Dalits Bravely Embrace Buddhism.

Hundreds of Dalits belonging to Chettipulam, a village near Vedaranyam in Nagapattinam district are planning to embrace Buddhism on December 6, the death anniversary of B R Ambedkar. During September 2009, the CPI(M) had alleged that the Dalits were not being allowed entry into the temple by the villagers. The party organised temple entry agitations twice - on Sep 30,and Oct 14 of that year.

James: I have been watching with interest the continued phenomena of Dalits converting to Buddhism since the revered Dalit Dr. B R Ambedkar converted giving Dalits a way out of the cruel label of "untouchable." In the Hindu caste system Dalits or "untouchables" are considered the lowest of the level of human being. The castes system was officially abolished with the drafting of the Indian Constitution but the tradition is still stubbornly held to by all too many Indians and the discriminatory suffering continues.

Traditionally Dalits were forced into the "impure" professions of: trash collectors, butchering, animal carcass removal and waste clean-up. They are sometimes still banned from entering temples because of their "impure" status. This combined with the political rights movement by Ambedkar has been the fuel that has created and perpetuates the mass conversions of Dalits to Buddhism (to read more about the political and social reality of the caste system, click here). This is all a cursory description, of course, of the very complex nature of the Dalits place in Indian society.

Buddhism was revolutionary and a bit rebellious at the time of its birth in Indian society (and still somewhat today) as it challenges and denies the existence of the caste levels. Hinduism teaches a fatalistic approach to life, whereas, Buddhism approaches it from the aspect of choice. In other words, there is a way out in this life from our present circumstances. Buddha's famous declaration on the matter was, "Birth does not make one a priest or an outcast. Behavior makes one either a priest or an outcast." Buddha himself was born into the warrior caste in ancient India.

Indeed Buddha believed that one's past lives were but one aspect to what determined who we are as a person in this present life. However, unlike the Hindus he taught that we can change this through our actions in this life. We aren't segregated into a less equal status for life simply for being born into a certain family. The caste system doesn't allow for advancement or change in one's existence in this life, and seeing how there are virtuous and less virtuous people in all the castes points more toward Buddha's theory that our personalities are shaped more by our actions than by birth outcome.

In the face of all this I have wondered what tradition of Buddhism are these new Buddhists embracing. As it turns out, their own. Theirs is often an ecclectic form of the Dharma that is based upon the traditional Theravada tradition but borrows as well from Mahayana and Vajrayana. They are very socially engaged Buddhists stemming from their movements political campaign for greater rights in their homeland of India (SOURCE: Queen, Christopher S. and Sallie B. King: Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist liberation movements in Asia: NY 1996: 47ff. u.A.). The eclectic nature and socially engaged focus of these Buddhists is shared within the emerging western, Buddhist cultures, and is in part why I am so interested in its emergence in modern Indian society. May all Dalits find the way out of their suffering -- as may all of us.

~Peace to all beings~

Clinging to a Moment in Time.

I wanted to add some additional thoughts about the current discussion bubbling up to the surface in the Buddhoblogosphere about sanghas and teachers, which I addressed in my last post found here. As you know I support both online sanghas and interactions with teachers as well as the traditional sanghas and teacher environments. I am somewhat bewildered by those who refuse to acknowledge the usefulness of iSanghas (online sanghas). Especially when there are those, which are run and administered by ordained monks!! We have to let go of this idea which bubbles up from time to time that online sanghas and teaching environments are always inadequate.

So if I show up in person and talk to an ordained teacher at the agreed upon building I will get a "better" Dharma than if I interact with the same teacher via chat, phone or video-conferencing? Is the "specialness" (that some "purists" claim comes with physical presence of a teacher) the smell they give off? Is the trick being your smell mixing with their smell? I know that's silly sounding and that's the point because purists are being silly with this issue in my view. Whatever happened to the idea of 84,000 different ways of teaching the Dharma? I fully support traditional sanghas and a lot of other Buddhist traditions. However, we practice a belief system that was developed by a man who had NO Roshi or other Buddhist "Master" to help him. Even ordained teachers who wander the temples and meditation centers will tell you that no amount of interaction with a teacher will enlighten you. In the end it is each one of us who has to do the work. It doesn't matter if a Zen Master stands on his head while chanting unless you do the work yourself. That's not to say that interaction with an ordained teach is WRONG--It's not wrong AT ALL. It's very important and should remain intact but there is plently of room and elasticity in Buddhism to allow for iSanghas.

