Yoga Piracy and The Bolinas Effect

Earlier this week, the Guruphiliac blog pointed to an article in the Times of India, decrying Yoga Piracy. Said article begins:

India is going all out to save yoga — a 2,000-year-old art of righteous living, from western pirates. Instances of self-styled yoga gurus claiming copyrights to ancient ‘asanas', especially from the West, is now becoming rampant.

You hear stuff like this frequently from Yoga enthusiasts. The teaching of Yoga is being tragically over-run by teachers with the minds of Western businessmen, turning it from the most Sacred Tradition into something akin to a McDonalds franchise.

These sentiments might sometimes be influenced by something I call The Bolinas Effect. Bolinas is a little coastal town in the San Francisco Bay Area. The wonderful natural beauty of the place was discovered by a number of people who ended up moving there about 40 years ago, establishing it as a sort of hippie haven.

Then, as the population increased, some residents began to famously steal the road signs that directed people to the town. Their idea was to save the town by preventing it from being over-run by too many of the common folk. When anonymously quoted in news articles, these vandals spoke in sanctimonious terms, that they were protecting the purity of this heavenly place, from the onslaught of the masses.

OK, OK, there is some point to the vandals' viewpoint. Crowds can ruin a place, and popularization of anything, including meditation teachings and practices, may lead to its degradation in the process of making it more accessible.

That being said, there may also be hints of a darker force behind such sentiments. Isn't it possible that some of these Yogis and Bolinasites have an attitude something like this: "I've found something I feel is really wonderful and special, and part of this feeling is dependent on the fact that so few other people have found it. As more and more people find what I've found, it'll decrease this feeling of specialness."

In case it's not obvious... I recognize this type of mind because there have been times over the course of my 30+ years of meditation practice in which it's been very tempting to think of it as having given me something special. Over time, I've come to question the utility of such thinking.

OK, OK, these ideas of specialness are sometimes useful, especially at the beginning of a meditation practice, since they inspire effort and attention. But great care must be taken from the get-go. If a meditation practice helps one discard 10,000 delusions, and in their place a single delusion grows, the belief that "I've got something special"... I'm not so sure that it's such a wonderful thing.

So here's what I wrote in the comments section of that Guruphiliac posting:

Anony wrote...
> Sure, Indian heritage needs protection.

Can anyone explain exactly what the problem is with the current situation, what it is that needs to be changed or protected?

Here's what I mean. Say I become interested in Indian heritage of philosophy and meditation and such. I read the Yoga Sutras and collected talks of Ramana Maharashi, stuff like that, and find it wonderful.

So I join together with some friends and neighbors, and we gather to support each other in stilling our minds, inquiring into the true self, doing so using teachings and techniques from the Indian heritage.

Is there any concern whatsoever that as my friends and I sit together quietly chanting OM or what have you... that lawyers will burst through the door and slap a cease and desist order on us, telling us that this mantra is owned by a corporation, or that we'll get sued if we continue to ponder "What am I"?

No, there's no chance that such a thing would happen. Whatever's going on in the realm of intellectual property, it's of absolutely no hindrance to any people or groups who choose to pursue interest in the heritage of India.

Now, it's true that if my little group decides to package these ancient practices we're doing and offer seminars and try to make big bucks from it all, then I can imagine some legal problems. But is that (making a profit from the teachings) really the core of their importance? For people who just want to explore the Heritage for the sake of understanding our true nature and helping each other, we're all absolutely free to do so.

So, honestly, where's the problem? Maharishi Mahesh Yoga (founder of the Transcendental Mediation/TM movement) packaged some Indian tradition into a big business. If lots of people chose to go that route, OK, why should it bother me? Let people do what they like. Anyone who wants to simply explore the tradition, the Indian heritage which is now more freely and widely available than ever... can do so, and doesn't need to get a license or ask anyone's permission.

I'm a Published Photographer

In Aug '08, I posted about a Reno trip that was saved by a $2026.25 jackpot. (For my fellow Video Poker travellers... it was quad deuces on a quarter Deuces Wild 5-play Multi-Strike machine, on the top row, where payouts are x8.)

There's a photo in that blog, taken of the winning hand with my BlackBerry. It now appears in the newly-released sixth edition of the online Schmap Reno Guide. Go to

http://www.schmap.com/reno/lodging_high-end/p=138888/i=138888_4.jpg

and click on Atlantis Casino at top of center col. The top of the right col cycles through some photos of Atlantis, one of which is my jackpot. (You may need to keep your cursor hovering over the Atlantis box in the center col.)

Yes, I know this is silly. But as the world spirals towards chaos, it's nice to remember that moment of glory.

Google and Names

I saw the game described this morning by my facebook friend Cory. Take your first name, and put it into a number of common phrases, like:

"Stuart needs"
"Stuart looks like"
"Stuart likes"
"Stuart wants"
"Stuart does"
"Stuart hates"
"Stuart can't"
"Stuart is"

Then Google the phrase, in quotes, to find the #1 context in which it appears on the net.

For example, right now if I Google "Stuart needs", the top site is by prisoner Stuart Pomeranz, which uses the phrase thusly: "...he knows people who know people who know Stuart and they all think Stuart needs his ass kicked a few more times."

Zen Video etc

The TV show Roadtrip Nation visited the San Francisco Bay Area last year. They interviewed some local luminaries, including Political Analyst Michael Parenti, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings... and Zen Master Bon Soeng of Empty Gate Zen Center (where I've practiced for decades). ZMBS' clip is below.



In this new year, Empty Gate just might follow through on our resolution to get more Zen on video. Bill filmed last Wednesday's evening program. Before ZMBS' talk and Q&A, I gave an intro talk, rhapsodizing about the 2004 indie film Zen Noir. (In most meditation schools, such talks start off with stories from sacred scriptures. We haven't got any of those in Zen... but Netflix provides plenty of alternatives.) The talks are on YouTube in 4 parts, the first of which is embedded below.



