

James: This is going to be a great book.

~Peace to all beings~

Read More

A Poem and A Passage

James: I'll start with a lovely poem that I've seen on the lastest Macy's commercial:

The Earth has come to life today. Spring is here, horray, horray. The flowers are happy. They wave delight. The sun shines bright with all her might. So fly little fairy, fly, fly, fly. Fly through the meadow & touch the sky. When you get to where your going, Remember this day. The day the Earth came out to play.

James: The following are some excerpts from the book, Buddhism is Now What You Think: Finding Freedom Beyond Beliefs regarding rebirth and reincarnation. There is some confusion in Buddhism over these two different concepts:

One common understanding of Buddhism is that it involves reincarnation. But if we go back to the original insights of the Buddha, we don't find this teaching. What the Buddha taught was rebirth, not reincarnation. Though they are often confused, they are not the same at all. And we sometimes come up with thoughts of reincarnation: "I'll come back as someone else." Sometimes these notions are coupled with the idea that if we're good, we can come back in more fortunate circumstances. What all of these concepts have in common is that they suppose some enduring entity--incarnate, here and now--that persists and, after it dies, disintegrates, only to reemerge as something else again. But there's a problem here. If it becomes something else, then in what way is it the same? How is it still, in some manner, what it used to be? And if it's not, then how is this reincarnation? Indeed, what does the term it even refer to?

Here is what many people miss (or ignore) about the Buddhadharma: the Buddha himself pointed out that this view is inaccurate and extreme. It's called the eternalistic view--but the awakened see directly that permanence is never found, that the eternalistic view simply doesn't hold up. As the great thirteenth-century Japanese Zen teacher Dogen Zenji said, "Just as firewood does not revert to firewood once it burns to ash, so a person does not return to life after death." The fact is, within this one life span, as we live from moment to moment to moment, we are never a particular, unchanging person. You are not the same person you were ten or twenty years ago. In fact, you're not the same person you were ten or twenty minutes ago. Nothing persists. Nothing repeats. Nothing returns. Each moment is fresh, new, unique--impermanent. There is no way to hold a view of reincarnation without holding a view of permanence.

This moment has been born again and again, innumerable times while you've read this chapter. Learning to see this, and not the recycling of souls, is the liberation the Buddha pointed to.

James: The other extreme wrong view is that of nihilism. That we die and we are snuffed out but this is false thinking because there is nothing to "snuff out." Believing that we cease to "be" is Wrong View because it presupposes a belief in materialism. That there is something that can be "born" out of nothing into something and back to nothing it returns. It is a view that acknowledges pain, suffering and death that comes with life but then says that a "person" ceases to exist forever. Meaning that death or non-existence is permanent. "Things" can not be permanent and impermanent at the same time.

Just wanted to point out the other side of the issue.

~Peace to all beings~

Read More

The Aspen Leaf Trembles Through Out the Galaxies

Under the loving rays of the sun I watch the Aspen leaf dance and flutter in the gentle breeze. I focus on the tiny network of veins hidden within. I follow them and enter into a tiny maze of a fragile yet vibrant world. Traveling through the labyrinth I go through smaller and smaller pathways until I explode into the largest Universe.

An infinite number of galaxies exist within the tiniest of cells and the largest of galaxies contain an infinite number of microscopic cells.

As Thich Nhat Hanh says, "I have arrived, I am home."

~Peace to all beings~

Read More

Faux Leather Belt

I've been slowly (slowly only because of lack of money) phasing out my leather goods since becoming a "Buddhist" and becoming a vegetarian. Well, the other day I took my first step toward being "leather free." I ordered a "faux leather" belt and it is really nice. In fact, I like it more then any leather belt I've owned!! Part of it I think is the satisfaction and peace of mind knowing I'm not supporting the killing of animals. However, functionally speaking It is just as thick, pliable and supportive as any leather belt I've ownd. It appears very durable and I expect it will last a long time. My next step is getting a non-leather wallet, then non-leather, sweatshop free shoes and finally getting a new couch. Unfortunately the non-leather products tend to cost more but they are worth the peace of mind for my money. And the more people purchase these products the more the cost will inevitably go down.

We also try to buy as much organic food as possible. As well as non-toxic products. Every little bit helps. We are also big recyclers. The town we live in has a great recycling program. They sell bins for recycling. One (a blue one) for all paper products (including paperboard which includes most grocery boxes and other products. And then a green one for glass, certain plastic bottles, and tin cans. You just leave the bins out on the curb next to the garbage and they actually pick it up for you! It's really nice. Plus, we have a recycle plant near by that takes cardboard, phone books and the other products mentioned above. So it really annoys me when people around here throw glass bottles in the regular trash. We have such a great recycling program but people are too lazy to hold on to that bottle, take it home and put it where it belongs. I guess though I can only do my part and encourage others to do the same. I can't (nor should I) force people into doing it.

~Peace to all beings~

Read More