Zen Master Seung Sahn on Abortion.

Previously I had only known Zen master Seung Sahn through short YouTube clips but I was enlightened by what I heard. However, just before we left for a vacation in Costa Rica, I wanted to find a book that would help me stay grounded despite all the activity we'd be experiencing.

We all enjoy fun but given the reality of samsara, even the most enjoyable activity can become a source of suffering after too much indulgence. I don't necessarily believe in fate, (though I do believe in karma) but when selecting a book I couldn't find any of the half a dozen books that I was searching for at the local bookstore.

So, I wandered over to the Buddhist section as is my customary starting point when I don't have a specific book in mind. I perused the various ones taking time to flip through the pages and soaking up the relaxing smell of crisp paper. After going through several books I discovered Korean Zen Master Seung Sahn's book, "Wanting Enlightenment is a BIG MISTAKE."

I immediately performed my test of a book I haven't researched ahead of time. I flipped through the book to random pages to see if it caught my attention. After several minutes passed I realized that I had started reading the book from the beginning, and so I knew my decision was made up. This book is very easy to read but is full of teachings that will have you contemplating even the seemingly simplest teachings. Seung Sahn was never afraid of controversy, blunt speaking or odd language when the lesson required such behavior.

As one of his students said of his broken English, "You had to drop underneath his words to grasp his true meaning." I have found during my nearly decade long practice that the best Buddhist teachings come across in the fewest words.It is full of short but powerful teachings on everything a modern society struggles with. Including abortion, which is too often a topic that is avoided in Buddhist circles. During a visit to Poland a student asked the master if abortion was wrong. Seung Sahn first emphasized the first precept against killing is to be taken into consideration but that hte most important thing to consider in making such a decision is why do you do something?

"So what kind of direction do you have? Why would you abort this baby? Determining that clearly in your mind is most important. Whether or not you go to jail is not the way to decide this. The only thing that must be clear is why or why not you would have this abortion. Of course this baby is a human being. He goes on to tell the story of a person has to decide what to tell a hunter, which direction the rabbit he is pursuing went. "But if your direction for keeping the precepts is to truly liberate all beings from suffering, then you will maybe tell a lie. Our teaching says that you must not kill, especially human beings. But when a bad man comes and hurt many people, a policeman sometimes kills that person. But this policeman is not killing for himself, because of his own angry mind. His action of killing is to save sentient beings from suffering.

Every day, between seven and eight thousand people die from one or two diseases alone. Every day. No food, no clothes, no house. Babies are suffering. Why make all this suffering for babies? So, whether or not babies should be born is not the point. Instead, what is human beings' correction direction? How does this action help other beings? That is great love. That is great compassion.

James: This was my general thesis for being supportive of a woman's right to choose but it's nice to have a recognized Zen teacher underline the point. I believe that sometimes bringing a baby into the world actually causes more suffering for all involved than not. If the baby will simply be born addicted to crack or already dying from HIV/AIDs then to abort them would be in my view the compassionate thing to do. Or what if the child is born but like many become stuck in the cycle of foster homes--many of, which are abusive and neglectful as the parents are simply looking for the check they get from the government to care for the child/children.

Of course, not all foster parents are this way but enough to be a concern. Another concern is if giving birth to a child will endanger the life of a mother who has several children already. Is the life of the unborn child important enough to kill the mother of the three kids already living? In this case it would seem the greatest suffering would be from the several children left without a mother. Including then the newborn.

This all said, sometimes the less suffering choice is to indeed have the child. I like that Master Sahn said not to think about it as "good" or "evil" but why? This is the idea of Right Intention where an action doesn't necessarily cause one less skillful karma if the intention wasn't to cause suffering in the first place. Such as a young child (4-5 years old) who distracts their parent enough to cause a car crash, which kills them. It isn't that child's fault because his/her intention wasn't to kill their parent. All in all this book is amazing and despite it being a quick read it is full of great teachings, wisdom, laughter and insight. It is also a great desk reference book, so keep this one handy in your collection. I've give it 10 out of 10--it really was one of the best Dharma books I've read, and I've read many.