It's been a month since I last posted. First, I was on pre-holiday vacation with my mother and some friends. It was good to hang out with them, there were some cool sites and a fun morning snorkling, and it was kinda good to be away from the Christmas hoo-hah. Since then I've been busy with my new contract with Gap. It's going real well, but considering these uncertain times, I'm making extra efforts to be especially productive... and less snarky in my attitude. I'll be happy when the economic crisis is over, and I can return to normal.

Thanks to those who posted comments during this time. In the Abortion Politics comments, Doug offers some sane thoughts, and a link to an audio of a Zen talk discussing politics and abortion. In the comments to Adi Da Dies, Morgan writes of his positive view of time spent with Da. It's great that Morgan, who spent years close to Da, has offered a different perspective here in such a thoughtful way.

Zen Master Teachings; Economic Turnaround

As long as I'm still getting some extra traffic from the Adi Da hub-bub... it behooves me to offer visitors something in addition to my own random thoughts.

Here's an .mp3 of Zen Master Bon Soeng's Dharma speech from Buddha's Enlightenment Day a couple years back. ZM Bon Soeng is the Abbot and Guiding Teacher of Empty Gate Zen Center, where I've been practicing for over 2 decades. More of his talks are transcribed here.

(ZM Bon Soeng gives talks and Q&A at Empty Gate each Wednesday night. We've been intending to start video of these sessions to post on YouTube, but are moving slowly with the technical details. I wonder if the teaching of reincarnation makes Buddhists tend towards procrastination.)

The founder of our school, who brought this Korean-style tradition to America back in the 70s, was Zen Master Seung Sahn, aka Dae Soen Sa Nim. ZM Seung Sahn died 4 years ago; as a tribute, the Su Bong Zen Monastery in Hong Kong created this .pdf illustrating his teaching.

In unrelated news... I go back to work tomorrow. I'd been steadily getting contracts from Gap Inc till earlier this year, when management outsourced computer work to India. Now, for the moment anyway, they've decided that I've got something to contribute, notwithstanding the guys in Bangalore.

I got the word on this new contract the same day that the Feds announced the worst unemployment figures in decades. The fact that I'm re-employed is a powerful leading economic indicator. On top of that, I hear that the Mayan Calendar -- the one that points to the End of Time in 2012 -- predicts that we're entering a year-long period of better times. Surely, these Signs indicate that we're turning the corner on global chaos.

Abortion Philosophy

I was over at the Political Junkies discussion of tribe.net (free registration required), where someone asked, "What is it about the right to an abortion that is such a dividing issue?"

In considering such moral issues, the only principle I look to is the Golden Rule. Since we cherish our own existence, we therefore respect the lives of others. But when we speak of doing unto others... the underlying issue is how we define these "others." Even though we consider an insect to be "life," very few of us hesitate to swat them.

The implicit meaning is that we follow the Golden Rule when relating to others whom we perceive as "like me." We don't know what this "me" is, so we (usually unconsciously) define it with our thinking. Depending on how we define our "self," that determines which "others" fall within our sphere of compassion. If I think of myself as American, my full compassion doesn't extend outside my country. If I think of myself as a human, my full compassion doesn't extend beyond my species. In Buddhism, we cultivate the widest possible compassion, extended to "all beings" (i.e., whomever is subject to suffering).

Though the Buddhist goal provides a direction, in practice, few of us hesitate to squash the mosquito that's landed on our arm. We each draw the line somewhere; at some point, we consider the other being to be enough like us to merit protection of life.

At the extreme, some would say that the moment that a human egg and sperm unite, it's a life sufficiently like us to be protected by law. Polling and voting patterns show that this is a minority view, so for the US to extend the right to life to a fertilized egg isn't within the realm of political possibility. On the other extreme, we could say that a human receives the right to life some hours or months after birth. This end of the spectrum has even less support.

So we're left to the debate of where to draw the line. Sometime between conception and a newborn, we need to decide as a society the point to view the developing human as like us, as worthy of a right to life. It's like the necessity of determining the age to allow drinking alcohol or driving a car. Philosophically, we know that not everyone is qualified to handle an automobile (or to consume beer, or vote), magically upon the day of their 16th, 18th, or 21st birthday. But as a practical matter, we need to set a date to grant the right.

From this perspective, abortion isn't a moral issue, any more than driving age is. This isn't an issue of whether or not we honor life, but in how we define a life worthy of protection. The consensus majority becomes less and less comfortable with aborting the fetus/baby as it develops more and more into something/someone that we recognize as "like us."

Like driving age etc, the point at which we grant a right to life will necessarily be somewhat arbitrary. As a practical matter, it helps to choose a clearly recognizable event at which to draw the line. The moment of birth is a convenient marker at which to give the developing human this much membership in society. Even then, we must be meticulous, since birth itself doesn't take place in a "moment." This explains why in recent years, the hot-button issue in the debate is "partial-birth abortion." If we draw the line at birth, clearly agreeing that a newborn baby is a life like us, while the fetus in the womb is somewhat less so... then what to do when new being has only somewhat emerged?

The most interesting point to me is how intimately philosophy and politics are intertwined. How we relate to others is linked to our thoughts about self; considering the abortion debate leads directly back to the great question "What am I?"

Googling Adi Da

I couldn't help but notice that traffic to this blog has increased about 5-fold since I began posting about Adi Da's death. Perhaps I should take my cue from the producers of "Deal or No Deal" and continue to beat this horse as long as it brings in high ratings. To research, I went to Google Trends to see if the number of people interested in Da has spiked.

