Café Philos: an internet café

"Nobody today is normal, everybody is a little bit crazy or unbalanced, people's minds are running all the time. Their perceptions of the world are partial, incomplete. They are eaten alive by their egos. They think they see, but they are mistaken; all they do is project their madness, their world, upon the world. There is no clarity, no wisdom in that!"

- Taisen Deshimaru



This might be the first time I've seen a Zen Buddhist so lament "people today". I confess I largely agree with him! I think he might describe most of us to one extent or another. Yet, I don't recall ever having read in any accurate history of an age when his lament would not be true of most people. Those who are not "a little bit crazy or unbalanced" have always been as rare as monks -- maybe even as rare as Buddhas. The notion there was a Golden Age in which people in general were fundamentally much better and wiser than they are today is a myth, rather than an historical reality.

Yet, does that mean we should forgo trying to be as wise and sane as possible? Of course not! The fact there are some very wise and sane people in this world means it is possible to be very wise and sane. Maybe the vast majority of humanity will always be -- as humanity has always been -- "eaten alive by their egos." Yet, that does not mean all of us need be.

Had the Buddha been a god, like Christ, people would say, "Enlightenment is only possible for gods", and "Only the Buddha was fully authentic". They say those things about Christ, you know. "Only Christ was perfect." And, "Only Christ could love everyone". To make your mentor a god is a form of escapism. It's a way of denying your potential.

"[A]ll they do is project their madness, their world, upon the world." Your enlightenment will not solve all the world's problems. But perhaps it will mean that you become aware -- deeply aware -- of when you are projecting your madness, your world, upon the world. Then you can at least choose wisely whether to do it or not. As near as I know, that's one of the things enlightenment most does for you -- makes you wise and sane.

It does not make the world's problems go away. If you have no skills and are unemployable before you are enlightened, you will have no skills and be unemployable after you are enlightened, etc. But perhaps you will have a realism, a wisdom, and a sanity about your situation that you never had before. And that, of course, can help you meet your challenges quite a bit better than you have ever met them before.

Krishnamurti observed that no one seeks enlightenment until they get into trouble. It's only when we suffer, and wish to escape our suffering, that the possibility of enlightenment becomes a burning, passionate goal. Yet, as Krishnamurti once again said, when we seek enlightenment as an escape from suffering, enlightenment will not come. We will find some escape, but it will not be enlightenment.

Most of us will always want to live as the people Taisen Deshimaru laments. We will never experience a crisis so profoundly unsolvable that we are forced by it into enlightenment. For some say enlightenment comes only when every form of escape has been exhausted. Perhaps that is why so few people are enlightened and why every age has a right to repeat Taisen Deshimaru's lament.

"Transform your thoughts into positive ones. It is a mistake to think that everyone is bad. Some people are wicked, that's true, but that doesn't mean everyone is. There are also many people who have a noble and generous spirit."

- Dalai Lama


Sometimes we fall in with the wrong crowd. If we are inexperienced, the crowd we hang with can seem to us the norm, no matter how petty or mean-spirited they are. We might not even know to expect better of people than the people we're with.

The path away from our false friends is usually difficult. Not only must we break off contact with them, but we must also change our expectations of people. It's that latter part -- changing our expectations -- that many people fail to accomplish.

Yet, if we don't change our expectations of people when we break away from a bad friend or a group of friends, we are so much more likely to wind up back with the same sort of people. You see that all the time. Someone you know leaves an abusive lover, for instance, only to find the same sort of lover again. Or, someone leaves a group of mean-spirited friends only to find another group of mean-spirited friends. When changing from a bad crowd to a better crowd, it is vital to change our expectations too.

Now, look you Kalamas, do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea; "this is our teacher'. But, O Kalamas, when you know for youselves that certain things are unwholesome (akusala), and wrong, and bad, then give them up ... And when you know for yourselves that certain things are wholesome (kusala) and good, then accept them and abide by them.


- The Buddha, From the Kalama Sutta

The other day, I stumbled across a Christian youth site on the net that had recently done an informal survey on the attitudes of Christian youth towards female modesty.

