Christopher Hitchens on the Why the Universe Doesn't Care About You.

Christopher Hitchens is a thorn to some and a champion to others, but to the cosmos he's nothing. The famous (or infamous, depending on your beliefs on religion) British Atheist is known for being up for a good fight; he now has a fight that is even daunting to his larger than life personality. That fight is against cancer but his acerbic wit is still, thankfully intact. In addition, his daunting challenge hasn't shaken his acceptance that none of us have guarantees in this life, which has prevented him from using too much of his precious days left to ask, "Why me?" His response to that question is almost koan material, which is ironic for not only a committed Atheist but a passionate advocate against religion altogether. To the dumb question “Why me?” the cosmos barely bothers to return the reply: Why not?

It's not an easy thing to admit because it feels like we're losing control over our life. However, this life was never "ours" to begin with, which I think it partly why so many people go through the "5 stages of grief" when facing the exacting, unbending and non-discriminating bringer of death (but also other crises in our lives). It is said that the ego-driven mind goes through 5 stages of grief before finally accepting the inevitable. The stages are as follows: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and finally Acceptance. Interestingly these stages seem to mirror the Buddhist process of accepting the reality of suffering and the impermanence of all phenomena. It's a thought that itches my brain with wondering, "Do awakened people such as the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh go through such a process when faced with death?" The answer chimes clearly like a temple bell calling all to meditation, "No, because if one hasn't accepted the unwavering power of impermanence and the delusion of our ego; how can one be fully awakened?" It makes me wonder too if most Buddhists are better prepared for death than others?

The Buddhist teaching that always comes to mind when I meditate and contemplate about the impermance of life comes from the famous and beautiful Diamond Sutra:

The Buddha asked, “Subhuti, if a man had a body as huge as a mountain, would he be a great man?” “No, Lord. Because “a great man” is only words, and being a great man is an illusion, created by the belief in ego.”

"So listen to this fleeting world:
A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream,
A flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream. --
So should you understand the world of the ego.”

James: And so it is with all things too; not just death. The sooner we accept that our ties to this body, personality, accomplishments and pleasures aren't anchored in rock after all but sand slipping through the fingers of time, is the sooner we overcome suffering to bloom like a lotus in the bright, clear, sky of radical acceptance. Letting go is when we are the most free like a rock climber floats suspended in the mid-air after letting go of a rock wall. If you've ever been rock climbing and been stuck on the rock wall out of fear of falling you cling to what little grip you have as if your life depended upon it. You have to face your deluded mind and make it let go of the fear of falling to free oneself from the panic and fear that is keeping you stuck in an unstable and uncomfortable state.

Just as with life, it is terrifying to let go of all that we know but that rock we are clinging to is not giving us much comfort, which makes us cling to it tighter. Yet whether our mind lets go of trying to control life or not; sooner or later it will have to let go. Christopher Hitchens has let go and is accepting the possibility of death. It must be said, however, that some cancer survivors have said that cancer was the best thing that happened to them. They state that it freed them from a lot of emotional baggage and suffering that was preventing true peace and happiness from blossoming in their life previously. Everything happens for a reason--so let go. You won't regret it because that letting go might just allow you to fly high into the peaceful heavens of awakening.

---End of Transmission---

The Beauty in Science.

I especially like the quote at the end by the fabulous Neil deGrasse Tyson. As well as his quote about the iron in the giant meteor he mentions being the same iron in our blood. Interconnection is so damn cool!!!

That's in part (and the Sam. Harris quote about meditating in a cave like a mystic [or Buddhist I would add] but not making unjustifiable claims about those experiences) why I like the combination of Buddhism and science. Interconnection makes me feel so at peace and in harmony with all that is.

But back to the Sam Harris quote about being able to meditate but not making unjustifiable claims. Buddhist masters warn students that along the way they will experience all kinds of interesting phenomena in their brains upon deep meditation. However, those experiences are still ego trying to make special claims and declarations that these empty phenomena are something other than distractions. They are in fact (most meditation masters will tell you) false horizons/false feelings of realizing enlightenment. So like a diamond we shine forward and cut through all of these delusions.

You know, when I first started meditating and first go into Buddhism I use to think delusions were mainly ones that made you feel like you were worthless. However, the longer I practice the more I realize that often the hardest delusions to overcome and the ones that cause the most damage and cause the most setbacks to my path are delusions of grandeur.