Da's popularity, as measured by the number of Google searches for "Adi Da," has skyrocketed since his death. Volume has more than doubled in recent days. The magnitude of the upswing, leaving competitor gurus in the dust, is illustrated by the line graph below, found at:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=adi+da%2Cramana+maharishi&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

Da's post-mortem performance is particularly impressive, since the count includes searches for just one of his many names. To be fair, though, we must consider the possibility that numbers for "Adi Da" are inflated by people who really wanted information about the "Adidas" sneaker company.

The #1 city for "Adi Da" googling, by a huge margin, is Clearlake Oaks, CA, USA. I believe this is the location of Da's "Mountain of Attention" sanctuary. The #1 country is Turkey, and #1 language is Turkish. Turkey is followed by Slovenia, Brazil, and Romania, with USA coming in a disappointing 9th.

I can't say for sure what the deal is with Turkey. If in fact there's been recent news regarding the manufacture of Adidas sneakers in Istanbul, that'd explain a few things.

Adi Da dies

Controversial 70s guru Adi Da (aka Bubba Free John etc etc) died on Thanksgiving. My main connection to him is his strong early influence from my erstwhile guru Swami Muktananda. I have a little familiarity with Da from attending programs run by his devotees here in Berkeley; these included some readings from his books, and watching him on video.

I've always been intrigued by how Da was accepted as a super high-class teacher by major writers and philosophers like Ken Wilber and Alan Watts... since his teachings on the whole had so little resonance for me. I've previously posted about Wilber here and here. It was this curiosity about Da's popularity that inspired me to start this blog with a post about Adi Da over a year ago.

I've joined some discussion about Adi Da at the Nonduality Blog and elsewhere. Nonduality.org may be the most lively forum on the topic; Guruphiliac has also added a Da post.

Zen Master Seung Sahn used to say "A bad situation is a good situation." If someone is attached to money, and it's working out well for him, it's very difficult to see and examine and question the underlying attachment. But when a financial crisis hits, the bad situation is an inspiration for inquiry, for looking to the roots of the suffering in our own thinking. Likewise, when a guru dies, the bad situation may be the best time to wonder about our tendency to seek external authority above believing our own experience. That's generally what I've been saying in those discussions.

I happen to have been present in the Ganeshpuri India ashram when Swami Muktananda died. As I saw the devotees scrambling for a new way to project their belief and devotion during those days, it made me wonder about how the needs and wants and expectations of the followers may be the most fundamental part of the equation. (If authoritarian gurus didn't exist, we'd have to invent them.) I've always thought that being in the midst of Muktananda's death-drama was a key experience in pointing me toward a more independent path, which is likely why Da's passing is interesting to me today.

Regarding Obama

I often return to the perspective I got from reading Tim Leary... that the gene pool in her wisdom produces a variety of individuals to meet the needs of the species as a whole. Perhaps the species requires a large percentage of individuals who seek to cultivate stability, and a smaller percentage who explore and experiment at the edge. Or a large percentage of individuals who seek peace, and a smaller percentage itching to do battle when necessary. This would mean that different individuals can be driven by widely different perspectives... without anyone being "incorrect."

For instance, when I look at the life of Zen masters in the tradition I follow, they seem to be people of great drive, ambition, and energy. They were "empire builders." These aren't necessarily qualities that I personally aspire to, yet I realize that without these people with these qualities, the tradition would never have remained alive to reach me. Likewise with political animals. They may require outward-directed qualities that are necessary for the species to flourish... and allow the survival of more inner-directed individuals like myself.

I've heard it said that Obama is sincere about his desire to go beyond the us-vs-them dynamic that's split the country since the hippie-vs-establishment conflict of the 60s. Baby boomers (exemplified by Bush and the Clintons) may be forever caught in this mindset, but Obama speaks to a younger generation. (Obama's greatest margin was among under-30 voters; without his 2:1 advantage in this demographic, he would have lost Indiana and North Carolina.)

It's easy to cast Obama in the role of someone who straddles divisions. He's black, and he's white. He's an American, who spent years of his childhood abroad. He's a Christian, brought up by atheist/agnostic parents, he's lived in a Muslim culture, and appeals to secular humanists. He's a liberal, who surrounds himself with capitalist economic advisers. He's a macho basketball player, who can have the aura of an arugula-eating metrosexual.

No doubt that many on the Left want Obama to be the savior that leads their side to crush their enemies. As someone who hopes for less conflict in the world, I'd like to see him emerge instead as someone who can integrate the opposing sides.

World Series of Poker

The election may be over, but there's still a major contest of 2008 left to be decided.

Each year around June, the run of dozens of tournaments known as the World Series of Poker (WSOP) plays out in Vegas. It's kinda like Ramadan for poker players. It culminates in the "Main Event," a $10K buy-in no-limit hold'em event that in recent years (since the poker boom on TV and the net) has attracted as many as 6000 hopefuls. The explosion of interest has resulted in insane payoffs for the tourney; this year, first place is worth over $9 million. The winner of the Main Event also receives the informal title of world poker champion.

This year, as a publicity stunt, the Main Event was paused with 9 players remaining (the "final table"). The idea was to have 4 months for excitement to build in the poker world, maximizing the audience for when ESPN televises the finale this coming week.

Final table play begins on Sunday. They'll play down to 2 players, who will battle heads-up on Monday eve. ESPN will air the results on Tuesday. I'm looking forward to the excitement, and reading up on the profiles of the 9 combatants on sites like pokerlistings.com.

Hoarding, Desire, and Money

My previous blog entry touched on the issue of how financial systems relate to our current crisis and its associated suffering. In the Comments section, Steven Sashen pointed to the work of Bernard Lietaer. Like the article I'd quoted (Money and the Crisis of Civilization), Lietaer says that the very way that we've designed and defined "money" is at the root of the problem.

