Adventures in Meditation: The Love Shack

Last year I went to Shambhala Mountain Center to attend one week of their summer meditation program.  Its starts at about 6:30 AM and goes to 9 or 10 at night.  Mostly just sitting which is really my passion.  I got there a day early and my friend LaDawn was attending another program at SMC which was ending and invited me to their banquet and dance.  Yes, we Shambhala Buddhist enjoy parties and we love to dance.  So we're on the dance floor and the B52s Love Shack comes on and its always been one of my favorite tunes.  Great times ensue.

The next day, meditation begins, we're all settling down into the routine of the program and the stillness.  Peaceful.  Until my 24 hour per day internal/built in iPod turns up the volume.  "I'm headed down the Atlanta highway....."  My Mind has decided that todays 24 hour rotation will pick up where last nights revelry left off - Love Shack.  For 7 days it was all Love Shack all the time.  Walking through the forest - Love Shack.  Sitting on the cushion - Love Shack.  Eating Oryoki (formal japanese temple style) - Love Shack.  My Mind spun the virtual disk in a variety of ways.  Believe or not its a beautiful ballad.  Just slow those sultry southern voices down a few beats and Love Shack becomes some type of torch song.  Even the Chrysler that's as big as a whale had some tenderness.

This is not a new trick.  My Mind has played music nearly continuously since I was very young.  When I was in high school there were times in the middle of the night where the music was so loud I couldn't sleep.  I would literally cry. (Now I'm realizing perhaps I'm one of the final 5 from Battlestar Galatica because thats how they found out they were really Cylons.  Eureka!)  I don't hear it all time exactly.  But just a slight turn of consciousness in  that direction and BOOM - instant commercial free radio.  

Its an interesting addition to meditation practice and I think that most people will or do experience it in one way or another.  A friend of mine admits that she use to always hear TV ad jingles when she sat down to meditate.  I never was really too concerned about it but it certainly can be annoying and I had never heard it addressed directly until I was reading Warrior-King of Shambhala by Jeremy Hayward.  At one point in the book Jeremy admits suffering from this same mental instrumentality.   When he asked Chogyam Trungpa about it, Trungpa responded with "You must be very romantic."  Jeremy is somewhat dumbfounded with the answer but his musical mentation is no longer a problem.  On MY being very romantic I will have to tell my partner.  I bet he is surprised! (He's probably not surprised I'm a cylon).

Romance aside I have found several ways that can help quell the cacophony if it becomes too distracting.  One is I kind of turn my Mindfulness to sound.  I reach out to the environment and let sound become where I place my awareness.   It usually moves the music further to the background.  Another method is I  attempt not "listen" to the music directly.  It can play all it wants but like distracting thoughts that arise and eventually cease if not attended too the music will become a bit quieter.  There is no method I know of the stops the music just like you can't stop thoughts.  The music is really just a thought and we shouldn't try to extinguish it nor should we give it our attention.  Meditation is not about making war with our Mind but learning to work with the Mind.  Even when the Mind wants to play songs you absolutely hate!

This musical meditation muddle really became a lesson in how much space actually exist in our Mind.    By paying real attention to how the music can fade in and then drift off when something else arises, another thought or I actually hit the groove of the meditation,  I began to get a real sense of the spaciousness of the Mind.   

And for all that profound wisdom I have to thank a funky song about sexy shack with a tin roof.  Rusted.

Chad Woodland

The Choice

Its interesting and sometimes painful to watch people on TV debate your life.  By that meaning the gay part of your (my) life.  To them its an abstraction yet they feel they are experts enough to want to create public policy in regards to you.  Its really a lot closer to home when you are confronted with someone who wants to debate you with you.  Being we just passed through the holiday season and families are in close quarters I'm sure some of the unlucky "you" had to do just that.

Usually when people want to debate "you" or are stating "facts" about "you" they are using something religious text such as the Bible.  If the Quran says anything remotely anti-homosexual thats probably the only verse those same people would say is accurate.  They ascribe a certain belief that this ancient book that has been used for over a millennia, that has been the reason, impetus, excuse for so much violence in the world is without error.  (Note that at its essence its a book that should inspire hope and love)

Today people can't decide if Rick Perry is going to continue in the Republican nomination process despite news reports and live broadcast.  But we are suppose to live our life according to this book which has been retranslated and re-edited across the course of its very historical life.

