Interview with an American Buddhist Soldier Serving in Afghanistan. Part II.

And, now, the second half of my inteview with American Buddhist Lieutenant Hunnewell who is currently serving in the U.S. military in the war in Afghanistan (to read the first half of the interview, click on this sentence):

4). How do your other soldiers feel about your Buddhist practice?

On occasion I will receive questions about what the Buddhist practice entails and am increasingly receiving questions pertaining to the subjects of meditation and mindfulness. The Army is educating Soldiers more and more about the practice of meditation in order to assist Soldiers with the stressors of combat.

5). What tradition of Buddhism do you practice. Or, do you practice your own version?
I practice in the Mahayana Buddhist tradition and am looking to join a sangha upon return home that follow the practices of Plum Village and Thich Nhat Han.

And, lastly...

6). Is there anything special that we in the Buddhist community can do to help the soldiers, and you in particular? Are they things we could send you to help you practice your faith? Or, any personal items that would improve your time there? Any books?

The Buddhist community could assist with the creation of a Buddhist Field Guide for members of the military which is being created in conjunction with a Buddhist Chaplain from the Navy. The information can be found on www.buddhistmilitarysangha.blogspot.com.

I have an amazing support network with consistent care packages from my wife, who continues to mail me packages even though she is a little over eight months pregnant. We are expecting our first child. I am very much interested in reading the following works from Thich Nhat Han “Savior”, “Chanting From the Heart: Buddhist Ceremonies and Daily Practices”, and “Being Peace”.

PHOTO CREDIT: Ancient Buddha statue in Afghanistan.

~Peace to all beings~

How to write an 300 word article in 7 minutes

Image via Wikipedia

How to write an 300 word article in 7 minutes:

A quick introduction (which is also a good way to fill space): If you’re writing an article in 7 minutes for some of the “pay-for-hits” sites (like Associated Content and Helium), you probably need money way worse than I do. Here are some tips to decrease your article writing time and make the time value of your money that much greater. 

1.       Use bullet points and fill in later:

You should take an example from the way that I’m writing this article. I am writing the bullet points first (which is the main part of the article people read anyway) and filling in the details after. You should do something similar with all of the 7 minute articles you write.

2.       Use easy grammar, common knowledge, and first person voice:

Notice that I am using the first person voice, a present tense, and very common knowledge suggestions for the article that I am writing. You should take a similar approach in your article writing. Remember also to write about common knowledge things. Everyone knows that the Nazis were bad and Jesus was good (almost everyone), so throw that in somewhere.

               

3.       Don’t get stuck on details or depth:

Don’t get hung up on technical details, like the exact rest mass of Hydrogen.  Write about simple things, like aphorisms or feel good stories about your kids puking up their lunch. Nobody reads an article for information anymore – they read it to be entertained.

4.       If all else fails, write nonsense:

Half of the stuff that I’ve written in this article is complete gibberish. However, it is a 300 word article. Also, if I can draw out the length a bit more, then I will have finished it in well under 7 minutes.

Final Time: 6:42 

Related articles

• There's More To Helium Than Meets the Eye (wassupblog.com)
• Learn to Write From The Experts of Three Great Sites (webupon.com)
• Tips for Manual Article Spinning (dailyseotip.com)
• 7 Ways to Improve Your Writing... Right Now (copyblogger.com)

The Treatise of a Burnt-out Buddhist.

The Crazy Buddhist, himself. In the flesh. See? I'm no Buddha--Just James.

This is a long treatise, so to speak of me thinking out loud on where I find myself on the Dharmic path; in a manner of speaking. Or, whatever mumbo-gumbo is the lastest Buddhist slang going 'round. It's a bit of a rant I guess but take it for what it's worth and nothing more, or less. It's simply me in the process of sorting through a lot of spiritual baggage. Some of it I keep, but a lot of it I frankly no longer have use for. I'm cleaning out my Buddhist closets and shooting for the simple and minimal. Enjoy it, hate it or don't read it. I wrote it out to help me put into words what I'm experiencing. I'm not here to appease or please anyone. This isn't a post I'm writing necessarily for anyone. It's just my thoughts that I didn't know where else to put them. So, if you're going to bitch me out then go ahead but I've got bigger issues than whether people "agree" with me. Agree, disagree--whatever. I've got enough work to do besides babysit those who want to throw firebombs from the anonymous, dark, alley ways of the cyber world.

DATELINE: December 19 - Midnight - Colorado - USA - planet Earth hurling through the vastness of space. Here are the rantings of a Buddhist without a Buddhist card.

