The Problem of Religion

The Problem of Religion

The culture wars.  The real wars.  Wars since beginningless time.  Most if not all fought for somethings unknowable and to those victims of their oppression and death unreasonable.  What is it about mankind’s nature that insist on forcing our individual religious fantasies onto everyone around us? 

We are all inspired by the naiveté of children.  Their wonder and belief in magic and fantasy.  In immortal elves and whimsical fairies.  Magic powers.  We all loved to pretend we had them.  My cousin and I would spend hours acting out complex dramas centered around some kind magical tale.  Children love fairy tales.  Most fairy tales have a great purpose in teaching us the idea of consequence.  That actions have results.

Religion is often brought into the equation fairly young.  Its impossible to escape its vast reach.  With it comes a different kind of magic and drama.  This one is sanctioned and taught as if its real.    Rather than also being lessons to teach us the difference between wholesome and less wholesome actions, religion becomes a monolithic type of terror.  Her stories attempt to coerce us with the frightening idea that we must accept them as truth or face eternal punishment.  The punishments tend to vary by culture but living on the wrong end of religion usually ends very badly.

It puts us in a difficult spot psychologically.  The harder truth of science is every where.   In the time before real science, religion was science.  But now we know that the Earth is round and moves about the Sun.  The Hubble telescope continues to take breath taking shots of distant galaxies.  The Higgs Boson particle was all over the news.  Science is outing religion for its impossibility.  I remember when I was very young my Mother and I were flying to California to visit relatives.  As we flew above the clouds, I asked my Mom, “Where are the angels?”  Her reply was that they must be invisible.  Even at that young age I found the answer a bit too convenient.  

The larger problem with religion is the demand in absolutism.  The demand of commitment to a belief coupled with idea of eternal punishment for lack of commitment to that belief creates a frightening personal prison.   The person MUST believe and the truth of the matter is deep down inside there is always doubt.  This doubt is demonstrated most apparently by the need to convince others of the singular truth of OUR religion.  If I can convince you that what I’m saying is right then I will feel a little better about my own hidden lack of faith.  Then what I believe must be true because you agree!  Even though I used the same type of coercion to convince you of my point (eternal damnation, threats etc...) and somewhere deep down inside I feel little dirty for that.  Person to person, community to community, country to country, age to age this twisted pattern continues to spin.

The underbelly of this problem is that we are then lead to believe that we are special because we are a “believer.”  We alone are going to the reward - the kingdom of God or Allah or other mystical realm upon our death.  In our self deception and inward deceit we fall into the same kind of trap people with depression.  We believe are special because we are suffering.  Religion often wraps this suffering into a “greater good” ideology.  Just as Christ suffered on the cross...  Martyrdom as some kind of tragic appeal to mankind.

  

I actually have no problem with religion.  I am a very committed Buddhist.   But I think it is very important for people to take the time to step outside their religious beliefs and be objective about them.   It can never be known whether there is an afterlife.  Whether there is a reward in Heaven or punishment in Hell.  Whether we are reincarnated, rebirthed or karma created now will affect us in those subsequent rebirths.  We’ll never know.  Not knowing does not denigrate faith.  It strengthens it.  The problem is fear.  The fear of death is so great we want some kind of reassurance that death is not our individual extinction.  But as a Buddhist I have learned that Not Knowing is in itself comforting.  We can learn to accept and welcome it.  Its really a great relief to accept that we don't and won't ever have all the answers and no matter how far science evolves I doubt we will be able to have all those answers those questions.

Then what is the answer to the problem of religion?  The answer is to live your life according to your faith or lack there of but have the wisdom to allow others the same prerogative.   Don’t be so arrogant to attempt to use your religion to force others to conform to your ideas.   If your truly voting your conscious you won't vote your religion.  Because deep down inside you know that you have your own reservations about your religion.   Have the humbleness to allow for the fact that you may be wrong.   Because you probably are.