However, at what point are we clinging to something simply because "that's the way it's always been done?" Isn't being a "purist" in this case attaching way too much importance to the ritual of the student/teacher relationship? As well as the ritual of formal buildings and temples? Don't get me wrong I want to maintain these wonderful buildings and tradition of having a teacher to work with in person. However, I don't see "iSanghas" as a disease that will ruin Buddhism, which is an attitude I see behind much of this hyperventilation over these new developments in Buddhism. The original "temples" were forests. So was the change that would come with the advent of more formal temples with ornate carvings, golden statues and beautiful artwork poisoning the "traditional forest sangha" set-up? What about the great masters who left the temples after a time to study alone in a cave? Were they not "credible teachers?"

Were those caves hindrances to their practice? Tell that to all the great teachers who have come from that tradition, which is especially strong in Tibetan Buddhism. Tell Buddhadharma that the meditation he was doing in that cave wasn't "the real Dharma" because there was no teacher right there to constantly whack him on the back. So my point is that change is inevitable and we seem to be able to see that in our daily lives with learning to adapt to changes at work, in relationships and in all areas of life. Yet I have seen a strange stubborn streak in some practitioners when it comes to change in Buddhism seen here with the virtual sanghas and online interactions with a teacher. Hell, there are STILL people who say that Mahayanist Buddhists aren't TRUE Buddhists!! Some people are still fighting that change, which was a difference that arose ages ago.

~Peace to all beings~

Do We Really Need a Western Buddhism?

This post was inspired by a post by Arunlikhati over at Dharma Folk and by my comment to that post. Arunlikhati's post was regarding Western Buddhism and this idea by some in the west that western philosophy will somehow make Buddhism "better:" I personally don't think western Buddhists would make Buddhism better but simply different and more applicable to their/my culture. As the various Buddhist traditions around Asia aren't better than another (In my view, though some might think so) but reflect the needs and different aspects of their culture.

The term "Western Buddhist" is rather amorphous in my view. Since there is no native Buddhism in America a Western Buddhism would have to borrow much from an Asian Buddhist tradition but, which tradition? Or do we borrow a little bit from Theravada, Vajrayana, Mahayana and Zen (some place Zen into its own tradition of Buddhism)? Yet if we do that then doesn't it risk becoming the soup with too many ingredients, which cancel each other out leaving a odd and not so fulfilling taste?

And who makes those decisions? Will some council meet like the infamous Councils of Nicea in early Christianity, which some argue caused more harm than good. Or will there still be these different traditions but with the descriptor "Western" in front of it to delineate the tradition being influenced by "western" culture and philosophy. That is the option that I prefer and believe the most likely to emerge from the vague and foggy term, "Western Buddhism." For example, I now often say that I am a Western Zen Buddhist and if further pressed, "...as taught by Thich Nhat Hanh" to show that I am a westerner to describe my particular cultural tradition who practices Zen Buddhism.

I use to believe in a Western Buddhism but now I'm not so interested because of all the variables and questions that I mentioned.

I just think that the "western" part should apply only to the western culture and how it adds and influences whatever school of Asian Buddhism that a westerner follows. In this way we are honoring and maintaining as our foundation (the Asian traditions and heritage) but also paying respect and celebrating our western culture/philosophy as a wonderful addition to our particular traditions.

In the end It doesn't come down to any of this--these labels are mere fingers pointing to the glorious moon. It comes down to the present moment where labels mean nothing. However, it is an issue that needs to be discussed and fine tuned because right now "western Buddhists" are like a man without a country or a ship without a sail adrift in a sea of opposing currents and shifting winds.

PHOTO CREDIT: I couldn't find the photographer who took this but this is the site where I found it.

~Peace to all beings~

Buddhism and Abortion.