As the site itself pointed out, the survey is not scientific, since among other things it was self-selecting. Yet, the basic premise of the survey is nevertheless interesting enough: Should women and girls dress modestly to help their brothers in Christ avoid lusting for them?

Over 200 women and girls responded to the survey, and over 1600 boys and men. The survey asked 148 questions in such dress categories as swimsuits, undergarments, shirts/dresses, layering, and so forth. Respondents were asked whether they strongly agreed, agreed, were neutral towards, disagreed, or strongly disagreed with such statements as, "Seeing even an inch of skin between the bottom of a girl's shirt and her pants is a stumbling block", or " A girl's underwear should never show [emphasis in original]."

Now, some liberal bloggers have sharply criticized the implied premise of the survey that it is the job of women and girls to prevent boys and men from lusting after them. The bloggers have pointed out this unreasonably shifts the burden of lust from the male to the female.

I agree.

I could say much about this, but I'd like to focus on one thing alone. Post-pubic boys and young men need to learn how to deal with their natural desires, and removing anything from their environment that stimulates their desires is certainly not the best way to help them deal with those desires. Instead, it is actually the best way to help them avoid dealing with their natural desires. Consequently, they are not challenged to mature into adults that can look upon a woman without lust when lust is inappropriate.

This recalls to me the story of two Zen monks who were travelling when they came to a swollen stream. Standing in the road beside the stream, wondering how she might cross, was a beautiful young woman. Without hesitation, the older monk picked up the woman and carried her across the stream. She thanked him and went on her separate way. The two monks then travelled on together for several hours, until the younger monk, deeply troubled, could no longer remain silent. "Brother, aren't we forbidden to have any physical contact with women?", he asked. Replied the older monk, "I put her down several hours ago, but you are still carrying her."

A woman's dress, no matter how provocative, does not determine whether we lust for her. What determines whether we lust for her is we ourselves. Hence, no one but we ourselves can properly take responsibility for our desire.

The hottest topic on science blogs these days seems to be the Evolution/Creationism/Intelligent Design debate. It's an easy guess that three or four out of every ten science blogs will post something about the debate on any given day, and some portion of those posts will get pretty nasty.

That is to say, it's common enough on science blogs to see creationists and IDers labeled "idiots", "morons", "windbags", "liars", and much else along the same line.

Nastiness inspires nastiness and, in most cases, the blogger's nastiness inspires equal or greater nastiness from the commentators on his or her entry. When the blogger calls some creation scientist a fool, you can bet one of the commentators will add that he's a cretin too, if not a "fucking cretin".

A small part of me can understand that vitriol. I have certainly observed that creationists and IDers are usually ignorant of evolutionary fact and theory. Worse, many seem willfully ignorant of both fact and theory. And there is even considerable evidence that some of their leaders are actual liars. Yet, that's not all there is to this.

What's really going on with the science bloggers and their friends is fear. Most people will not call you an "idiot" merely for being ignorant on some subject, but they might indeed call you an "idiot" -- or worse -- if they are scared of your ignorance on that subject.

Many science bloggers, as well as many of their friends, are acutely aware the creationists and IDers are damaging to the cause of science with their ignorance, willful ignorance, and lies. The science bloggers and their friends have allowed themselves to fear those damages, and consequently, they have responded to the creationists and IDers out of fear. That's my guess.

Ironically, the other side is probably scared to death too. When Creationists and IDers are willfully ignorant, or when they lie, they are most likely reacting to their fear the science of evolution undermines their hope of obtaining heaven; or their fear that, by destroying someone's faith, it leads them to hell.

A good Buddhist might point out both sides could profitably meditate on the folly of our becoming attached to our ideas.

So far as I understand what Buddhism teaches, attachment typically leads to fear and other negative emotions, and those emotions can then lead to all sorts of false and silly notions. It is both false and silly to think that the 48% of Americans who disbelieve evolution are all morons. Again, it is both false and silly to think that all the people who do believe in evolution are deluded by Satan. Those and a whole host of other false and silly notions are ultimately the product of attachment; along with the fear, hatred, contempt, and so forth that so typically comes from attachment.