I'm not interested in enlightenment; it's the sand trap of wide-eyed ideologues. I'm not interested in monkhood as I don't believe one has to leave the world to learn how to live within it and amongst it without letting it dominate your life. I don't really care if Buddha was real or not; the teachings work for me--period. If they didn't work then I wouldn't mindlessly worship an archetype out of tradition and romance for a mystical realm where rainbows cascade from our rears. These teachings are utilitarian; and that's what I like about them. They don't make me levitate, perform miracles or transform me into some Hollywood cliche "wise man" at the top of a mountain.

They help me be a person who is less selfish, nicer and a person with less stress. I'm not a Buddhist because of "Buddha"; I'm a Buddhist because I can't deny the results. I'm not saying I don't find benefit from the symbolism of the Buddha and monks; It's simply that I don't worship them--or, anyone for that matter. I see them as experienced philosophers; teachers who present the self-help system and leave you to figure out what that means to you--if, anything. I don't feel the need to defend my Buddhist pedigree to anyone because, frankly, I'm not too interested in being a, "Buddhist" anyhow. I just want to be a better person, and Buddhism helps me be that person. And, to survive this wacky world without losing my marbles (going crazy).

I'm not interested in being a spokesperson for Buddhism or "Buddhism in the west." I'm simply trying to make sense of the same crap as anyone else. Yes, I do happen to practice Buddhism from a foundation of scientific secular humanism but I don't think that makes one less of a practitioner of the Dharmic path. And, honestly? If it did I really don't have time to concern myself with the sanctimoniousness of people who are interested in such fraternal, fundamental religiosity. I'm not in this for the honor and pride of a tradition. I'm following the Dharma because it helps me worry less, stress less, anger less, relax and just be. I don't have the strength, will power or desire to wrap myself up in a theological pretzel and debate what tradition is the most pure. I'm just trying to make it through life with a little less stress and ability to stop and just enjoy the still moments. Those precious minutes that remind you of the true beauty of life--of being alive in that moment. A profound realization of being at ease with it all -- the chaotic and the serene.

I'm not concerned with the future of Buddhism one bit as Buddhism is just as fragile a construct as the ego. It's a shell that has a role to play but it is the curtains as opposed to the real moments unfolding through the window. I am trying not to take all this religiosity so seriously anymore. If one isn't careful, Buddhism itself becomes a vehicle for attachment and suffering. It's the ego's natural desire to "be apart of the pack." Instinct from the evolutionary days when ego was what kept us alive. We want to be apart of the club. However, after a certain level of gorging upon the outward hipness of the robes, bells, monasteries and shaved headed old dudes, the shine of that unrealistic, wide-eyed delusion that we picture Buddhism should be wears off. The starkness of it dawns sharp peal of the morning bell; stirring us from our dreaming slumber.

It's not the trinkets and esoteric stories that bring one relief from suffering. That's all the decorations on the outside; inside Buddhism is a stark, one room cabin with no heating and no where to hide. The perfect place to slaugther the Buddha--that ego that grabs onto the specialness of Buddhahood. So, if it can't thrive and drive us like usual it adapts to lust after "englightenment" "Buddhahood" or "monkhood." Monk hood, which tends to be a station along the wide-eyed, westerners, pilgrimage to find Shangra-la. Well, I'm hear to tell you there is no such place. There are no levitating monks, there is no old, monk living on top of a mystical mountain, there aren't many people who are enlightened, (which is a word I cringe to use but it's ubiquitous) and the sharp truth is that practicing the Dharma can be hard, long work. It's not for everyone.

But don't listen to me--seriously. Don't listen to the Dalai Lama, don't listen to Thich Nhat hanh, doesn't listen to the 130th incarnation of Buddha himself. In fact, if you see the Buddha--kill him. In other words, don't let the iconography and tradition wrapped around Buddha prevent you from living the Dharma for yourself. Follow your gut and return to the archetype of Buddha; not the legend but the archetype or example. He was alone and on his own when he wandered off into the forest to find himself.

I'm not an expert. I'm not a holy guru and I don't profess to be any better than anyone else. I'm still a beginner after 8 years of going the rounds with my ego. I'm not perfect, never was and probably never will be but the important thing is that I'm "O.K." with that. It's not about being perfect; it's about find a place grounded in reality where suffering isn't gone, but manageable. I'm perfectly content in letting whatever happens after this life happen, however it will--or, won't. I'm not going to spend what precious few days I have left on this curious but fascinating world ruminating over a possible life after this one. I have a hunch that there's something else but I'm not clinging to it. If I die and that its the end--well, c'est la vie!! (that's life). Besides, it's not going to matter either way if your dead and obliterated into oblivion. There's no "you" there to fret over it!!