As I said in my own Comment under Steven's... Lietaer isn't some ayahuasca-soaked fringe visionary. He has experience that makes his authority far far greater than my own. But still, since following authorities isn't always a great idea, I'd like to explore and question Lietaer's assertions.

As quoted by Steven, Laietaer writes, "most current money ... engenders hoarding and short-term thinking since you can collect interest by having more money now (with the hope that it will hold you over in the future)."

I can agree with this quote, in that money engenders the "hoarding" of value, just as a refrigerator engenders hoarding of food. But is using a refrigerator a negative thing? Is the negative word "hoarding" really necessary here, rather than say "saving"?

We human beings seem to be wired to desire satisfaction in the moment, moreso than saving for the future. When someone wants money to spend now, our current system allows him to borrow from someone who's been saving it, inducing the deal by agreeing to pay a fee for its temporary use. The effect of this "interest payment" is to counter-balance our desire to spend in the present, increasing the attractiveness of saving (vs immediate spending).

This type of marketplace (borrowing money at interest) is condemned by Islam. Maybe Jesus was criticizing this system also, in saying things like, "... do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you." Again, Mohammed and Jesus are just authorities, and it's up to us the living to think it through for ourselves.

This very fact that "money" allows us to store value for the future may be a benefit of the current system. For instance, say I meet a stranger who could use my help with a computer problem. Since I don't know him, I'm hesitant to "gift" my time and effort to him. And maybe he's got no skills or goods that I want or need at the moment, so bartering isn't possible. But because of "money," he can pay me for my help, and I can "hoard" the payback till some later, more favorable situation. Thus, the money system has made it more likely for me to help this stranger.

I don't think that hoarding vs non-hoarding is the issue. Rather, it's why I'm hoarding. Maybe someone saves money so that when his parents are too old and weak to support themselves with their own labor, he'll be able to take care of them using the money he'd "hoarded" earlier. Can we really label that a bad thing?

If my saving is only for me, then yes, it brings suffering. The same could be said about anything I do only for me. Whatever conclusions we reach regarding the best money system, we can always pursue the Big Question: looking into I/my/me-thinking.

Responding to Crisis

I just read this article called Money and the Crisis of Civilization. It argues that the cause of our current global financial turmoil isn't merely “unregulated casino-style financial manipulation.” Rather, our problems arise “from the very nature of money and property in the world today, and it will persist and continue to intensify until money itself is transformed.” It calls for an entirely new world system, in which we “do not drive the conversion of all that is good, true, and beautiful into money.” (Whose opinion of goodness and beauty is he talking about? The author leaves that up in the air. The virtue of a free market is that we can make such decisions for ourselves.)

Lots of my neighbors in Berkeley react similarly, in claiming that the lesson of the crisis is that we need a fundamental overhaul of our economic/political system: profoundly more government control, and less freedom in the marketplace. Supporters of any alternative system can always use bad times this way: (1) things suck now, (2) I have an idea for changing things, (3) therefore, we should follow my idea.

There’s some merit to this “logic.” When we’re born into this world, blank of experience, our brains need to follow very simple algorithms in order to survive. I can see why DNA, in Her wisdom, would program us with, “Whenever you’re in pain, change what you’re doing. Try an alternative – any alternative – and see if it makes the pain go away.”

That’s not bad for a simplistic strategy. But like many of our inborn simplistic strategies, it’s sub-optimal for intelligent adults.

Some say that since a free-market system results in periods of suffering, and is ultimately unsustainable, we should therefore adopt a more Socialist path. This conclusion might be correct. Maybe more Socialist laws would reduce suffering and lengthen humanity’s survival. No one can predict future effects for certain, and such speculation is beyond my pay grade.

My point is that in deciding whether to make changes, we’ve got to put aside preconceptions, and examine both the benefits and dangers of each option. It’s not sufficient to say, “We need to ditch capitalism because it’s painful and unsustainable.” Buddha said that everything is transitory, and wanting anything results in suffering. If this is indeed the nature of reality and human life, then it’s a mistake to reject a system merely because it’s painful and impermanent.

If Buddha is correct, then utopia isn’t an option. Those advocating an alternate system need to go further than pointing to the pain in the current system. They must demonstrate that their particular alternative is likely to produce less suffering.

(“Man’s desires are infinite, but the means necessary for satisfying these desires are limited.” This is the opening sentence of a graduate-level Economics text… but it could just as easily be Buddha explaining the universality of suffering.)

If you put a rat in a cage and shock him randomly, he’ll do all sorts of “superstitious” behavior – running in circles, jumping up and down, doing somersaults. It’s his attempt to improve the situation by doing anything different. And if by pure chance the shocks stop when he does a somersault, he’ll do more and more of them, whether or not there’s a real cause and effect. Human beings can act the same superstitious way.

If I follow you around every day, eventually I may see you make a major mistake. At that point, I can say, “You’re such an idiot! You tried to live your own life, and look at the trouble that caused. If you’d just put me in control of your life, I’d do it much better, and you’d be saved from screw-ups like this.”

But the fact that you made a mistake, and I claim in retrospect that I would have avoided it… doesn’t mean that my way will really work better in practice. It may sometimes be true that you really would have done better with me controlling your life… but is that sufficient justification? Maybe freedom – even the freedom to make stupid choices – has an intrinsic value, and shouldn’t be so quickly abandoned in times of trouble.

We could, after all, reject Democracy because of all the flaws we find in democratic countries. “Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” Isn’t it possible that the same is true of free markets? I could complain about how terrible it is that my job was outsourced, but it’d be even worse to deny the job to the guy in Indian who now does it… and needs the money more desperately than I.