~Peace to all beings~

Thai Buddhism and Ordaining Women as Nuns.

The Bangkok Post, Dec 30, 2009

Bangkok, Thailand -- The forest monks of Wat Nong Pah Pong want the Council of Elders and the Office of National Buddhism to impose stricter controls on Western monks to stop them from ordaining women. They also want the properties of Thai temples in the West to come under the ownership of the Thai Sangha to ensure complete control. The monks are seeking the changes after the recent ordination of two women at Bodhinyana Temple, a branch of Wat Nong Pah Pong in Perth, Australia. The Ecclesiastic Council is opposed to female ordination. The Wat Nong Pah Pong clergy have excommunicated the dharma teacher Phra Brahmavamso, popularly known as Ajahn Brahm, for sponsoring the ordination.

They are also unhappy about alleged negative comments Ajahn Brahm has made about Thai clergy and Thai Buddhism in his talks overseas. If action is not taken, the council fears that more women could be ordained in the West. "Sooner or later, we'll see female monks everywhere," said Phra Kru Opaswuthikorn. He added that the introduction of the Siladhara order, or 10-precept nuns, which was set up by the most senior Western monk, Ajahn Sumedho, as an alternative to female monks in Thailand was also unthinkable. It would be difficult for the Thai public and the clergy to accept the Siladhara order, he said, because the presence of women creates unnecessary problems for the monks' vow of chastity.

James: I'm not a Theravada Buddhist or an ordained monk or teacher, nor am I a Thai. So I'll try to step lightly here and I hope I do not offend anyone. That said, I need to say something about this issue because it has bothered me for some time that there is still a taboo about ordaining women to be nuns in some Buddhist schools. Perhaps it's my western cultural influence but it seems antithetical to the accepting and open minded nature of Buddhism to deny women monastic status. One of the excuses used in this article and heard elsewhere is that having nuns around would tempt the monks too much. Well, monks need to learn how to master their desires regardless of whether women are physically present or not.

They can just as easily engage in sexual misconduct by masturbation or even sex with another monk. In addition, they are tempted with various other desires in their current situation with the temptation to lie or speak ill of a fellow monk or teacher. The desire for theft, anger or even murder can brew in any environment. And what do they do when they have to go out for their alms rounds and happen to see women? Do they run the other way? I'm not trying to mock these monks but I'm just really perplexed. Couldn't they see a women on their rounds and then go back to the monastery and masturbate while thinking about that woman?

We lay practitioners are surrounded much more by the opposite sex than monks and yet most of us are able to avoid sexual misconduct. So why can't monks resist? Isn't that part of their intensive training to learn how to avoid desire? Isn't it kind of impractical and discriminatory to basically say that the only way that this can be achieved is by denying women entrance to monasteries? In a way, it's a statement that men can't control themselves when around women and so women must be denied access to a deeper understanding of the Dharma. Why should women have to sacrifice a chance to learn the Dharma in a monastery simply because they were born with female body parts? And what does it say of men -- That we can't control ourselves enough to live around women without raping them or whatever the case may be? Isn't that kind of blaming the women for existing? Because if monks can't even resist sexual misconduct by even the sight of women then isn't that kind of a false sense of mastery of your desires? If the only way you can resist attaching to desire is to close yourself up in a box and avoid any contact with women then is that real mastery or one that was created by self-imposed isolation alone?

Another point is that despite some initial reluctance the Buddha himself set up orders for nuns (Bhikkunis). Also, other traditions have allowed the ordination for nuns (such as in my tradition of Vietnamese Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh) without any major, systemic problems. As well as Catholic nuns. The sexual temptation excuse seems to be a thin layer of justification covering a deeper issue of sexism. At least from my western perspective. As I said before, I'm not use to Thai culture so perhaps I'm missing something but if the Buddha himself established female orders then I have to question this reluctance by some in the Thai sangha.