I am not so foolish as to think anything I say here will change the tone or character of the evolution/creation/intelligent design debate. That's a monstrous debate, and even if every last participant in it suddenly conceived a burning desire to read my essay here, very few would see any need to take my implied advice, and study attachment. Near as I can figure, that's because so many people enjoy their attachments. We -- most of us -- even like being scared to death of something if being scared to death of something gives us a feeling of involvement, meaning, significance. And the Grand Debate over evolution does exactly that for a huge number of people. It gives them a sense they are involved in something truly important.

Maybe they are indeed involved in something important. But I suspect the debate would be a lot less nasty -- and a lot more sane and truthful -- if we folks would practice a bit of non-attachment to our ideas. So, am I onto something here, or is my mind reeling from too much caffeine again?

Do you like to think? Do you like to read blogs? If "yes" seems to you the natural answer to both questions, then the Thinking Blog Award might appeal to you.

Last week, Mystic Wing suddenly honored Anne and I by tagging this blog with the Award. No doubt he was suffering from a momentary lapse of sanity when he did so, but we'll happily accept the Award anyway.

So, what's the Award? Well, The Thinking Blog Award has been making its way around the internet since February 11th, when it was begun by none other than The Thinking Blog. The idea is simple: If someone tags you as a blog that makes them think, then you respond by tagging five other blogs that make you think.

I've discovered that while the idea is simple, executing the idea is not so easy as it sounds. There are so many quality blogs out there that make me think. So I've have some difficulty narrowing my list down to just five blogs.

One thing that helped to narrow the list is that many of my favorite blogs have already been tagged. For instance, Mystic Wing tagged Brendan's Off the Beaten Path at the same time as he tagged Cafe Philos, so that's one down. Again, most of the science blogs I like to read have already been tagged, so that's a whole category all but eliminated. Yet, there are still gobs and gobs of blogs that I would like to tag if I were not confined by the rules to just five.

Having said all that, I shall now present my list in alphabetical order.

Baghdad Burning is by all accounts one of the best and most widely recognized blogs on the net today. It is written in beautiful English by an anonymous Iraqi woman living in Baghdad whose perspective on the war is, to say the least, not that of George Bush, Tony Blair and Al Maliki. She revealingly contrasts the daily lives of herself and her family and friends with the almost obscene spin of the politicians who caused the war. Her writing transcends the immediate conflict in Iraq. It is perhaps some of the best war writing from a civilian point of view of all time. You would be doing yourself a disservice if you missed reading some of the archives too.

Burning Silo, by Bev Wigney, is both a nature and a photography blog. The photos alone provoke thought, but the detailed, professionally executed writing is immensely stimulating as well. When I read Burning Silo, I find myself wanting to get up out of my chair and set off to explore nature -- even if that means exploring only the nature in my back yard. The blog does more than make us think: It restores to us a sense of wonder too.

Church of the Churchless is Brian Hines' wonderful blog for those of us who have, or who want to have, a spiritual life apart from organized religion. Brian is heavily influenced by Taoism and good sense. I don't always agree with him, perhaps because of my notable lack of good sense, but I am always stimulated both by the questions he raises and his responses to those questions. He has another, equally good and thoughtful blog called Hines Sight.

High Plains Buddhist is, more often than not, an account of Todd Epp's insightful application of Buddhist principles to his own life. That tends to make those principles fascinatingly concrete and fresh. We get to see the Buddhist way in action through Todd's eyes, and the result is great food for thought.

Think Buddha is Will Buckingham's profound blog that covers nearly every strain of Buddhist thought, rather than focusing on only one or two traditions. Will writes beautifully, making even some very difficult ideas and principles comprehensible. This blog goes beyond thought-provoking. It's educational, too. Well worth a bookmark, I think.

So, there you have it. My list of five blogs that rise to the challenge of provoking even me to thought. I haven't really done any of them justice here in my brief descriptions, I'm afraid, but perhaps at another time I can give each the detailed review it deserves. I would like to thank Mystic Wing for honoring Anne and I with his tag. It was more fun than I at first thought it would be to make the above list. And perhaps Anne, if she gets the time (she's been very busy lately) will offer her own list of five blogs that make her think.