As usual, this is best understood by a gambling analogy. In blackjack, you sometimes find yourself holding a 16 when the dealer shows a 7. You’ll notice over time that when you hit in this situation, you most often lose (since 8 out of 13 card ranks – 6 through King – bust you). Based on our inborn, simplistic logic, we may implicitly conclude, “Hitting here keeps failing, so I need to switch strategies and stand.”

But standing here is a huge error. The key point is that holding 16 is a bad situation, in which you’ll most often lose whatever you do. The correct move is to hit, since any different choice would make matters even worse. The only way to reach the right decision is through careful analysis. (Tangentially… if the dealer were showing a 10 instead of a 7, then standing is only a tiny error. That’s because for those 5/13ths of the time that you don’t bust, you’ll most often win the hand when the dealer shows a 7. When he holds a 10, you’ll often lose in all cases, so your decision doesn’t matter.)

People (including me) don’t like that fact that we get led astray when we follow the feelings and intuition we automatically gain through experience. It’s so much easier and more satisfying to believe that our intuition is Truth, and we can dispense with reasoned analysis. In some life situations (e.g., deciding which friends you can trust), intuition may indeed be our best guide. But not always.

When I dealt blackjack in Vegas, I’d advise players to follow the computer-generated basic strategy available in many books. “There are so many things in life that you can’t understand rationally,” I’d tell them. “But with blackjack, you can. Forget about what feels right, and follow the book.” Sometimes they’d listen, but more often not.

Atheism, Science, and Zen

In the recent Atheism post, Doug commented, "I don't pay much attention to Dawkins since he took up the provocateur robe... Personally I find arguments against the existence God as frail and unconvincing as those for him." So perhaps it's possible to get muddled on either side of the razor's edge, in belief in God or in no-God. How do we navigate?

In the Zen traditon I practice, the fundamental point, the one pure and clear thing, is what I perceive and what I do in this moment. In a formal kong-an (Jp: "koan") interview, the Master might place a bell in front of you and ask, "Does this bell exist, or is it emptiness?" The "correct" answer is to pick up the bell and ring it.

The key point isn't whether you call it a "bell" or anything else; that's just a name. It isn't whether you think of it as existing or illusory; those are just ideas. As human beings, our job is to connect with the just-now situation right in front of us. What can you do?

Making names for the bell, or holding ideas about the bell, is something extra and unnecessary, like painting legs on a picture of a snake. Likewise, names for God (e.g. Energy, Mind, Buddha, Truth, etc), and holding ideas about God... may be a distraction from our job.

How does this whole issue of God vs Atheism connect with how we actually live our moment-to-moment lives? In many situations, we have a choice between following something external (i.e., believing what we're told by an authority, a scripture, or a group), or looking to our own experience. I believe that when Dawkins speaks of "religion" or "God," he's fundamentally criticizing this tendency to believe in an authority. When he speaks of "science" or "rationality," he's fundamentally encouraging us to instead to look to our own perceptions (and understandings based on these experiences/experiments).

From this perspective, I can appreciate Dawkins and the other "New Atheists." That is, I spent much of my life following the assertions of others (authorities religious or otherwise). At those moments when I can put aside all those words and ideas that come from outside, and return to just-now experience... there's a wonderful sense of clarity.

I do see a connection between scientific method and Zen practice. In both cases, we must completely put down what authorities tell us will happen, what we want to happen, what we expect to happen. All that matters is what does happen, what we directly perceive and experience. In Zen, we speak of a clear mirror, which reflects the moment without adding or subtracting anything with our thinking. Doesn't scientific method take a similar stance?

It seems like a natural maturing process, to move away from following authorities and towards seeing for ourselves. As individuals, we begin life by blindly following our parents, then slowly we grow towards believing in ourselves. As the human race, we've moved from superstition and dogmas, and are slowly moving towards testing things for ourselves ("science"). To whatever extent we've made this leap as individuals, we can be available to help others who are ready to do so. To the extent that Dawkins et al are doing this: wonderful.

I'm not sure, though, that there's the need or possibility of completely putting aside following authorities. On my recent trip to Europe, I often found myself in situations where I had no understanding of the language or rules of the surrounding culture. My default strategy at these times was to follow what everyone else was doing. This seemed like the best option, and indeed, it seems like DNA in her wisdom has hard-wired this default strategy into us when we're born.

Perhaps for many people at many times, believing and following is the best option. Perhaps individuals and societies survive best this way... as long as there's a balance: there must also be some people who are experimenting, exploring, pushing the envelope by questioning the conventional wisdom and thinking independently. This balance between belief and doubt may be the natural order of things. That's why I don't always feel the need to consider religion like a disease that would best be eliminated. I may part company with the New Atheists here (though some of them might share this "live and let live" attitude).

Scientific method has been a huge help to me in putting down superstitious/religious beliefs. In ashrams, you'll often find hundreds of people who share a belief, e.g., that if the guru hands you an object, you can feel his spiritual energy radiating from it. It's very easy to fall into accepting such beliefs as truth. Through rational testing though (and perhaps no other method), we can demonstrate that such felt energy is mind-created. It's something like a casino, in which it really feels like you can predict where the roulette ball will land, and almost all gamblers have strong belief in such feelings. Yet rational testing proves such feelings to be imaginary.

On the other hand, Dawkins and his followers often seem to hold out hope that everything can eventually be explained by science, and I can't believe that. Who am I? Why am I alive? Why is there something rather than nothing? Along with Socrates, I'd say that we must ultimately make peace with Don't Know. My original Zen teacher always said that this Don't Know Mind is better than anything.

To add legs to this snake just a little... in Zen teaching, looking for God is like seeking water in the ocean. "God" is a name for the substance of everything; there's nothing that's not God. This means that whatever situation is in front of me in each moment is, by definition, already "God." It follows that I can forget about "God," and put all my energy and attention towards responding to just-now.