Chad Woodland

Pondering:  The Great Doubt

It has been an interesting journey these last few months.  My practice and my approach to practice has evolved over these last few months.  Or dare I say gained a great deal of clarity? 

I keep wondering why?  The great question of Why.  The Great Doubt as it is called in Zen.  My class the Lam Rim Chenmo (in depth analysis of Tsonkhapa’s 3 books compromising The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment) is winding down.  For a time I was nervous of it being over and nothing else on the horizon.  No new great ocean of wisdom to dive into and ponder.   But what we should really ponder ... now is the question.

I’ve always held any type of metaphysics at arms length.  I adopt a skeptical agnostic approach.   Like the Buddha, I don’t attempt to answer unanswerable questions.  If there is no way of knowing whether something is “true” or not how useful is it to ponder?  

I try my best to keep those as open questions.  

An example is rebirth.  The arguments for rebirth are well thought out.  That each mind moment’s principle cause is the mind moment that immediately is proceeding it.  My current thought’s principle cause is the prior thought immediately before it.   That’s difficult to argue against.  Very logical.  The argument for rebirth then would state when was the “first” thought.  There wasn’t one.  The Buddhist term is beginingless time.  There was no “first” thought because all thoughts are simply movements in the stream of the Mind that has always existed.  We step from logic into “sounds good” euphemism.  Its convincing as far as it can go but there is not and I doubt there ever will be sound proof supporting such a statement.  

Tibetan Buddhist argue (pretty sternly) that without rebirth karma looses its potency if not its meaning.  But I have to wonder if thats really true.  Karma again is quite logical.  Its the law of cause and effect.  The same law that proves that each mind moment’s principle cause is the previous mind moment.  That without the 10,000 causes there would be no flower.  That if I stoke the fires and hate and violence in my Mind by allowing myself to act on them they become more prevalent and more uncontrolled.  That if I say something hurtful to you, it is likely that you will not like it.  Karma doesn’t have to be metaphysical to be true and useful.  

The metaphysical part is attached to rebirth (principally - you can get into all kinds of magic powers if you wanted too).  Karma is the force that keeps us coming back into samsara (this colorful world full of suffering).   Karma must be exhausted, used up, including all good karma, before we are allowed to become non-returners.  But if I have done bad things or good things and hence have bad karma or good karma when I die... isn’t death enough of a repayment (for doing good things its a bit harsh)?  Is this life of samsara so awful its a punishment worse than death?  Thats worth a ponder.  

I’ve meditated for quite a while.  For about 8 years in the kriya yoga format working with chakras and now about 17 years in different forms of Buddhist meditation.  The one that rings the truest for me is skikantaza - or just sitting.  Following and then not following the breath.  Just sitting in awareness without focusing on any particular object.  Thoughts are initially disturbing but then become like quite murmurs in the dark.  Just as I sit here and type and do not “not” listen to the music playing, I do not “not” pay attention to those thoughts.  Sure we all get caught by them constantly and drift off into mental oblivion but we remember and come back to just that place we are occupying right now.  I attempt to follow this practice through out my day.  Always attempting to wake up to the magnificence of the ordinary right now.  

There are thousands of meditation types.  From elaborate tantras that by visualizing yourself as a diety, you radiate and embody that diety’s vast qualities to concentrating single pointedly on a spot of your body.  Or the grace inspired by prayers to an Other?All of them are useful and wonderful but none has ever resonated with me more than just sitting.  Once again in the face of so many choices I have to ponder what is real.  What connects me most to the blood and bone of the human condition?  How necessary is it to create a magical sacredness when sacredness exist already? Some would say that we need to begin with the magical to train ourselves to larger views.  I have to ponder that.

As I look outside at the desert mountains with its austerity and profound beauty I have to wonder why do we feel we need anything else?  The world is so beautiful and so full of an ordinary magic that it doesn’t require any type of metaphysical overlay.   I often ponder how wonderful it would be to be one of those people that readily dives into magical realms with acceptance.  But to me that would be just another delusion.  And as the Vow goes “Delusions are inexhaustable and I vow to end them.  Or at least ponder the possibilities.