What about setting up monasteries that are just for women? Wouldn't that work if the monks aren't willing to share a monastery with women? The only male could be the abbot and if he's older then his chances for a rampant sexual desire would be low. It just seems like there's another way than to just simply ban women from a chance for deeper study that is found in monastic settings. I hope I haven't offended anybody and if I have I sincerely apologize. I am honestly trying to figure out in my mind why this is happening and how we can achieve some kind of middle-ground. After all, Isn't treading the middle-ground the core of much of the Buddha's teachings?

If I'm missing something here please let me know. All thoughts and comments are welcome so long as you remain respectful of others.

---End of Transmission---

The Next Dalai Lama to be a Woman?

In 50 years of exile from Tibet, this self-professed “simple monk” has been the driving force behind the growing prominence of women in Tibetan exile society. He has even suggested that his next reincarnation could and should be a girl. “Woman is more compassionate and has more power to understand and feel the needs of others as compared to man,” he said at a press conference last November in Dharamsala, his exile home in northern India. That the Dalai Lama—believed by Tibetan Buddhists to be the 14th reincarnation of the Buddha of compassion—should return to the world as a woman is a radical notion that perturbs even open-minded Tibetans, men and women alike. And despite his wishes, the 15th reincarnation will very likely be a boy, just like all the prior ones.

In the film he also spoke admiringly about a milestone in Tibetan history known as Tibetan Women’s Uprising Day. On March 12, 1959—just days before he fled his homeland -- about 15,000 women spontaneously gathered in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa in an unprecedented display of peaceful protest against China’s invasion of Tibet.

Those women were “heroines,” says the Dalai Lama in A Quiet Revolution. It was “as if they already knew the feminist movement!” He laughs gleefully as though he has told a hilarious joke. At the time, Tibet was closed to the outside world. To a Tibetan, Simone De Beauvoir and Betty Friedan might as well have been Martians.

James: I find it odd in a way that some Tibetan Buddhists who revere The Dalai Lama not only as their spiritual leader but also for being the very incarnation of the compassionate Bodhisattva Avalokitshevara (or Guan Yin) would disagree with him on this issue. How can he be wrong if you believe his very essence is to convey, show, teach and bring about compassion? He basically has a Phd in Compassion. I think he knows the subject better than most of us. Also, If we are all one then by not allowing women to potentially be a Dalai Lama is to deny a part of all of us.Besides, I have read several accounts where Avalokiteshvara is somewhat androgynous and has at least, a strong feminine side to him. In some cultures Avalokiteshvara is actually a woman in the form of Guan Yin. I don't see why it would be so controversial for the Dalai Lama to reincarnate as a woman if Avalokiteshvara is equal parts male and equal parts female. The Dalai Lama recognizes the deep compassion and nurturing instinct that many women have is essential in a world that grows more and more cold, harsh, mean and uncaring. And I can't think of a better way for the Dalai Lama to teach everyone about the equality of all people than by being reincarnated as a woman.

~Peace to all beings~

Thoughts on Gay Marriage.

The term "traditional marriage" is a modern invention because there has been no such thing as a simple, codified form of marriage throughout history, religion and geography. Besides the examples given in the video, back in Biblical days traditional marriage meant marrying more than one wife. It also meant and still does in some parts of the world that women are chattel and basically auctioned off to the would be husband who has the most goats.

It meant in the medieval period to marry out of status and hope of improving that status rather than out of love. Yet love from another being is what we all yearn for and hope to achieve in this life. Even monks who don't marry express love for the Dharma and the Sangha as well as for the laity. Their marriage is again, not "traditional" but their marriage to the three jewels is no less important and fulfilling.

How twisted have some religious veins become that some people are using them to deny people basic happiness and love in a world that is so full of suffering. Why would we want to cause even more suffering by denying people the right to marry the person that they want to share their life with? Shouldn't we be applauding people who want to commit to honor and cherish each other in this world of hatred, isolation and division? Without love for each other I ask, "What chance do we have as a species?"

~Peace to all beings~