Ünintended Consequences

I'm in Eastern Europe for a few more days, trying to bang out this posting at a Prague hotel. Please excuse any weirdness that results from the foreignness of the keyboard; I'll clean things up when I get back to where I belong.

I came here for a Zen conference in Warsaw, and in my previous posting, I wondered why Zenning is so popular in Poland. I've found out part of the answer, which was kinda interesting. When the Communists controlled Eastern Europe, they tried to impose their atheism everywhere. It worked to a certain extent. A Czech guy in our group says that his country is the most atheistic in the world. But Poland was different.

Centuries ago, when barbarians attacked, denizens of Polish villagers would retreat to the local Church, as it was the best fortified building around. They'd rely on the protection of the Church building for days at a time. Maybe that's part of the reason why Catholicism became deeply connected to the Polish mindset. For example, every public schoolroom in Poland still displays a cross; though such Church-State mixing is forbidden, no police force would dare enforce the law.

So the Russians had little success in dislodging Christianity. When the Communists pushed atheism, the Poles responded like teenagers, doing the exact opposite of what the authorities told them to do.

The Russians in turn responded by supporting anything they saw as possibly weakening the Church. Back in the 70s, Zen Master Seung Sahn (founder of our school) had a student in the US who was a visiting professor from Poland. The professor encouraged the Zen Master to visit his homeland. When the Zen Master applied for visas etc, the Communists saw this strange brand of Buddhism as something that could maybe make people question Catholicism, so they smoothed his way at every turn.

In due time, Communism got swept into the dustbin of history. The Catholics maintained their hold on the Polish soul (with the Pope receiving much credit for the fall of Communism). But the stranglehold of Christianity got weakened ever so slightly by the foothold gained by this weird Zen stuff.

Dawkins and Atheism

I'll soon travel to Eastern Europe for a Zen confab in Warsaw. Zen is big in Poland. Go figure; maybe it has something to do with suffering, "the mother of all Buddhas." Afterwards, I'll tour Krakow, Prague, and Budapest, before hitting Amsterdam (of course) on the way home.

(My apocalyptic friends have warned me of predictions of world-wide collapse by the end of this month. Disturbingly, their emails arrived weeks before the current Wall Street chaos. If they're right, at least I'll be in Amsterdam on Sept 30, which will expand my options for cushioning the end-of-civilization blues.)

While away, I likely won't be blogging till October (if we live). Before the vacation, I wanted to share some online sites that I've been enjoying lately.

Richard Dawkins gained notoriety as the author The Selfish Gene, which has been called the best book of popularizing scientific ideas to the general public. I haven't read it yet, but I've developed a fondness for Dawkins after seeing him on TV and the net. He frequently lectures, riding the success of his more recent book, The God Delusion. I've been prowling Dawkins' site, which is billed as a "Clear-Thinking Oasis." Indeed, his discussion boards seem unusually civil and reasonable.

I don't share Dawkins' passion for atheism. I'd say: if we make an idea of God, we then can choose either to be Theists (aka Believers) or Atheists. But why make an idea of God one way or the other? If we don't make God, then the sky is blue, the grass is green, sugar is sweet, and a quarter is 25 cents.

I'm not sure I agree with Dawkins that Atheists must "come out" to resist the great threat posed by Believers. We all know about the horrors that religion has brought the planet over the centuries... but balancing that out is the fact that Believers in general are so much more charitable that non-believers. The power of religious extremism in America may well be exaggerated (and used by the Left as a straw man). Of course there are some extremists, but far more often, the people who tell pollsters that they're religious are likely to follow religion when it's convenient, but will ultimately follow reason in living their lives. (How many Catholics really eschew birth control?)

Nonetheless, I find Dawkins a wonderful speaker with great humor. His arguments against "God" can be stunning in their elegance. See for example this page, with clips from his appearance earlier this year in Berkeley. In the "Part 1" video, around 3 minutes in, Dawkins cleverly mocks the tendency to "suck up" to God. "You cannot have it both ways. Either God is simple, in which case he's not worth worshipping, or he's complex, in which case he doesn't exist." (The entire Q&A and the lecture itself are available online, and I look forward to watching the rest of it.)

The quote above reflects one of my favorite arguments from Dawkins. He says that you can only explain the complex in terms of the simple. The "God" that religions speak of is necessarily more complex than creation itself. "It is an utterly preposterous idea that the God that not only creates the universe -- which you'd think would be something you'd need to have a fairly good knowledge of physics and mathematics in order to do -- not only does that, but listens to the prayers of every one of 6 billion people simultaneously (such bandwidth!), forgives their sins, knows when they're thinking evil thoughts, worries about their sexual proclivities... how could anyone suggest that such a being, who's capable of doing all the things attributed to him, could possibly be simple?"

OK, that quote's a bit over the top, but the basic point is beautiful. Religious people say that existence requires an explanation, but the pseudo-explanation they offer relies on a complex God. This accomplishes nothing. Darwin, on the other hand, has the great virtue of explaining the complexities of the world as emerging from the simpler process of natural selection.

From the Dawkins site, I somehow surfed to "Unreasonable Faith," a blog written by Daniel Florien, a passionate evangelical Christian for over a decade, who has now become an unbeliever and skeptic. Daniel's thoughts on Dawkins are covered in the blog he posted today, "The futility of invoking a designer."

Daniel writes that we put God in the gaps of our knowledge of the natural processes that make sense of our world. As our knowledge grows, God is squished into tighter gaps. He seems to think that ultimately there'll be no gaps left. I don't share that view. What am I? Why am I alive? Why is there something rather than nothing? I can't imagine scientific knowledge answering those questions any moreso than religion. We'll always be left with some choices that come down to either holding a belief, or facing the big Don't Know.