But the topic is The Choice.  Those pounders of the pulpit would have everyone believe that it is a choice to be homosexual and by its nature can be "un-chosen."  I have friends that are of the religious ilk that also have brought this to my attention.  Just because you have certain feelings doesn't mean you need to act on them.  That sounds completely logical and is actually in keeping with my own Buddhist beliefs.

So how does one determine which actions should we act upon.  Again I will turn to my own beliefs but I think this would be universal.  Harm.  Any action that causes us to harm another is probably not a good action to take.  In Buddhism we take the bodhisattva vows where we essentially vow to live our life in service to others.  So who is being harmed by living a lie?  Because to deny yourself of who you are is a lie to yourself and its one that you never really believe.

They will try the argument that you may want to commit murder but I would classify that as harm.  They love to pin the pedophile label on homosexuals (more acts are committed by heterosexuals) and pedophilia is certainly harm.  Then we would begin the great discourse of harming society which is so baseless it has ... no argument required.

Who is harmed by living a lie besides yourself - everyone, including your wife if you decide to try that escape route.  I've watched too many marriages eventually fall apart because of that little lie.  It goes without saying about having to explain that to the children from the marriage.  Surprisingly most former couples end us as friends but so much of their life spent  - due to a lie.  I find that very sad.

The lie gets more tawdry if we begin to bring up the results of repression that have become so obvious in the Catholic Church.  Men in an attempt to lie to themselves choose to become priest and completely deny and suppress their homosexuality.  There we find pedophilia not from an openly gay man but from a extremely world denying self hater that is acting out where his sexual development was stymied.   I would say its the same type of situation for people like Jerry Sandusky.  In each case it is an attempt to be "normal" that eventually destroys them.   Here the Choice to lie has had awful consequences - harm.

I think one of the first things that Buddhism forces us to do is face reality.  Don't gloss it over and place blame on something for your circumstances.  There is no devil made me do it escape hatch.  Face reality.  But we find through meditation and study that reality is actually quite different from what we thought.  Reality exist despite our valiant attempts to make it a certain way.  Those moral pundits want the world to exist a certain way and use religion to justify that attempt.  Attempting to force our view on the world is defined as Ignorance and is the subject of the 2nd Noble Truth.  It is why we suffer.

There is a Choice to make.  The true choice is to live your life honestly.  To try not to harm others or yourself.  In fact, its really best to help others and thereby you'll help yourself.  And your not helping anyone by living a lie.

Chad

The 6 Assertions (for extreme Buddhist junkies)

This little Opus was my answer to the final essay of the last module of the class I am taking regarding Tsongkhapa's Great Treatise.  It is a refutation of the 6 assertions implied by other Buddhist masters  as they challenge the Madyamika Prasongika's school of thought regarding Emptiness.  Specifically the 6 assertions are attempts to challenge the idea that things either exist intrinsically (meaning they have a definable, certain, concrete essence) or not at all.   Kay (my tutor of this course and the prior course Foundations of Buddhist Thought) liked everything but thought my example of Happiness as an example of production was a bit abstract.  

The 6 Assertions

This has been the most difficult part of the course so far and I’m not sure that the content is exactly the reason.  The hard part is really narrowing down the 6 assertions because they are not listed as such in the text and Geshe Tashi doesn’t exactly state them as 1,2,3 etc...  So I took rather drastic measures by emailing Guy Newland, reading his book almost entirely again, reading parts of the Emptiness book by Geshe Tashi and speaking to Geshe Jampa.  I listened to Geshe Tashi’s teachings over and over ... and over.  Oh and of course LTK’s Great Treatise.  So I’m sitting here on Christmas eve with the book and Geshe Tashi going through them! 

1. The first assertion is that everything from form through omniscient consciousness is refuted by rational analysis.  Nothing can stand up against rational analysis.   This type of analysis is specifically whether things and events have intrinsic reality.  They are correct in one sense that nothing can withstand this type of rational analysis.  However, things are not “refuted” in the sense that refuted would mean that they do not exist.    This assertion then refutes too much.  

I’ll use this one example and refer back to it as we go along.  We take the object of analysis as a car.  When we begin through rational analysis to challenge the idea of the car by repeatedly asking ourselves questions such as “Is the color the car?  Is the metal body the car?  Is the engine the car?  Is the spark plug the car?  Is the steering wheel the car?  ad absurdum (as the method is known as) we will never find a single element that can be attributed to as the intrinsic nature that IS the car.  The “car” cannot withstand rational analysis.  However to refute to much is undone by taking the example that you walk up and and we decide to go for ride in the car.  If the car didn’t exist even conventionally (ie not at all) then we certainly could not go for a ride in the car.  In fact, we couldn’t reference the car at all because it would not exist.  