Oh.  The other day I got a message from my boss about my new partner at work (the pharmacist I will work with).  Her name is Saka.  The date was was June 4th - which happens to be the Buddhist holiday of Saka Dawa - the day celebrating the Buddhist birth, enlighenment and parinirvana.   So maybe there is something else to ponder.

Chad

Not Submitted for Your Approval

Yesterday in what can only be described as historic the President of the United States came out on the side of gay marriage.  What a change from his predecessor who came out against gay marriage before it was even really talked about. 

It has always seemed strange to me that my life and sense of self-worth should be dependent upon someone else’s judgement and approval.  Its a paradox of the Judeo-Christian society we are (hopefully) evolving out of.  The Christianity predominating society today is one of judgement.  When the Pope castigates a group of nuns for helping the poor and the sick instead of supporting his anti-social initiatives one has to wonder how much value is left in that religion?

Most people I know are uncomfortable simply dismissing Christianity.  It is too woven into the fabric of our psyche.  Too ingrained too deeply that its “right” and hence people disillusioned with the church end up coming off as apologist making excuses for the bile and vitriol so often spewing from the pulpit.  Or they want to have polemical debates about what the Bible really says regarding homosexuality.  Truthfully, I don’t care.  

My parents never attended church but would ship me off with our neighbors.  I would go through times of being very devoted and then for six months I wouldn’t go at all.  I loved vacation bible school because it rescued me from working on our farm for a week while I got to make arts and crafts projects such as a cross out of burned matches and memorizing bible verses.  I also loved singing hymns because I loved to sing not because I resonated with any of the words.  Baptist hymnals tend to be depressing.  

My being gay was evident enough at the age of five for my Mother to sit me down and tell me it was unnatural to play with girls.  I couldn’t help it.  We had so much fun!  I never really understood the humor of boys or the need to get dirty and play sports.  As I got older, the other kids got older too.  Growing up wasn’t much fun.  In fact, it was extremely painful and every day I’m surprised I made it.

My partner and I have been together 17 years.  The same number of years that I have been a practicing Buddhist.  Once when we were walking into a movie theatre in Plano, Texas a group of high school kids yelled “FAGS” at us.  We’ve had a few occasions of not just bad service but obviously “disapproving” service.   There were some big bumps when it came to his and my family adjusting to “us” but now everyone is fine.  So for the most part I would say that we’ve always been treated very well.  I have friends that are mixed couples (black and white) who have had it much worse.  

Christianity teaches that we are all fallen.  We are all fundamentally flawed.  Buddhism teaches that we are all perfect that it is the learned obscurations that cloud our true nature.  Christianity teaches that only Jesus can save us - only other can approve of us.  Buddha teaches that only we can save ourselves.  That the work that must be done is our own.  It is up to us to decide how to proceed in this life.  There is consequence but ultimately we decide on our actions.

I have a friend who is very religious and very opposed to gay anything.  He told me that in this country I can vote my conscious and he will vote his and whoever wins the vote - wins the argument.  I wondered how the Christians felt about that when they were being fed to the lions in Rome.  The marjority of Romans must have supported feeding Christians to the lions so therefore it was ok to do so.  That is the logic employed.  However religious fervor and logic rarely walk hand in hand.

The President should be applauded for his support of gay marriage.  Regardless of your political affiliation it took a tremendous amount of courage.  IF it is ever legal I certainly plan on getting married with a Buddhist ceremony of course.  J really wants to get married.  I’m honestly a bit uncomfortable with the theatrics of the ceremony and I’m not wearing white.  But then again my life, our lives, are not submitted for your approval.