I'm looking forward to reading more of "Unreasonable Faith," as it's unusual to have someone who was so deeply into the world of Believers, and can now discuss that world coherently. It's like, I dunno, falling into quicksand and living to tell the tale.

Finally, the Dawkins site also introduced me to Derren Brown, an incredible hypnotist, magician, showman, and believer-turned-skeptic. I've been watching Brown's online videos with fascination. I'll write a little about him in my next blog posting, which maybe I can squeeze in before departing for Warsaw.

Poker Tactics for Spiritual Life

I'm just back from a successful trip to Reno. Meanwhile, I've been following the latest posting at the Guruphiliac blog, which explores possible misconduct by followers of Ammachi, the world-famous "hugging guru." Like Reese's, I'll now try to bring these two great experiences together.

The Ammachi organization is built on hugs and sweet words about love, love, love... yet Guruphiliac reports accusations of the org using harassment and violence against critics. I have no personal knowledge of the accusations; clearly they're not all proven. But such scandals are well-documented in similar groups.

Decades ago, Hare Krishna gurus preached purity and love of God, while simultaneously engaging in everything from financial scamming to child molestation to murder. In Swami Muktananda's SYDA group, successor Gurumayi would smile sweetly in public, while secretly sending goon squads to harass followers of a guru deemed to be her competition in her quest to amass devotees.

I visited Ammachi once. (I got my hug. It was OK; hugs are generally nice things.) I noticed the followers often acted ultra-spiritual: wearing white pajamas, speaking softly and reverently, rolling their eyes towards the ceiling each time they mentioned "God."

Afterwards, I mentioned to a friend that even though everyone at the event was so very very sweet and nice, I felt nervous and suspicious. "Of course," my friend replied. "You knew there had to be a shadow."

As a poker player, I try to "read" opponents' inner states, based on their outward behavior. Much of what I've learned comes from Mike Caro (aka "The Mad Genius of Poker"), an expert at this skill. I've enjoyed Caro's writing, and found him fun and gentlemanly the time I played with him live.

Caro teaches that weak means strong, and strong means weak. That is: when we have a strong poker hand, very likely to win, we try to fool opponents by acting weak. But since most of us lack confidence, we're afraid that the act won't succeed, so we overact. The way to see the truth behind the appearances is to keep our eyes and ears open to sense this overacting.

It's not foolproof; sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But it's cool when I'm able to "read" through the act, sometimes intuiting the exact cards my opponent holds. It applies to non-gambling situations also. When I heard Bill Clinton say, "I did not have sex with that woman...," his tone of voice, and unnatural pause before the word "sex," revealed precisely that he was trying to hide a blow job.

Whenever a person or group acts a bit too loving and spiritual, it's a red flag. Hell, you don't even have to go to Eastern groups like Ammachi, Gurumayi, or Krishnas. Just consider how ultra-pure Catholic priests used to appear... and the shadow that too often lurked behind.

I can't totally condemn Ammachi etc. If you got to a hospital, you'll find sick people. If you got to a guru preaching love, you'll find people trying to deal with intense anger. It's problematic to deny one's inner anger by covering it with an excessively sweet exterior. But for some people at some times -- perhaps when people aren't ready to confront their inner anger head-on -- such play-acting could be a necessary step in the process. Who knows.

I can't condemn the tendency of devotees to display more love on the outside than they've attained on the inside. But still... it can be useful to understand the dynamic of "Weak means strong; strong means weak." It might just help us make more informed choices, next time we need to decide whether to metaphorically hold'em or fold'em.

Thinking Appears, All Things Appear

I was surfing by CNN cable news and caught an interview with a guy who'd been kidnapped in Colombia 6 years ago by FARC (the group that held Ingrid Betancourt), and was recently rescued in the daring operation by government security forces. He was talking about how he made it through his time in captivity.

Along with another hostage, he'd painstakingly carved a chess set, and would spend hours playing chess with each other. What hit me was when he said something like, "As long as we were playing chess, I was no longer a hostage."

I think I know what he means, a little. I was a decent chess player in my youth. In trying to understand my attraction to the game, I concluded that part of the magic was that when my mind was occupied with the chess game, the world disappeared. All my thinking was directed toward the situation on the chess board; it wasn't just the most important thing in the world, it was the only thing in the world. When the game was over, I'd have to shake myself a little and remember that the rest of the world still existed.

It's similar now with my interest in playing poker, and in other games and puzzles. It's not so different from formal meditation practice. When the mind is merged with one thing, there's nothing else.

The first time I met Zen Master Seung Sahn, it was at a New Year's ceremony, for which he'd written a poem. The lines that have stuck in my mind for decades are

Thinking appears, all things appear
Thinking disappears, everything disappears:
Complete, empty stillness.

I've got no reason to believe that the hostage interviewed on CNN had any interest in Buddhism. That's what makes his story so cool: the people with the best understanding of Buddhism are those with no idea about "Buddhism." The hostage may never have formally practiced Zen, but he naturally found a great secret: regardless of the external situation, the key thing is how you're keeping your mind in this very moment.

Is Meditation Good? Part 2

(This is a continuation from the previous blog, jumping off from the comments on that Part 1 post.)

GreenSkink said... Is it possible for "good" intentions to lead to undesirable results? Does anyone hold intentions they recognize to be "bad"?

Since we all have different and changing ideas of what's "good" and "bad," maybe it's clearer to talk about whether or not the intention is "only for me." Zen-style teaching suggests that a motivation that's just for myself will bring suffering.

When I first started a sitting meditation practice, it was entirely about getting something for me. I wanted to get inner feelings of peace, quiet, even euphoria. I wanted to become wise, holy, and enlightened.