1. A noble being’s sublime wisdom which perceives reality (and realizes emptiness directly) would not perceive conventional reality.   While a noble being sublime wisdom does in fact perceive emptiness directly, that doesn’t mean that this same wisdom would refute conventional reality.  If we take the Buddha as a noble being who perceived emptiness directly as our example then we know that he did in fact interact with conventional reality.  He taught others.  He walked long distances.  He meditated under the bodhi tree.  Production existed obviously or he would have never been able to complete any of those task - including awakening.

This assertion deals with production - which is phenomena arising from causes and conditions. The argument is made that production cannot withstand the same rational analysis as assertion one.  If so then production would be truly existent or if not production would not exist.  If we take an emotion as our example - say happiness, which is produced then our opponents would ask if under analysis does happiness exist.  Happiness appears to us in that one moment I am not happy, then I am happy, and then I am not happy again.  If using rational analysis, I would concede that I am unable to pin point the intrinsic nature of happiness.  But that does not refute it because I certainly experience happiness and the rise and fall of happiness as stated earlier.  Happiness also is evidenced by temporary physical changes such as a smile or laughter.  Happiness is produced and also serves as a continuation of the chain of production.

1. The 4th assertion states that production cannot be established using conventional consciousnesses only by noble beings sublime wisdom.  If conventional consciousnesses were valid then why do we even need noble beings?  This is taken from the King of the Concentration Sutra.  But the meaning of the sutra states that these conventionally valid consciousnesses, eye, ear, nose, sense consciousnesses etc..., simply do not the capacity to realize emptiness.  My eye can see a table lamp on my desk.  But the eye consciousness can only relay the information to my mental consciousness for processing.  The eye consciousness itself does not have any way to recognize and analyze the nature of the lamp.  It has no conceptual ability.  However, my eye does relate valuable information to me by showing me the table lamp.  I then can reach and turn on the lamp when it begins to get dark so that I can finish writing this paper.

This on a side note is why Mindfulness and the practices associated with it fall short over all because simply being present (however profound and unusual in today’s society) will not ultimately free us from suffering.  Holding the mind in a nonconceptual state and allowing our sense consciousnesses a more expansive view really brings a wonderful poetic view of the world.  But, it doesn’t bring much understanding of our situation over all.  We just experience it differently.

1. This assertion is in regards to Candrakirti’s Clear Words.   Production is untenable in both the context of ultimate reality as well as conventional reality.  The real dilemma is because we are not given the answer to the question.  “What argument will demonstrate the production you believe in?”  The answer is further along in the course!  Again this actually follows along with the first assertion because even though conventional production is being held as lacking intrinsic existence, it is not being refuted.  It is like the 1st assertion in that regard and reminds me of the 2nd because the critics are taking a slice of scripture and using it to validate their points without giving regards to the meaning of the scriptures.  (Sounds like modern day society)

1. The 6th assertion uses the diamond sliver reasoning to refute all four modes of production.  1) Production must be produced by themselves, 2) Must be produced by Other, 3) Must be produced by neither, or 4) Must be produced by both.  In my example for the question for class, I discussed my confusion here because I thought that we were trying to use the 4 corner idea to prove that production was produced by Others.  Which it seems to - by causes and conditions.  However if you add “intrinsic” to the 4 corners the logic clearly shows that production cannot occur from intrinsically existing others.  An intrinsic Other would never be a result because since it exist intrinsically it would have no causal factor.  Conventionally, if I had the same car from assertion 1 and I ran off the road into a stop sign leaving a large dent in the sign, could you prove the “car” caused the “dent”.  First we already have proven that there is no intrinsically existing car (iec) so this iec could not be responsible for the intrinsically existing dent in the sign.  Furthermore under analysis of the production of the dent, it also could not be proven that the car was the cause of the dent which was the result.  Conventionally then it also shows that it fails the second logic as being produced by others.  Under further analysis could you even show that the car and the dent exist as separate entities?

Again the large difficulty here is because the answer to Candrakirti’s question would seem to be Dependent Arising.  Which is the actual way that production occurs.  Cause and effect is representative of dependent arising but seems to be a grosser level or an over simplification.  In the car/dent scenario above we could not exactly prove that the car is the cause of the dent.  In fact, the car, the sign, the dent, and the other 10,000 things that arose together to create that moment and situation all contributed to the dent.  All things arise together, influence each other and are influenced by each other simultaneously.  (I think)

Chad