Chad

Ignorance

This was my Essay describing  Lama Tsongkhapa's Chapter 17 in Great Treatise on the Path of Enlightenmnet Book 3.  In this chapter Tsongkhapa is pointing out the actual object of negation.   The essay was to explain Tsongkhapa's approach to someone who was not familiar with the Prasangika view and/or methodology.   

All of Buddhism can be summarized in the initial teachings given by the Buddha at Deer Park - The 4 Noble Truths.  Despite how lofty our view or how intricate our explanation we still always come back to these 4 very simple and earth shaking ideas.  

1. There is suffering
2. There is a cause of suffering - ignorance
3. There is cessation from suffering - nirvana
4. There is a path that leads to the cessation of suffering

At all times, at the heart of Buddhism is the recognition of our state in samsara and the quest to find its release.  To do this we must understand the true cause of this suffering which is ignorance.  It is extremely interesting that this is “mostly” central to all schools of Buddhism and how divergent humanity has answered this riddle of what is ignorance.

Ignorance - the fact that we do not see the world correctly but instead through our own rose colored distortions of self/other, grasping/aversion, and ignorance.  Theravadan, Zen/Chan, all 4 Tibetans schools - all hold this central tenet but the approaches are vastly different.

LTK and the Gelugs are the closest to holding to the original teachings of the Indian tradition and Nalanda.   Hence the ignorance quest is kept very central to their approach.  That it can be “solved” or understood under analysis and that only through utilizing all the tools we possess which includes the very conceptual mind that in a sense can be seen as the cause of our problems to begin with.  If we discount the Mind what tools are we left with?  

Ignorance, the second noble truth, is also the first link in the chain of dependent origination.  From ignorance comes karma, consciousness .. and the rest of the chain which leads ultimately to death and rebirth and back to ignorance.  

So what is this ignorance?  We defined it above but that definition can be seen as course or overly broad.  We learned in the Foundations course in Buddhist psychology that there are two principle types of ignorance - learned and innate.  Learned ignorance is principally those ideas we have developed in this life.   Cultural ignorance due to customs, religion, painful childhoods, parents, teachers, - our environment.  Innate ignorance falls much deeper and from traditional Buddhist text lie deep in our Mind stream and are ideas we have learned and carried with us as habitual patterns since our beginningless existence.  

Certainly learned ignorance causes problems for us in this life.  Discrimination, racism, etc... are examples.  But these can also be unlearned.  Innate ignorance is so subtle and yet exerts an extremely powerful influence on us that we rarely notice.  Rarely, but as we study/contemplate/analyze it we can begin to see ignorance more clearly.  

This idea of ignorance first taught by the Buddha  was selflessness.  The fact that there is no singular, self perpetuating self.  Central to Buddhism this idea is almost universally accepted.  But what does this mean?

The answer is so clear in the beginning of our Buddhist journeys.  Impermanence, the ever changing elements of our existence - the second form of suffering.  Its a breath of fresh air that we seemed to have always known but our culture prefers the idea of a ME and we are taught that counter intuitive selfishness instead.  

If we go deeper into the Buddhist journey we come across another central tenet that is often spoken about to the point of Buddhist pop culture - Emptiness.  Thich Nhat Hanh’s great contribution to western dharma is his simple, elegant, explanation of Dependent Arising.  Which is noted by the Prasangika’s as the first level of emptiness.  That all things arise in dependence upon each other.  The flower would not be a flower without water, earth, worms, minerals, sun light, wind, birds, etc.. all the way to the Big Bang.  

But we must bring this to a much bigger space in our Mind.  All those things that we state that are factors to the flowers existence are also dependent upon another 10,000 things which are also empty and rely on another 10,000 things.  Through the elucidation of Emptiness by these great scholars (and ultimately the Buddha himself) we see how the entire universe exist in this amazing balanced state of dependent arising.  Everything arises in dependence upon everything. 

Innate ignorance though is not necessarily being ignorant of dependent arising.  Dependent arising is more of a physics fact  - like gravity.  We do not stumble in the thick fog of samsara simply because we have not been taught dependent arising.  This innate ignorance is much more subtle and insidious.