(Note: These words are purely mine and represent my views and reflections alone. I am not a Buddhist teacher nor represent a specific tradition or teacher) There has been some heated discussion in my last post about whether a Buddhist can be pro-choice (allowing women a legal right to an abortion). But before I get into my views of abortion I think it is helpful to speak to the sutras/texts first. It is true that it appears that Buddha advised against abortion in the sutras and cannons but there is a certain amount of faith that one must have that all of these sutras/texts indeed were the historical words of Buddha. I say this because the earliest texts only go back to the 1st century whereas the Buddha lived and taught 400-500 years earlier.

It is probable that some of his teachings changed over time and some even lost. It is also probable that at least some of the teachings of the Buddha were the work of monks (not Buddha) who came years after his death. And just because one is a monk does not mean that they have the best interests of all at heart. Therefore it can be argued that some of the teachings on abortion and other issues could have come from the minds of others with political, patriarchal or other personal motives. I realize that Theravadans and other Buddhists claim the sutras and texts to be the literal words of the Buddha but many scholars and other Buddhists disagree.

So what are we to do? Well we all have to decide for ourselves and for me I use the Kalama Sutra or Buddha's charter of free inquiry as my measuring stick. In my opinion the sutra exists for one of two reasons: 1). One is that it actually took place where the Buddha advised the Kalama people on how to know what religious teachings to accept as truth. From Wikipedia: The Buddha tells the Kalamas to not just believe religious teachings because they are claimed to be true by various sources or through the application of various methods and techniques. He urges that direct knowledge from one's own experience should be called upon.

So while I follow the sutras in many cases, I also use my meditations, scholarly works, mind-set, values instilled by my family, pondering and personal reasoning to come to that direct knowledge of what I believe to be "truth." I try to use various methods to exhaust all avenues because I do not like to make decisions lightly. 2). The other reason being that it is possible that some monks realized that there were parts of these texts that contradict each other and that faith alone isn't sufficient for everyone. Thus a teaching was needed to help others who are more reason based folks to come to a decision of what the Dharma means in their lives. And thus, the creation of the Kalama Sutra.

Now some argue that the Buddha wasn't saying this method of inquiry should be applied to his teachings but seeing how Gautama was speaking to a group of non-Buddhists surely in his perfect wisdom he knew that they would do just that--apply that very admonition to his teachings as well as to the other holy men and wandering aesthetics. Why would one who didn't set out to start a religion say to those honestly seeking spiritual enlightenment to question every other teacher/source but to not question his teachings and to blindly accept them? And why would an enlightened one be threatened of people questioning and testing his claims on their own? Especially knowing that one can not force enlightenment upon another or give it to you but that it is, in the end, up to you to realize it. That is not to say that we shouldn't place a high importance upon his "words/teachings" when making our spiritual decisions and forming our beliefs because we should.

So now I'm finally getting to abortion, it is because of the Kalama Sutra that I don't agree that we know for sure that the Buddha actually said that abortion is wrong and/or wrong in all cases (It's possible that he didn't even address it. He was known to not answer many philosophical questions and that it was added later by monks looking to set up a codified religion). I say this because the scriptures saying that the Buddha was against abortion in all cases just don't jive with other things he has taught such as the five aggregates/skandhas that make up human life (at least according to the Mahayana tradition and the "Tathagatagarbha" scriptures). Other sources that the five aggregates make up human life: Source 2. Source 3. Source 4. Source 5. I will go into detail a bit about these which are also called the skandhas a bit later but first some information/statistics about abortion:

-Over 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester (the first three months from conception). At two months only half of the brain is formed and while the embryo responds to touch and while pain sensors have appeared, the path ways between the brain and pain sensors are not connected thus most conclude the embryo can not register pain at this stage.

And if you have an abortion earlier (within one month of becoming pregnant) the embyro is only 1/5" and looks something like a tadpole. It has no arms and legs but a tail and fish like gills that eventually become the throat.