UPDATE: I've been tagged two more times for this same meme, and post my response to the tags here.

"Carrying guilt around in our minds is like hiking up a mountain and picking up every rock we stub our toe upon and throwing it in our backpack. That is unskillful. It is unnecessary suffering and it stems from a belief in a separate self. That somehow we are so important that we should suffer more than anyone else. It is also the belief that we are so powerful that we can actually revisit these past unskillful actions and somehow in reliving them change the result."

- James Ure, The Buddhist Blog


Jiddu Krishnamurti used to liken guilt to the appendix, calling it just as useless. And, as James points out, it is not only useless, but causes unnecessary suffering to boot. But what do you think of guilt? Does it serve any purpose? Should we abandon it?

Thus spring begins: old
stupidities repeated,
new errs invented

- Issa


I wonder how old Issa was when he wrote those lines? Generally, one must be old to say such things without bitterness or cynicism. Was Issa without bitterness or cynicism when he wrote those lines?

I wonder.

Sometimes with age comes acceptance of the world as it is. But bitterness and cynicism are not acceptance. Instead, they are rejections of the world as it is. So, which do you think is better? Acceptance or bitterness and cynicism? Which is wiser? Which sees more clearly? Which is more life affirming? And which is more conducive to happiness?


My thanks to Whisky River for the quote.

My very beautiful friend, Becky, has sent me these lyrics to the song, Like A Wave (Surfing Zen):

Nothing that was will be again
The way it once was
Everything passes, everything will always pass
Life comes in waves like the sea
In a timeless to-and-fro

Everthing that we see is not
The same as what we saw a second ago
Everything moves every moment in the world
Pointless to escape or lie
To ourselves
Right now, there is so much life out there
In here, forever
Like a wave on the sea.



Lyrics by Lulu Santos and Nelson Motta for music written by Caetano Veloso.


There is a poem about Becky here.

Dear Anne,

Over at the By Virtue Of Release Blog, Mark McDermott has written a brief but beautiful post on dealing with negative thoughts and feelings about people. To quote part of it:

I remembered the other day that part of Zen practice is "taking the step back." Being very human I have negative, unskilful reactions to things that other people do and say. The unskillful way to have such a reaction is to go with it and be caught up in it like a net that drags me along to further negative consequences - anger, jealousy, irritation - you know.

The skillful way is to take a step back and see the reaction for just what it is - my emotions living their life with no regard for my wholeness. Part of the stepping back is to make no judgement of the reaction, not judging it as negative or positive; and not judging me for having it in the first place.

His full post is the best advice on dealing with negative thoughts and feelings about people that I've yet to see on the internet. Best of all, it's short. Go take a gander, think about it, and let me know if I'm right or if I need to swear off the beer before reading other people's blogs.

Paul

Dear Anne,

Over at The Worst Horse, Rod Meade Sperry has written an article on Buddhism and Britney Spears that seems to conclude on the commonplace note we should all treat Britney as a fellow human. Halfway through the article, though, he drops this gem about the alleged Culture War going on in this country:

There's a lot of talk in America that we're living in the main arena of a Culture War: conservatives vs. liberals, traditionalists vs. progressives, the heartland vs. the coasts, the old fuddyduddies vs. the Youth Gone Wild. The way things should be vs. the way they are. On some level that's one bullshit notion, isn't it? Liberty means diversity, harmony. If we're all in this together, then let's all be in this together.

It's refreshing to find someone who thinks the Culture Wars are nonsense. He seems to think so for the right reason too: Liberty implies inevitable diversity, and thus the task of any citizen who wants to live with the benefits of liberty certainly cannot be to condemn others who do them no harm, but rather must be to find ways to live in harmony with others. Kudos to Mr. Sperry for saying it!

What he does not say, but merely implies, is that folks who feel one side or the other must win the Culture Wars surely place themselves at fundamental odds with liberty. You cannot have one side beat the other to a pulp and liberty for all at the same time.

Yet, that raises an interesting question, Anne. Do you think it is at all possible for the sides in the Culture Wars to live in harmony with each other?

Paul