We can accept the idea and usually embrace the idea of a fundamental lack of inherent self or intrinsic existence.  But what does that mean?  LTK’s principle quest in Chapter 17 is the elucidation of the actual object of negation.  Which means very basically - finding the fundamental flaw that is the concept of intrinsic existence.   Where does the idea come from?  On its deepest levels THAT idea of intrinsic existence is the innate ignorance that must be brought into the light and disproven.

If we simply go with the idea that “yes, i have no intrinsically existing self” that is a first step but at this point we are simply creating another conception.  We analyze and negate this concept we have of what is this self that is intrinsically existent.  But this Buddhist concept of non inherently existing self is not the deep innate ignorance that we view the world from.  We have to go much deeper to begin to realize the truth.

But in the beginning we can only begin to look at Emptiness from a conceptual framework and recognizing this “negation of the idealized conceptual intrinsic existence” is a first step.  Then we must also turn outward as well as inward.  This conceptual self Prasangika refer to as “merely labelled” as we learned in the Foundation course.   

Basically everything we that come in contact with in the world our Mind places a very subtle conceptual overlay onto.   We create a persona for our friend Mark that is our own interpretation of him.  This is driven by our own innate ignorance of the “belief” in an intrinsic self.  The trick is that this persona concept is the subtle ignorance’s way of creating an intrinsically existing Mark.  Therefore in my Mind, I have this person named Mark who is my friend and imbued with all the qualities that I believe him to have.  He may or may not have all those qualities I assign to him but then I interact with this “Mark” I have created (and believe in) and it causes me grasp onto or shy away from him based on if “Mark” behaves in a way that reifies my own conceptual persona of myself (based on innate ignorance of intrinsic existence in myself).

Thats a lot of words but it is an example of how our innate ignorance of the belief in an intrinsically existing self (or phenomena as in “Mark”) has a grip on our lives.  LTK and Prasangika’s unique assertion of ignorance seems to me to be in keeping closest with the Buddha’s original idea.  

Here LTK brings the subtleties of the ignorance more to the fore.  That if we, in fact, through our innate ignorance and very deep habituated patterns imbue everything with an intrinsic identity then those things we interact with (including ourselves, our own Mind, etc...) actually would not exist without that interaction.  In a sense, without the Mind perceiving the object (and therefore interacting with the Mind’s conception of the object) the object, as perceived, would not exist.   This the deeper level of dependent arising and is the actual object of negation.

This can get very skewed very quickly.  This is not the Cittamatrin’s approach that the subject and object arise together and that outside the Mind apprehending the object there is nothing.  Reality exist conventionally.  My dogs exist conventionally.  However, the dogs that my Mind believes exist do not exist.  I interact with my dogs but I’m really interacting with my Mind’s concept of the dogs and that subtle intrinsic identity of the dogs.  Someone else coming to my house and meeting my dogs for the first time will have a different conceptual idea of my dogs.  The conceptual dogs we both interact with don’t exist though my dogs exist.

When LTK points out the actual object of negation.  It is not the conceptual I or conceptual phenomena that our Mind is creating in relation to conventional reality.  It is the referent object of the conception - the intrinsic nature of the I.   In our conceptualization of a conventionally existent I, our latent tendancies also imply a intrinsically existant nature to that concept.  This is the true object of negation. 

Conventional reality exist.  Ultimately it is empty of inherent existence because of dependent arising.  With our Mind we view and interact with our world.  Through both or learned and more so through our innate ignorance we misperceive the world and ourselves.  Because of the deeply ingrained habits called cognitive obscurations our Mind projects inherence on the object it perceives.  This is called afflictive obscurations.  

Ignorance keeps us in samsara just as the Buddha taught in the second Noble Truth.  LTK and the Prasangika’s view of ignorance encompasses the grossest forms of ignorance to the extremely subtle.   I always describe myself (with humor) as completely Prasangika.  It is the clearest elucidation of reality and totally logical.  