~Peace to all beings~

Society Without God: A Book Review.

I was recently sent a copy of "Society Without God" by Phil Zuckerman to review. The author lived in Denmark and Sweden for 14 months and discovered through personal interviews with average Danes and Swedes that Scandinavia is quite Atheist/Agnostic.

It has been a falsehood heard in many religious circles (especially within the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions) for years that society can not succeed without a belief in a creator god. However, Zuckerman presents his thesis that despite their lack of belief Scandinavians are some of the most socially well adjusted and successful people on Earth.

Some give the examples of the former USSR, North Korea, Cuba and China to try and argue that nontheist societies breed oppression and are not good examples of healthy societal life. However, Zuckerman deftly responds saying that those were/are governments who force everyone to be Atheist/Agnostic:

In each case, religion wasn't abandoned by the people themselves in a natural process over several generations [James: Like Scandinavia]. Rather, the "abandonment" of religion was decreed by vicious dictators who imposed their faithlessness on an unwilling, decidedly un-free citizenry.

He gives several interesting reasons for why secular societies are so stable and successful one of which is education. He found that a high level of Scandinavians are educated and that the higher level of education one achieves the less one believes in a god. And while being an nontheist, Zuckerman makes sure to say that not everything about monotheism is negative. He does list positives of believing in a god/supernatualism. Overall though he paints a very convincing picture that belief in a creator god is not necessary to a moral and ethical society.

It is fascinating in that his argument is built directly from primary sources by interviewing average citizens. This strength, however, does become a bit of a weakness for this book because the interviews become too many and the answers become repetitive. That would be my one criticism of this book.

As a nontheist Buddhist I found myself agreeing quite often with the sentiments expressed by these Danes and Swedes. I have read many books on Atheist thinking and I find it noteworthy that most don't even mention/cover Buddhism in their critiques of religion. In my mind that is because Buddhism falls inbetween religion and Atheism. It's kind of in its own category that seems to have more in common with philosophy and psychology than with strict religious dogma.

~Peace to all beings~

Anti-Conversion Bill in Sri Lanka.

An anti-conversion law titled, "Prevention of Forcible Conversion Bill," is being considered in Sri Lanka's parliament. It is a bill that I generally disapprove of because I believe in the freedom of religion and while I don't personally like proselytism I think it should be included in a country's freedom of religion rights. In a country, which is 70% Buddhist (Sri Lanka) I do not understand how Christianity is such a threat that it needs to basically be outlawed.

In addition, the structure of "Buddhism" itself can be yet another attachment. Without practice and mindfulness a Buddha statue is nothing but another chunk of wood or stone and temples become glorified houses. I'm not saying that such things aren't beneficial and needed but that Buddhism will evolve how it will and if it disappears in a free world then so be it.

Besides, some say that Buddha himself said that one day Buddhism will no longer be taught in this world. Even if I am the last "Buddhist" on Earth I worry not for the Dharma as it will always be reborn in one form or another either here and/or on other planets. And if not then I am confident that it will have served its purpose. I have faith that karma and change will take the course that it must.

Now. That said I do agree with a limited version of this bill if it simply bans using humanitarian aid, education and health care as a tool to force people to listen to sermons/scriptures and be converted. If these services can not be donated without stipulations then I consider that using unethical behavior. It is taking advantage of the needy to forward your religious ideology instead of giving because it's the right thing to do--period. After all my years of reading the Bible and practicing Christianity I do not believe that Jesus would condition help to proselytism or conversion. It is pure manipulation usually of those whom are vulnerable both spiritually and otherwise. It is not right for religions (whether Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, etc.) to use peoples' suffering to advance the interests of their belief system.

Also, I wonder if these Christian organizations will now stand up for the freedom of non-Christians here in America to be free of Christian influence in government such as prayer in school, nativity scenes on government property, etc. As a Buddhist I stand up for them to have the right to proselytize in America and abroad but they need to back off a bit on some of the demands that they are placing upon the American government and other secular based governments. There is no reason that religions can not exist together nor is their any reason that religious people and non-religious people can not exist together. I reject extremism on either side of the spiritual spectrum. Whether it is fundamental Christianity (or fundamentalist Buddhism) or militant atheism.

~Peace to all beings~

Intolerant Christians.

I recently read another article (see the previous one here) on The Buddhist Channel about predatory practices and bullying by Christians in predominately Buddhist countries.