So, I'm nothing special--I'm just a guy, trying to be better person. Buddhism is like a guide that points me on a grounded direction and the rest is up to me. I wouldn't have it any other way. Buddhism is a way of life for me rather than a trophy to collect and lord over others. I'm happy and working on improving my treatment of others and hoping for the best!! There's nothing left to do except, "be." Once you give up searching, it somehow has a way of bubbling up with-in you; when you least expect it. I've only realized fleeting moments and glimpses of it but once you experience it, you're never the same. But I don't call it englightenment -- there is no "name" that can truly define or convey what those moments of oneness are. It's beyond words, and I've gone on long enough anyway. I'm sure most of you didn't get this far, so if you're still with me--thanks for listening. Stay strong, be brave and don't forget to just be yourself. I love you all.

In Defense of the Kalama Sutra.

My writings lately on the Kalama Sutra being a Buddhist version of the "scientific method" have sparked a discussion about its essence. Found here. And, so, I decided to make a new post using my comments addressing the points of the readers Dylan and Jayavara. Dylan mentioned a discourse of the Kalama Sutra by the Theravadan monk Bhikkhu Bodhi. I won't speculate on Dylan's intentions in posting that link but I do disagree slightly with the Bhikkhu's analysis on the sutra. I want to make it clear that I'm not ascribing any of the following Bhikkhu Bodhi comments as being the same of Dylan. In the discourse, the Bhikkhu seems to reject the idea of using the Kalama Sutra as a guide for knowing when a teaching of Buddha's is helpful. Bhikkhu Bodhi said:

Now does the Kalama Sutta suggest, as is often held, that a follower of the Buddhist path can dispense with all faith and doctrine, that he should make his own personal experience the criterion for judging the Buddha's utterances and for rejecting what cannot be squared with it? It is true the Buddha does not ask the Kalamas to accept anything he says out of confidence in himself, but let us note one important point: the Kalamas, at the start of the discourse, were not the Buddha's disciples. They approached him merely as a counselor who might help dispel their doubts, but they did not come to him as the Tathagata, the Truth-finder, who might show them the way to spiritual progress and to final liberation.

James: I am not saying in my post that Buddhists should dispense with all faith and doctrine because of this sutra. I think you should be balanced with both faith and reason. As for this sutra being specifically for the Kalama people and not applying to actual Buddhists; I would disagree because many who first read the sutra are already Buddhist practitioners. Additionally, to say that certain sutras are only for Buddhists and others for non-Buddhists is a form of dividing people and denying the oneness of all beings that Buddha taught. All of us can learn from the sutras whether we are full blown, card carrying, Buddhist or just investigating Buddhism. To say some teachings are just for Buddhists seems somewhat elitist. All of us come to Buddha to dispel our doubts and answer our questions of life. Not just Kalamas. To suggest otherwise is to say that Buddhists don't need to dispel doubts or answer questions. It seems to suggest that Buddhists already have it all figured out, which clearly isn't true.

Bhikkhu Bodhi goes on to say: Thus, because the Kalamas had not yet come to accept the Buddha in terms of his unique mission, as the discloser of the liberating truth, it would not have been in place for him to expound to them the Dhamma unique to his own Dispensation: such teachings as the Four Noble Truths, the three characteristics, and the methods of contemplation based upon them. These teachings are specifically intended for those who have accepted the Buddha as their guide to deliverance, and in the suttas he expounds them only to those who "have gained faith in the Tathagata" and who possess the perspective necessary to grasp them and apply them.

James: Here the Bhikkhu seems to be saying that the four noble truths are only for Buddhists. How then do you teach someone about Buddhism (as the 4 noble truths are apart of the very foundation of Buddhism) without mentioning the four noble truths? The idea that Buddha would categorize those seeking his wisdom doesn't jive with my own experience and with other teachings of his in other sutras. And I gain that insight from using the admonitions in the Kalama sutra to use (in-part) one's own experiences and observations as a guide. Not the only guide but a necessary tool to help figure out what makes causes less harm and what doesn't. Then Bhikkhu Bodhi seems to contradict himself and agree with the line of thinking that I was expounding upon.

Thus the discourse to the Kalamas offers an acid test for gaining confidence in the Dhamma as a viable doctrine of deliverance. We begin with an immediately verifiable teaching whose validity can be attested by anyone with the moral integrity to follow it through to its conclusions, namely, that the defilements cause harm and suffering both personal and social, that their removal brings peace and happiness, and that the practices taught by the Buddha are effective means for achieving their removal. By putting this teaching to a personal test, with only a provisional trust in the Buddha as one's collateral, one eventually arrives at a firmer, experientially grounded confidence in the liberating and purifying power of the Dhamma. This increased confidence in the teaching brings along a deepened faith in the Buddha as teacher, and thus disposes one to accept on trust those principles he enunciates that are relevant to the quest for awakening.