I'm not Yamantaka

Last year in April I went to Long Beach to see the Dalai Lama and receive the Yamantaka empowerment.  Now this is HIGHEST Yoga Tantra.  That means I'm given authorization to visualize myself as as a 9 headed cow thing with 16 legs and 8 arms surrounded by fire.  It comes with some very heavy commitments.  Including visualizing myself as a 9 headed cow thing with 16 legs and 8 arms every day either the short 9 page sadhana (prayerish thing) or 40 page (if you have time...).  AND doing the 6 session guru yoga 3 times in the morning and 3 times in the evening.  I really have no idea exactly what that is.  Despite having read a ton of books about it.  But alas...his Holiness never made it.  He became ill in Tokyo and hence... I'm not Yamantaka.

It honestly was devastating to everyone there but in about 2 weeks I was literally happy that I was not Yamanataka.  In fact I was elated!  You see I can't do things like visualize myself as a 9 headed cow thing with 16 legs and 8 arms surrounded by fire simply because the religious view is that it will dispel inner and outer obstacles (you decide what that means).  It became so clear to me that I can't do something simply because of a religious objective.  If you read by my little article Religiousity (on elephant journal as well!) you will know that while I give credence to the fact that religion can be very handy in creating different states of mind, I don't think its necessary.  In fact I think that religious activities can be the absolute epitome of self deception.

So this year I was in this great place where the View (capital because this View is like... about reality) was crystal clear.  Meditation was fantastic.  I was "licking the blade of nowness!" as we say in Shambhala.  Mindfulness Awareness was my thing.  Mind like the Sky BABY!!  Then .... I saw in my calendar that His Holiness was coming back to Long Beach to give Yamanataka.   Then I was thrown into a giant awful self induced spiritually materialistic sickness.  Don't I want to be Yamantaka?!?!  Don't I want to visualize myself as a 9 headed cow thing with 16 legs and 8 arms (holding weapons no less) surrounded by fire?  Won't I be a MEGA Buddhist?  Everyone will think... oh.. wow... yeah... his "yidam" is Yamantaka.   He is a 9 headed cow thing with 8 arms and 16 legs surrounded by fire.  He's LEGIT.

I literally became ill but pressed on.  I wanted to be a REAL Buddhist.  I wanted to be respected (whatever that means?).  I wanted to like Tsongkhapa (except I don't really like Tsonkhapa - brilliant maybe but he has no idea about meditation).   Did you know that Dilgo Kyentse's yidam was Yamantaka (at least at one point).  I mean.. really Dilgo Kyentse.  Now truthfully he is a master. Mister Universe! I wanted to be like Dilgo and the Dalai Lama!  I wanted to be able to keep the commitments FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE. It sounded so cryptic it must be enlightenment!

So to submerge myself in REAL Buddhism I went to an empowerment at your local Tibetan Buddhist center and got White Tara.  Which honestly was great.  Probably the best teaching by Zaoeche Rinpoche I had heard (Shout out to Emaho!).  And thats saying a lot because he is really pretty cool.  But through the entire day I was literally nauseated and stressed out.  Deep in my being I knew I was lying to myself.  I did NOT want to be Yamantaka.  I did NOT want a yidam (sounds sexy but..)  All these prayers and throwing rice and flowers was very quaint but no one will ever describe me as quaint.  Its just not me.

I'm not Yamantaka.  I'm not a 9 headed cow thing with 16 legs, 8 arms (with weapons but alas no light saber) surrounded by fire.  I really don't' want to be.  I don't want to make commitments that I can't/won't keep.  His Holiness deserves better.  I don't want to do any of that.   I want to appreciate life and marvel at the amazing quality of trees, nature  and life.  I want to lick the blade of nowness and appreciate the human condition as basically good.  I just wanna be me.  And that LEGIT enough.

Chad Woodland

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