I don't have the slightest intention to put one religion above another, to praise one and to blame another. I'm here writing about the attitude I'm expecting from somebody claiming to be a religious person, especially if he has much power in voicing his ideas. Then I came across Mr. Lothe's article in the UB POST and I did some small research about what the head of Eagle TV is writing about religions, and how much he cares about truth and mutual understanding – and I felt disturbed to see how he is trying to boast about his religion as being superior. Is this a way to solve the problems humanity is facing?

Mr. Terry is living in a country with a long Buddhist history (Mongolia) and where a majority of the people consider themselves Buddhists. He wrote on March 10, 2008: "Certainly I'm no fan of Buddhism. The teachings of Buddhism cannot hold a candle to the life of Jesus Christ. As I've written previously, Christianity is superior to Buddhism ethically, historically, and factually." Where is the respect?

In a previous article about corruption he wrote: "Mongolian society has primarily been informed by the world views of Atheism and Buddhism; but they don't seem to be able to affect the kind of character in society that makes corruption a source of personal shame. If these world views actually had that ability, then one would expect with such a long history here that corruption's acceptability would not be on the rise. The same is true in other nations primarily informed by these world views." Mr. Terry, December 15 2006 Then he wrote: "…they (Atheism and Buddhism) don't seem to be able to affect the kind of character in society that makes corruption a source of personal shame."

Only one remark: It's true that no religion and philosophical system can prevent people from unethical behavior. Just think about all the Christian priests abusing young boys (this kind of behavior can be found in any religion, unfortunately). And think about all the corrupt and cruel dictators, presidents and prime ministers, claiming to be a follower of their religion – for example Mugabe, being a Catholic.

The attitude of Mr. Terry is getting again very clear when he writes: "If a Mongolian wants to be a Buddhist and openly express his Buddhism, let him." What does this mean if he also wrote: "Christianity is superior to Buddhism ethically, historically, and factually." and "As one former Mongolian Buddhist said to me about why he finally rejected Buddhism in favor of Christ, 'In Buddhism there is no love.' Comparatively speaking, he is correct."

James: To say that there is no love nor ethics in Buddhism is to betray either 1). An extreme ignorance and misunderstanding of Buddhism or 2). A blatant disregard for the truth to disparage a beautiful belief system to manipulate people into following your own twisted version of another belief system. Sure you might get some people to follow Jesus but at what cost? Your zealotry has blinded you to the point of losing your spiritual integrity just to add a few numbers to the ranks for your religion. You are so blinded by your lust to prove everyone else's religion wrong and "save" them that you're willing to go against nearly every major tenet of that very religion you claim is so wonderful. Is it really that worth it?

In the end, who are you really at war with, the Buddhists or your own fears Mr. Terry? Somehow he's threatened by Buddhism and I'm not sure why. Maybe you're threatened that Buddhism doesn't believe in a "God" and that Buddhists seem very happy despite that belief. So maybe that shakes your foundation and forces you to face a profoundly deep fear that maybe there really isn't a "God" and that if such is the case that you wouldn't be able to control your unbridled desires/thoughts? But I'm not a psychologist and I don't really want to rip you away from your beliefs. All I'm asking is to be respectful and let people decide what to believe for themselves. If they want to know more about Christianity then let the come to you, they will if they want to know but please don't tear their families and society apart just to mark another "believer" onto your list. These people aren't numbers, they're people that want and deserve the same kind of respect that you want and deserve yourself Mr. Terry.

When Mr. Terry writes "let him be a Buddhist" it means 'let him be a Buddhist, but let him know that he is not that good as a Christian, and that he's completely mistaken.' This attitude is dividing human beings into higher ones and lower ones, into good ones and wrong ones. I think Jesus would be sad to see what kind of game Mr. Terry is playing – playing the 'competition game' with religion.

James: So what is that makes often makes Christians bullies? I know that every religion has them but there seems to be so many amongst the monotheistic faiths. It seems that the majority of religious strife in the history of the world has been caused by the three main monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam). Again, Buddhism has had its problems with bullying too but for the purposes of this post I just want to understand why the monotheistic ones are so often the most militant. I have my own views besides the ones I mentioned in the post but I'd like to read your views. Any insights?

