Dang Zang

Coincidentally this article is from the ABC and refers to people in Sydney!

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2010/s2915471.htm

Not astounding, but interesting all the same.

Yes, things have been very slow here. I’ve been preparing to move across the world again, and the move is now due to happen in the next few days. I should resurface in the “land of the moon”, Lunigiana, the northern tip of Tuscany, in one or two weeks time, and I hope that things will liven up then.

Recently I was asked:

Do you think that Tibetan Buddhism (and Buddhism) have been corrupted by Western influences? It seems like most Westerners interpret, or want to interpret, Buddhism as a religion with a much more social-activist and political bent. This is probably partly because most Westerners are pretty ignorant of Buddhism. However, as Westerner who has studied Buddhism in an academic setting but it bothers me more when even those within the tradition (like the Dalai Llama) also espouse such views, which seems to contradict the Buddhist understanding of the causal world as essentially meaningless and arbitrary. One could argue that such social action is justified by the emphasis on compassionate action in Buddhism, but that would be misinterpretation because compassion within Buddhism has meant not improving a personal economic or social position, but leading others to enlightenment.

My answer, for what it is worth, was:

I have to disagree with you, largely at least. Bringing greater social and political awareness into our lives as Buddhists seems to me a good thing. Yes, some lamas are moving in the same direction too, but I would add “I’m pleased to say”. The lama who was first important to me mocks the tulkus sitting on their high thrones (he was and is one of those, by the way) chanting about compassion but not doing anything about the disabled beggar at the gate. And as you may well realize, the “disabled beggar at the gate” is no mere metaphor in this context.
I think I know what you mean when you say “causal world as essentially meaningless and arbitrary”, but I don’t think you can use this to say that the suffering of others is not important. According to the Bodhisattva teachings, it is precisely *because* we take the suffering of others seriously that we take the long path to enlightenment seriously.
And to be blunt, I don’t think it’s true at all to say that “compassion within Buddhism has meant not improving a personal economic or social position”. That would not be *enough* for Buddhist compassion, but it would be the first step.
The first of the six liberating virtues is generosity. The first aspects of generosity is the giving of material aid – food, shelter, medicine, clothing and so on. It goes on through giving freedom from fear, which in the modern world has a strongly political aspect, and means that the Bodhisattva must do what she can to oppose, for instance, oppressive or warmongering regimes. And thirdly it includes the giving of dharma, for which the provision of education is a prerequisite.
The liberating virtues are said to have a definite order, even though they are mutually involved with one another, so it is very easy to argue that without a commitment to social and political ideals we have not properly taken the first steps on the Bodhisattva path.
Buddhism is a part of human culture, and is not static – of course, it cannot be. Some things deteriorate over time, some things improve, and my view is that the increased visibility of social and political activism in Buddhism is a positive development.
Compassion in Buddhism means wanting to do whatever we can to alleviate the suffering of others. It is that simple.

What do you think?

Tony Blair gives us a vivid example of the wheel of fortune. He had such huge support when he gave us in the UK a believable Labour (if only weakly) government. I was a big fan, and I was hardly alone.

Now he has turned into one of the most reviled figures of recent British political history: arrogant, lying and almost certainly a war criminal.

He is also proving to us how out-of-balance the British system is – the political executive is slipping out of control.

We should perhaps all take a moment to consider the value of the Arrest Blair Campaign as described in the Guardian.

So was it hubris? Did he start to believe his own publicity? Did he start to believe that God was on his side? He has fallen – but he should fall further yet.

This news is well-known now, but I wanted to add my enthusiasm:

http://www.karmapa-in-europe.net/

It’s hardly surprising: Apple is purging anything to do with the Dalai Lama from its apps in China.

They should do an app (someone probably already has) to sell to the PRC government that purges the Dalai Lama’s name (or anything else subversive like “Tibetan independence” or “Tiananmen Square”) from any text flowing through the iPhone!

Last night a rather worthy – and not entirely unpleasant – TV program dealt with the run-up to Christmas from the point of view of three different “faith traditions”. My question, therefore, is: “what’s one of them?” The fact that the three concerned were Christianity, Judaism, and a very open-minded, friendly version of Islam did not bring me much clarity. I had an uneasy feeling that the term is being used to sweep diverging beliefs into a dark corner where we need not talk about them, as if they were a  mad cousin who has been shipped off to the mental home.

I do, certainly, realise that “faith” should be about something much more than mere “belief”; reducing somebody’s faith to a mere belief, or set of beliefs, might be useful in primary school, but it does not encourage insight into any mature kind of spirituality.

I find, however, it hard to accept that these “faiths” do not also imply certain specific, possibly conflicting, beliefs. What seems to happen in my own mind, and I suspect that this is what the use of the phrase “faith tradition” tends to do, is to reduce “faith” again, but in a different way. Rather than reducing it to a mere set of beliefs, “faith tradition” tends to reduce it to a set of traditional observances. My picture of the follower of a “faith tradition” (and I know I use brackets too often, but I can’t help also but wonder how many people think of themselves in those terms) is of someone who perhaps has some beliefs at the back of their mind, but these beliefs are held for reasons that have as much, or more, to do with tradition as with intellectual rigour. Once the reduction has been done – I would like to say “emasculation”, but I’m not sure if that word still has the right connotations – we can go on to say:

“Look, this lot light candles around Christmas time, that lot light candles to celebrate Hanukkah, and the other lot light candles at the time of Ramadan: ergo it’s all jolly nice and jolly similar and we can all be jolly friendly.”

Well, of course, being jolly friendly to one another would be a wonderful thing, and there ought to be more of it, and I applaud the points the programme was overtly making. Thoroughly. But I can’t help but feel that talk of “faith traditions” is selling real spirituality down the river.

OBC (Obligatory Buddhist Content): many Buddhists light candles at the time of the full moon in May.