With mathematical precision... to whatever extent my head is filled with "I want," I'm more likely to be ignorant of the needs of others. It's not that I ever intend to be "bad." But if I'm occupied with getting something for myself, there may be people right in front of me who are suffering (perhaps as a result of my own actions), and I won't even notice it.

Sincere questioning of this "I" can reveal it to be just a thought that comes and goes. Less clinging to "I want" can make for clearer perception, and a greater likelihood that I won't overlook or ignore the suffering of others.

"Meditation" may be a tool for questioning the self. It can also simply be an effort to get good feelings etc. If a meditation practice doesn't include strong and sincere "What am I?", I see no reason why someone can't be a great meditator or teacher, while being blind to the suffering of others.

When I'm chasing after what I want, it's like being on a merry-go-round. The constant motion makes a clear view of the situation impossible. The first thing is to step off the merry-go-round for a moment. That means following some sort of meditative discipline, keeping the mind still for a while, using any style or technique. In that pause, that not-moving, there's the chance of questioning the "I."

I guess my current view is that any practice that interrupts the merry-go-round of our usual desires, is better than nothing. But it doesn't automatically cultivate compassion; that only comes when we use the stillness to question everything, our deepest wants and identifications.

Doug wrote... Who can really say that they've never done something less than saintly, "consequences be damned."

Any time I'm caught up in a belief or desire, it's easy to follow it blindly, missing the consequences, including suffering to others. Any type of belief creates this fog. Even my desire to be more saintly is such a want. It may be a good want, but it's still a want, still a hindrance to clarity.

That leaves the practice of trying to keep a questioning mind, in this very moment. If I can sincerely ask "What am I?" and "How can I help all beings?", these big questions can cut through all thinking. That can leave an empty stillness, in which perhaps I can perceive the suffering around me, and respond as best I can.

Is Meditation Good? Part 1

On Wednesday nights, I go to a program at the Zen Center, in which we do some chanting and sitting, followed by talks and Q&A with Zen Master Bon Soeng (ZMBS). One of these days, I ought to film one of these talks, and post it here and on YouTube. (Even though I'm middle-aged, maybe I can learn how to use new technology like the kids.) At the moment, I'll just have to use old-fashioned "language" to talk about it.

In the most recent such talk, ZMBS spoke about the capture of Radovan Karadzic. For those who don't follow the news... Karadzic was a fugitive, charged with war crimes for supervising the murder of thousands of Muslims during the 1990s Bosnian conflict. When he was finally captured, it turned out that he'd been living under the alias Dr Dragan Dabic, and acting as a meditation teacher and New Age health guru.

There are lots of articles about Karadzic's double-life (follow this link e.g.):

In the past week, the two lives he managed to keep separate for 12 years have been brought together – the Beast of Bosnia, one of Europe's most wanted men, and the mystic healer and zealous Christian, Dr Dragan Dabic.

For those who knew Dr Dabic, one question has dominated the past five days: was Karadzic's career as a New Age health guru just an act, or had he become a true believer in the meditation and healing techniques that he wrote and lectured about so passionately?

I don't think that Karadzic underwent a conversion experience, changing himself from Butcher to Guru. Rather, I think that both somehow coexisted in this man: the fascination with meditation etc, and the brutal killer. The article linked-to above muses, "Crucially, his new profession gave Karadzic a taste of the God-like power over people's lives which he had been able to wield during his years as a warmonger."

ZMBS brought up the matter to warn of the dangers of charisma, how we need to be very careful about "following" any teacher, based on his/her skill in talking about meditation. Even a great teacher is like someone with a flashlight. We can make use of what the light reveals, but it's best to avoid faith in the guy who happens to be holding the flashlight.

If Zaradzic could be a successful meditation teacher, and simultaneously be seriously lacking in compassion... it leads me to wonder whether we can consider the simple practice of meditating, per se, as a necessarily beneficial thing. Perhaps the practice itself is not good and not bad; it's a tool, with the effects dependent on the intention we bring to it.

Today while visiting the Guruphiac blog, I followed one of those Google ads on the page to the "Bliss Music" storefront, where they sell CDs touted to bring quick enlightenment:

...after a great spiritual awakening and many years of research into spiritual enlightenment, I found something that can make it easy for you to experience incredible states of peace and bliss, helping you move very quickly into enlightened states of awareness.

In my youth, I pursued meditation to get special states and blissful feelings, and may have been part of the target audience for Bliss Music. Now, any sort of meditation practice like this (which feeds "I want to get something" while ignoring doubt and inquiry) feels like an incorrect path.

But I dunno. Maybe even the most dull-witted stab at meditation can be better than nothing. Maybe any attempt to still the mind for any reason is a necessary first step, and stuff like contemplating "What am I? Why am I alive?" can be left to arise in due time. That's how it seemed to work in my own life, anyway.

In short, how important is the technique one uses in meditation, and how much is it all about intention? I'll ramble some more about this next time.

Early Video of "Magic Mushroom" Trip

Today I learned of an on-line video from the 1961 TV show One Step Beyond:

... director and presenter John Newland ingests psilocybin under laboratory conditions, to investigate whether or not the hallucinogenic mushroom can enhance his abilities of extra-sensory perception.

View the video at this link.

Personally, I don't find the ESP question very interesting. Our ordinary everyday experience of life brings up fundamental questions: What am I? Why am I alive? Magic mushrooms etc may be one tool to examine the Big Questions. This requires no reference to special powers of any sort.

Still, this old video could be an interesting peek at early attitudes towards mind-altering substances, from a time before the modern "drug culture" had emerged. In '61, the spiritual, medical, psychological, and philosophical possibilities of 'shrooms etc hadn't yet gotten entangled with social/political issues.