Now, with that information let's have a look at the skandhas (the five aggregates of human life/being). I believe in the skandhas because I have meditated upon them, pondered them, can see logically how they would make up life and they ring true to me based on my use of the advice in the Kalama Sutra. So let's see how they match up to the above information which is widely accepted by the medical community:

First Skandha: Form. Which consist of the six sense organs (eyes, ears, nose, tongue and touch) but in order for form to be life there must also be corresponding material objects of those senses. (eyes-visible objects, ears-audible objects, nose-olfactory objects, tongue-objects of taste and touch-tangilble objects). Vision is the last sense to develop and using the Buddhist aggregates there are no eyes yet that can see just holes (according to the world renowned Mayo Clinic eyes are still shut in the first week of the third trimester so a baby certainly can't see during the first trimester when most abortions occur and my measuring stick of when abortions are acceptable) And an embryo (embryo is the name used during the first trimester) can't hear anything (a fetus can hear at week 18-20 which is well after the first trimester and the first trimester is when most abortions occur). There isn't a fully functioning tongue for tasting until week 13-15 within the second trimester. While not unanimous, most medical studies show that a fetus can not feel pain or register touch in it's brain until the 28th week (seventh month). Well after the first trimester when I believe abortion is acceptable:

Fetuses cannot feel pain until at least the 28th week of gestation because they haven't formed the necessary nerve pathways, says Mark Rosen, an obstetrical anesthesiologist at the University of California at San Francisco. He and his colleagues determined that until the third trimester, "the wiring at the point where you feel pain, such as the skin, doesn't reach the emotional part where you feel pain, in the brain." Although fetuses start forming pain receptors eight weeks into development, the thalamus, the part of the brain that routes information to other areas, doesn't form for 20 more weeks. Without the thalamus, Rosen says, no information can reach the cortex for processing.

A nose doesn't even begin to form until at least the last week of the first trimester let alone be able to smell because their isn't a fully formed nervous system or brain to register the messages of smell sent through nerve pathways.

The form aggregate also includes secondary elements. The first are the Five sensory receptors: Eye, nose, tongue and body which we basically discussed above. Then four sense data: These are color, sound, smells and taste. And above I argued that a fetus in the first trimester can not sense these things. Form aggregate also includes life faculty which is the faculty that vitalizes the body and keeps it alive. An embryo in the first trimester (up to week 12) can not keep itself alive without the host body of it's mother. Form aggregate also includes mental base which the mind for Buddhists is not a simple unit, but a complex cooperative activity involving four factors: Feeling, perceptions, mental formations and consciousness: It can be argued that an embryo has consciousness though we don't know for sure and despite that a form must have all four to be considered a life if we follow the teachings on the five aggregates. And since an embryo does not have a fully formed and functioning brain and nervous system it can not register mental feelings, perceptions and mental formations.

Second Skandha: (Sensation or feeling). Which is being able to sense an object/phenomenon as either pleasant, neutral or negative. So given that an embryo in the first trimester doesn't have a fully formed brain and nervous system then they can not sense something as pleasurable, neutral or negative.

Third Skandha: (Perception, conception, appreciation, cognition, discrimination) Registers whether an object of phenomenon is recognized or not (for instance the sound of a bell, of the shape of a tree). This again requires a fully functioning brain, nervous system.

Fourth Skandha: (Mental formations, volition or conceptional factors). This includes all types of mental habits, thoughts, ideas, opinions, compulsions and decisions triggered by an object. Loving kindness is also considered a mental formation. These are not possible in the first trimester due to the lack of a fully developed brain and nervous system.

Fifth Skandha: (Consciousness). It is argued by some that consciousness is present from the minute of conception but that only fulfills one of the five skandhas/aggregates and according to the majority of sources that I've read all five must be present for something to be considered human life. In conclusion, I have submitted in this essay that an embryo (which is the potential human being) during the first trimester does not meet the requirements of all five skandha/aggregates and is therefore persmissable to believe in first trimester abortion as a Buddhist. I do not, however, agree with late term abortions except if the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

So I am for abortion during the first trimester and only for abortion in the second trimester in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk. In regards to the second trimester and rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at risk then I believe the middle path must be used to create these exceptions out of compassion for the mother. This is because the mother's life is extremely developed and would therefore experience more suffering than a child just being born with no life experience or even a sense of its presence in this world.