~Peace to all beings~

Lead a Good Life

Whether you believe in God or not does not matter so much, whether you believe in Buddha or not does not matter so much. You must lead a good life.

-His Holiness the Dalai Lama

James: I thought that this was a good quote to wrap up the discussion from the last post on Buddhism and Atheism.

It reminds me of another thing that the Dalai Lama said. He said that one does not have to be a Buddhist to understand and receive benefits from the Dharma. Just as we do not have to be a Christian to benefit from the teachings of Jesus or a Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, etc.

My parents are devoted Mormons yet find parts of the Dharma that ring true to them and thus adopt them into their path. I do the same with the teachings of Jesus--especially the beattitudes that Tim brought up in a comment on the last post.

There is so much that we can learn from each other.

And yet, at many times I find myself playing that game of us vs. them--especially being apart of a minority faith in a very fundamental and loud Christian country that does not have much respect for other traditions. Such energy makes me want to fight the Christians--defend my faith. The self (lower case "s") feels bruised by not being respected and even feels that its religion might be stamped out--and what if it does? Do not the teachings live on in ourselves? In our actions, words and deeds?? Good always has a way of surviving any attempted eradication.

One does not need the structure of an organized religion to do what is right and be compassionate, loving and tolerant.

Sometimes I see religions to be similar to universities (this is a bit of a complicated comparison but stick with me. It should make sense)--they can bring one an advantage in obtaining a good job (peace and happiness) but that is not always the case. No amount of classes or degrees (prayers, dogma, rituals, titles, mantras) can replace diligence, street smarts and real world experience (living a good life--including tolerance and respect for other people different from ourselves for example).

Many people (Atheists for one) avoid college (religion) altogether and still succeed in finding a good life (finding peace and happiness--knowing right from wrong). We must remind ourselves on a regular basis that we never have a monopoly upon Truth.

~Peace to all beings~

PHOTO: A mystical fog surrounds Po Lin monastery on Lantau island in Hong Kong, China.

Buddhism and Atheism

As a Buddhist (if you are) do you also consider yourself an Atheist as well? I guess it depends on how technical you want to get.

Technically Buddhists are Atheists because we do not believe in a God or Savior--we are our own Saviors. The Buddha was not a God but rather was a highly intelligent man who mapped out a path to great and everlasting peace whether in good times or bad.

Being a Buddhist Atheist, however, does NOT--I repeat--does NOT mean that Buddhists are nihilistic (and I do not meant to imply that non-Buddhist Atheists are all nihilists either). Yes we believe that all things are empty but that simply means empty of any independent existence. It is a concept that propels us to act in a benevolent way toward others, animals and non-living things as our happiness is directly connected to the happiness of others and non-living things.

Some Buddhists believe in Amitabha Buddha who is said to be able to save followers and bring them to a Heaven like existence called, "The Pure Land"--Thus the name "Pure Land Buddhism." Do Pure Land Buddhists believe in a type of "God??" In a way they do as the belief isn't about working out one's own liberation but praying to and relying upon a sort of deity to liberate and "save" them. It is a very "faith based" school relying upon their faith that Amitabha will bring them salvation through his grace. Sounds to me like a similar role to that of Jesus Christ. Of course I certainly am not a scholar in Buddhism so I welcome other views and opinions on this matter. I would love to hear from adherents of the Pure Land school on this matter.

Personally I would call my myself an "Atheist Buddhist" If I have to throw dualistic labels around as I do not believe in a personal God. However, I can not prove or say that a form of "God" absolutely does not exist--no one knows for sure.

This dove-tails into Richard Dawkins De Facto Atheist definition (which is where he says he sits--as do I):

There is a very low probability that a personal "God" exists but short of zero. I can not know for certain but I think "God" is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.

The only way that I believe in a "God" is to say that we are all "God." Because, again, understanding the interdependent, interconnected nature of True Reality I believe that if there is a "God" it seems that it would be a force rather then a person. This is because such a force would be so Enlightened that it would have to be beyond all form and definition.

I also believe in a type of "heaven" but I believe it is a state of being--or enlightenment to use that awkward phrase. In other words, heaven is what we make of the present moment and place--not a place outside ourselves. I believe that together we can create a heaven on Earth.

In the end, however, I just do not concern myself with the question too much as I think practicing the middle-way is the most important use of our energy. Nevertheless, I just felt like discussing it a bit today. I hope my ramblings made some sense.

~Peace to all beings~