James: Here he seems to be backing up the idea of using the Kalama Sutra as a "control" to assess further the core of Buddha's wisdom and enlightenment. He calls it an "acid test" (which is a scientific test). Just like the idea of it being a form of the "scientific method." In the end, you have to make up your own mind about this sutra by putting it to the test. Like all of the Buddha's teachings in the Sutras. While I do put a lot of weight behind the Kalama Sutra I also advocate (as the Bhikkhu does) cultivating faith and adhering to doctrine that one finds helpful. I don't agree that the Kalama Sutra only applies to non-Buddhists. If it's not a sutra that Buddhist practitioners should listen to then why is it in the "sanctioned" Pali Canon?

Then, my friend Jayavara said the following when addressing my last post: I think we are in danger of over cooking the (so-called) Kālāma Sutta. Yes, it is a charter for an empirical approach, but to what?. But there are quite a number of limitations on this approach. The Buddha seems to be only talking about the moral sphere in that discourse. He is telling the Kālāmas that they should decide what is ethical on the basis of what they know to be good. There was then, as now in our societies, some doubt as to the basis of morality. Specifically moralities based on ideas of karma and rebirth of which there were a number of variations at the time.

This can be seen in the varied ways that karma is talked about in the Pāli texts themselves, and in texts which are likely to date from near that time like the early Upaniṣads, particularly the Bṛhadāranyaka. The Buddha was suggesting natural morality to the Kālāmas - i.e. that they don't go on ideology, but on "what they know to be right". But I don't think he goes beyond this into the sphere of meditation or wisdom and there we cannot use it as a measure for judging any teachings per se, but only for judging the suitability our own actions. Because of the subjective nature of Buddhist morality - it's all about what's going on your mind when you act - it makes applying the scientific method quite difficult. Science is all about repeatability and on the level of individual actions, none is ever repeatable.

So we tend to look in hindsight, and to try to assess actions collectively. At best it gives us broad brush strokes like: "refrain from acting when angry otherwise you will cause harm, or at least unhappiness." This is indeed the kind of truism that 'social scientists' come up with after years of research, which make us wonder why we fund such 'science'. I've trained in both disciplines - Science (I have a B.Sc in chemistry) and Buddhism. I do find some cross fertilisation. But it's more a spirit of enquiry and observation, than a full blown application of scientific method. And since it is all very subjective, all about knowing my own mental states, the scientific method has little to get a purchase on. In short there is nothing to measure. Learning from experience is not necessarily the scientific method - everyone does it. The only way to know if a teaching 'works' is to try it out for yourself.

James: Just because Buddha is mainly speaking to the Kalamas about karma and rebirth doesn't mean that the wisdom can't be applied to other teachings that one is doubting or investigating. For example, the heart sutra applies to many situations. As does the Diamond sutra and others. I think compartmentalizing his teachings as addressing only the people he is directly speaking to in a particular sutra; and about only that specific situation presented, is limiting the impact of the Dharma. We are limiting the Buddha's scope. Faith also requires us to have faith in ourselves that we can adapt Buddha's teachings to guide us in all situations. Otherwise, none of us should be following ANY of the sutras because they were all spoke to people that are long dead. So how can any of the sutras apply to us if we are to only look at them in the context of who he was historically addressing?

To teach otherwise seems to be focusing more on protecting a particular tradition or dogma than encouraging direct experience based on the faith in Buddha as a wise teacher. As we know, there are many varied schools of Buddhism. So, if it's possible to have such diverse styles of practicing the Dharma then surely it's possible to interpret the sutras several ways. And apply them to several time periods and situations. It feels like limiting the scope of Buddha's wisdom. I would only somewhat disagree with you that all actions aren't repeatable. If Buddha is specifically saying in the Kalama Sutra that testing his teachings will help you realize whether they help cause less harm or not then I think testing them to see if greed (for example) causes harm is pretty repeatable. As millions throughout varied ages have discovered the same reality that greed is harmful using the directions from Buddha to not accept anything that causes you harm.

I don't mean to say that the advice in the Kalama Sutra is EXACTLY like the scientific method. But that there are similarities, which would seem to be beneficial in understanding the wisdom of the Dharma to the modern mind that is so influenced by science. I agree that the only way to know if a teaching works is to try it. Just like the only way to know if a scientific hypothesis is right is to try it in a test. That's why I compared such advice to the scientific method. Again, they aren't exactly the same but both provide a way to test ideas based on direct, concrete actions. I also don't suggest that we should only follow our direct experience and intuition. Of course, faith and trust in our teachers is important as well.

~Peace to all beings~

PHOTO CREDIT: Students in the Emory Tibet Science Initiative take turns, looking through a microscope. Emory University.