Imagine the suffering of a young woman forced to raise a child of her rapist or perpertator of incest. She would most likely not be capable emotionally or otherwise capable to raise that child with the love and caring that it needs to survive. Both mother and child would suffer needlessly. And suppose the child looks exactly like the perpetrator, both the mother and child would suffer greatly. The mother would re-experience and be reminded of the suffering she endured by that person with the same face as that child and chances are she'd avoid all connection with that child from subconscious self-protection. And the child would suffer from lack of love and caring on the mother's part.

Of course adoption is a more than acceptable way to go, however, many unwanted children needlessly suffer from being exported from one foster home to another where many foster parents are abusive and only take on the children for the financial gain. And besides, I do not believe it is my right to choose if a teen-age mother wishes to keep a rapist's child or one that came about via incest. And what kind of quality of life does an incest baby have? Most would be born with severe deformaties that would often die within a few months.

As for making the case for abortion in the second trimester and partial birth in regards to the life of the mother at risk the same argument for me applies because again like I argued above, the mother's life is extremely developed and would therefore experience more suffering than a child just being born with no life experience or even a sense of its presence in this world. And I especially support it when other children are already apart of the mother's life. It is not compassionate in my opinion to sacrifice the life of the mother who is the main care-giver of the existing children for the life of a fetus that has no presence of itself and that it is even alive.

The Dalai Lama has said about abortion that it should be a case by case evaluation. I don't believe in a world that is black and white, it simply does not exist. Yes somethings are black and white but there is much grey area too. Simple observation and mindfulness reveals that truth in my mind.

---End of Transmission----

Buddhism is Watering the Western Cultures like Rain Waters a Field of Flowers.

The Buddha compares his teaching to the rainfall that descends without discrimination on the earth. That this rain causes some seeds to grow into flowers and some into great trees implies no differentiation in the rain but rather is due to the capacities of the seeds that it nurtures. Thus, the teaching of the Buddha is of a single flavor but benefits beings in a variety of ways according to their capacity.

- Donald S. Lopez, Jr., Buddhism in Practice

There are many that criticize and condemn the new tradition of Buddhism that I align myself with which is most commonly known as Western Buddhism. I'm more on the Zen end of that spectrum. I know that this is a hot button issue for some so I am going to chose my words carefully and I want to emphasize that I don't profess to be a teacher. In my eyes, Western Buddhism is no different than when Chinese Buddhism, or Korean, or Tibetan Buddhism was the newest tradition in the vast Buddhist community. Buddhism always blends and adapts to different cultures when introduced to that new society but I don't believe that makes it any less useful. Tibetans for example have incorporated many aspects of their traditional Bon beliefs when Buddhism arrived from India. Yet not many would say that the proud Tibetan Buddhist tradition isn't an "authentic" (whatever that term means) form of Buddhism.

In Japan, Buddhism merged into the native beliefs related to Shinto and yet not many would say that Japanese Buddhism isn't "real" or an invalid extension of Buddhism.

The native Chinese Taoist beliefs (and overall Chinese culture) have greatly influenced Chinese Buddhism which became integral aspects to the formation of Ch'an/Zen that is so prevalent today.

Part of the uneasiness with Western Buddhism is that it is still taking shape and it's hard to tell how the exact form will be but one thing is for sure, it's here to stay. I realize the western culture that it is mixing with is different than the traditional Asian Buddhist culture but that doesn't make it any less beneficial, nor does it make it inferior. Whether we like it or not, culture influences the tradition that Buddhism develops into when introduced to a different culture than a "mother culture."

Western Buddhism seems to be developing as an umbrella structure from which slightly more western styles of each tradition are appearing. That's the beauty of Buddhism, it is pliable to everyone and each culture depending on where they are in their karmic journey. It is my belief that we should focus more on the things that we have in common then on the things that we see slightly different because of our culture.

All of this isn't to say that Western Buddhists are "better" but my goal by posting this was to show it isn't inferior either. I think the main thing that unites all these forms of Buddhism is taking refuge in the three jewels, the four noble truths and practicing the eight fold path. Again, I realize that this is a controversial subject for many Buddhists of more established, traditional schools but just remember that Mahayana Buddhism for example was seen as quite radical to the older traditions at the time.

I hope that in time, Western Buddhism will become as accepted as Mahayana has.

~Peace to all beings~